Re: Open Individualism and Self Interest
On 5/16/2014 11:06 PM, Russell Standish wrote: Ah, no you misinterpreted me. Perhaps I could have been clearer. The studies were performed on fresh cadavers, and most body cells were about 7 years old at time of death. The neurons, on the other hand, were about two years less than the age of the person at death, which is to say probably around 70 years old. Oh. OK, that makes more sense. 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: Open Individualism and Self Interest
On 16 May 2014, at 18:57, Dennis Ochei wrote: I'm gathering that dovetailing means alternating through the programs, essentially multithreading, so that the UD doesn't get stuck on an unhalting computation. Yes. OK. The UD can be programmed, by the enumeration theorem: we can enumerate the set of partial computable function, by enumerating the programs in some universal programming language. But this entails that non total functions will appear (in a non algorithmic generable way) in the sequence, and that explains the need to dovetail. I can give more detail. This also implies a unavoidable redundancy, which plays some roie in giving sense to the measure. Bruno On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno, I get everything until you bring in the UD and then I only understand pieces of what you are saying. if we want build a universal machine, which is not only able to emulate all machines, but which actually does the emulation of each machine, we will be obliged to dovetail on each execution What does it mean to dovetail on each execution? On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: For anyone who hasn't yet enjoyed the Cyberiad On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: This is so true that if you push the reasoning you will understand that the primitive character of physics is an illusion, even if a particular important one that no machines can avoid (statistically). I want to grok this statement can you give me more? Why is physics an illusion Are you OK that the probability to find yourself in Moscow is 1/2, when you are read and cut in Helsinki, and build again in Moscow and Washington? I'm down with that It is an easy exercise to show that the iteration of such duplication leads to non compressible white noise for most of the 2^n persons obtained when the duplication experiment is repeated n times. Don't get this either, but I haven't finished the paper, so maybe that will illuminate things On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 16 May 2014, at 06:41, Dennis Ochei wrote: The more I think about the subjective expectation question the more meaningless it becomes. I'm not asking if a future person is physically or psychologically like me, I know the answer to that. In fact, even if I knew every physical fact about a body and had a complete knowledge of the neural correlates of consciousness I still wouldn't know if it was realizing my consciousness or a consciousness that is merely precisely like mine. This question of whether a past or future experience did or will belong to me is distinctly extraphysical. This is so true that if you push the reasoning you will understand that the primitive character of physics is an illusion, even if a particular important one that no machines can avoid (statistically). Are you OK that the probability to find yourself in Moscow is 1/2, when you are read and cut in Helsinki, and build again in Moscow and Washington? This is used implicitly in Everett Quantum mechanics, but with computationalism, that you accept, this extends to the space of all subjective experience realized in elementary arithmetic. It is an easy exercise to show that the iteration of such duplication leads to non compressible white noise for most of the 2^n persons obtained when the duplication experiment is repeated n times. Bruno On Thursday, May 15, 2014, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 May 2014 15:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/15/2014 6:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 May 2014 13:02, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:10:20PM +1200, LizR wrote: I don't think we replace our brain cells, but even if we do, isn't the fact that they are replaced and the replacements are functionally similar important to who we are? We do, apparently. http://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2012/feb/23/brain-new-cells-adult-neurogenesis (I know I could do with some new ones ... or do I mean neurones ?) I think that is more about brain repair, than material replacement in cells, and only involves a few percent of neurons. It turns out the carbon atoms in the DNA of neural cells is remarkable long lived, as chronicled via the radiation spike due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in 50s 60s. I don't have a cite on hand, but the result is that your neuronal DNA is on average about two years younger than your own age. For most other cell types, the average age is around 7 years, or something like that. So physical continuity may be important, in which case it's possible yes doctor is a bad bet. It's all relative. If the alternative is dying of liver cancer it might still be a good bet. If physical continuity is important, these
Re: Open Individualism and Self Interest
On 16 May 2014, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote: On 5/16/2014 12:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It turns out the carbon atoms in the DNA of neural cells is remarkable long lived, as chronicled via the radiation spike due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in 50s 60s. I don't have a cite on hand, but the result is that your neuronal DNA is on average about two years younger than your own age. For most other cell types, the average age is around 7 years, or something like that. That looks like the age of the cell, but all piece of DNA are changed many times, Do you mean replaced by a copy as part of cell metabolism (which I think happens on cell division? Or do you mean each DNA molecule suffers random changes during the life of a cell - due to radiation, etc. I though that last one was the case. so the age of a DNA does not seem to me to be necessarily the age of the atoms making the structure. Of course the carbon atoms were produce in a super nova and are likely millions of years old. OK. brain is the place where the metabolic activity is the highest, so I am not sure our neurons are so stable at the constitutive level. The common theory is that long term memories are encoded by growth and change in neuronal axons and synaptic connections, which would take metabolic activity. But it wouldn't require changes in neuron cell DNA. I agree. Now, like Stathis said, that does not change so much the biological motivation for computationalism. Actually, even if the entangled state of the million years old carbon played a role, this would not change the deep consequence of comp, (the reversal). It would only makes our level much lower (but I would need more evidences to consider that the level is that low. By default I tend to believe that the level is rather higher). 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 Evolutionary Tree of Religion
Dear John, Dear Bruno, see my apology to LIZR - same here. I want to reflect to only ONE phrase in you appreciated reply: I think we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking Reading your cautious distinctions about science and theories (not claiming them to true, only an agrred assumption and it's consequences) I pretend my agnosticisim as more than just wishful thinking. It may be the way to open up so far un-considered ways that could provide further advancement to our thinking -even if we don't know about them. I.O.W.: open up the mind for better understanding of the world. I am sure you do the same. Indeed. I push ideas to their extreme logical conclusions with the hope to have to change my mind and learn something. Best, Bruno On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 May 2014, at 22:42, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, your 'scientific' logic supersedes me. Explaining ontology by existing and - I suppose - existing by the likes of 'ontology' (etc.) is more than what I buy. There is no metaphysics here. I am just saying that if you do a theory, you have to be clear on what we will agree to be primitively existing, and what we derive from that assumption. We might still stumble on truth, (or you do not?), what we may believe as truth and draw very important consequences upon OTHER concepts from it as well. In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. Sure. That is why an (ideal) scientist will never pretend he has a true theory. It is not really is job, even when he tackles metaphysical or theological question, it will be under the form IF this THEN that, etc. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind so your formula (besides being hard to follow for me) is not convincing. The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. The point is only that IF we are Turing emulable THEN physics is given by ... (and I give the equations). So we can test computationalism and move forward. Unfortunately, thanks to Gödel and Everett, comp is confirmed up to now. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if 'analogue' covers them all, what I would not suggest). 'Analog' is compatible with computationalism, unless you mean that the brain uses very special infinities. They might exist, and thanks to the kind of reasoning I suggest we do, we can test this. But until such confirmation of non-comp (or refutation of comp), I think we should not make a theory more complex just by wishful thinking. We can be agnostic on comp, and still understand its consequences, so that we can test it, and perhaps refute it. Bruno John M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote: Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between stable patterns of information, e.g. perception... and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as): the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception. I would say ontology is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory. The same for existence, information and perception, those are words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word. (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and denote the sequence s(s(0)) by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of (; , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...). This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for that number.) Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/ mentality. We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language. Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to as we perceive something, the epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental capabilities. All right. None cuts into anything R E A L . You don't know that. WE CAN NOT. You cannot know that too. What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we cannot do it either. We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble on some truth. Why not? Bruno On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: So what does existence
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of Agnosticism that comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this fact. It is very important to follow historically the development of that way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without. 2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for my LATE REPLY. You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's math-realism - well, if it were REALISM indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our present level. Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present knowledge. Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so wherever you look you find it in the books. I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally arranged units presented for processing/registration. Unless you 'discover' within the human mind. Your closing phrase doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical is true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be anything else beyond. It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation. John M On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for mathematical realism - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be just a bunch of equations, then there will be no reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, how they look from the inside ? Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet. But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?) The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not suggest). Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Rat Park
Hi Kim, Glad you enjoyed it. I agree with everything you say. I think the cage is very complex and hard to break out of. Life is increasingly formatted. I believe this results from social norms, the militaristic schooling system and the job/growth economic mentality, all connected in a vicious cycle. More and more, we can only act under permission. This creates survival anxiety, which in turn lead people to reject education as a goal in itself and seeing it only as one of the hoops they have to jump through to obtain permission to survive. I observe this mentality spreading to earlier stages of education, which is quite sad. Instead of motivating kids to learn for pleasure, out of pure curiosity and a desire for personal development, we try to make them fear the future. Then it's not so surprising that we live in a world ruled by fear instead of freedom. Global surveillance is the most recent metastization of this cancer. But Roger Waters says it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_S-Y199lRM Have a nice weekend! Telmo. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: Much appreciated Telmo. What this highlights is something I've always felt very strongly and that is the role of education in helping people to deal with their urges and their impulses. Unfortunately education simply toes the political line of prohibitionism. This for me is one of the saddest things about our society. There is only really one chance for people to come to grips with what life is all about and that happens early in life, during the school years, in fact. There can be no denying that for some people life is experienced as a cage and for others it is a park or playground. Most humans start school believing in the playground theory of existence and many have abandoned that for the cage theory of existence by the end of their schooling. I firmly believe that the scene is set for these kind of choices during school. Kim Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* On 14 May 2014, at 11:22 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). Here is what Richard Feynman said about that when his father asked him a question about physics: He said, I understand that when an atom makes a transition from one state to another, it emits a particle called a photon. That's right, I said. He says, Is the photon in the atom ahead of time? No, there's no photon beforehand. Well, he says, where does it come from, then? How does it come out? I tried to explain it to him -- that photon numbers aren't conserved; they're just created by the motion of the electron -- but I couldn't explain it very well. I said, It's like the sound I'm making now: it wasn't in me before. (It's not like my little boy, who suddenly announced one day, when he was very young, that he could no longer say a certain word -- the word turned out to be cat -- because his word bag had run out of the word. There's no word bag that makes you use up words as they come out; in the same sense, there's no photon bag in an atom.) I must say it is ominous that you [John Ross] are consistently failing to answer my questions about the reasoning behind all of this At this point the cause of all this evasion and lack of logic is obvious, John Ross is a certified card carrying crackpot. 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 Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 17 May 2014, at 10:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of Agnosticism that comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this fact. It is very important to follow historically the development of that way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without. Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A. If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God. Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever. Atheists, or at least strong Atheists, are believer, as they tend to believe or assert the non existence of God (instead of the I don't know of the agnostic). Many are believing, or taking for granted, in a primitive material universe, but in science, i think we should be agnostic on this too, especially in front of the debate on the meaning of QM, and the mind- body problem. I understand that agnosticism about space and time can be related to Kant, but for god , matter, energy, that seems to me less clear. Bruno 2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for my LATE REPLY. You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's math-realism - well, if it were REALISM indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our present level. Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present knowledge. Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so wherever you look you find it in the books. I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally arranged units presented for processing/registration. Unless you 'discover' within the human mind. Your closing phrase doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical is true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be anything else beyond. It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation. John M On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for mathematical realism - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be just a bunch of equations, then there will be no reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, how they look from the inside ? Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet. But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and we eventually discover a TOE, and it is mathematical, would you agree with Max that maths isn't an invention of the human mind, but something we have discovered about reality? (That it is even, perhaps, ALL that reality is?) The facts WE can calculate from Nature do not evidence a similar calculation how Nature arrived at them. (See the early (even recent???) explanatory errors in our sciences). We are nowhere to decipher Nature's analogue(?) ways (if *'analogue' *covers them all, what I would not suggest). Relativity is analogue, quantum mechanics is (perhaps) digital. However, assuming that nature is analogue - i.e., continuously differentiable - doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to 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: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
On 5/17/2014 10:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A. If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God. Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever. There's also the category of strong agnostic, one who denies that a question can possibly be resolved. And I suppose there is a whole range of agnosticism depending on what degree of resolution is meant. 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: Virtual Logic - Formal Arithmetic
I looked up Norm Levitt in Wikipedia -- the entry is rather sketchy. Do you have any links or biblio entries I can follow up on? From what I did read of him (opposing new left academic silliness) I am intrigued to find out more. On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:05:59 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 5/16/2014 2:41 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 May 2014 17:14, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: On 5/15/2014 10:04 PM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: So do you think there is some merit in Kauffman's conclusions? Do you think it is possible to reason about the Void? Or meaningful? Or useful? Sure, it's possible to reason about anything. Whether you can arrive at something useful is an open question - one can but try. I like the late Norm Levitt's remark, What is there? EVERYTHING! So what isn't there? NOTHING! Or one could paraphrase Russell Standish - What is there? NOTHING! - Which is EVERYTHING! I like Russell's version, which creates more of a *frisson*. Although I assume Levitt is claiming the existence of a multiverse (EVERYTHING implies that of course). I doubt that, Norm was rather a fan of Bohmian QM. 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: TRONNIES
John Clark, I assure you I am not a crackpot. I am a graduate Nuclear Engineer, a Patent Attorney and Vice President Intellectual Property of a respected corporation engaged in important scientific research and development. I am a good friend of many brilliant scientist. Most of them are also skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic errors in my theory, other than it is inconsistent with existing accepted theories. I have developed my “Theory of Everything “ through 13 years of hard work. Like all theories (like the relativity theories and the standard model) my theory may or may not be correct. It is certainly not generally accepted by the scientific community like relativity and the standard model are. The scientific community is not yet even aware of my theory. Other than my own friends and family, this chat group is the first people to be aware of it. This group has asked a lot of good questions all of which I have tried to answer quickly; however, to my knowledge no one in this group has read my book. It is available at Amazon.com. And I have offered to send copies to several of this group who have appeared to be seriously interested in my theory. I honestly believe my theory is a great improvement over the standard model and relativity theories. But I am not absolutely certain of that. Time will tell. In the meantime, Richard Feynman’s father was on the right track and Richard Feynman’s answer was not a good one. Richard was correct that the photon was not in the atom. The photons that his father was talking about are much too large to fit in an atom. However, as I have explained several times to this group the energy part of the photon is an entron. The entron is two tronnies traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light. The diameter d’ of the entron circle is: d’ = λ/1431 so most entrons can easily fit inside and atom and there are many entrons inside of atoms. There are even entrons inside of the nuclei of atoms. When entrons escape from atoms or their nuclei they do so as photons. A photon is an entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light as I have explained before. Gamma ray photons are entrons released from the nuclei of atoms and visible light photons are mostly entrons released from the electrons orbiting the nucleus of atoms. I should not do this since your comments have been so nasty; however, believe it or not I appreciate them, since it gives me a chance explain details of my theory publically to a serious skeptic. So I make the same offer to you that I have made to others. I will mail you a copy of my book free of charge if you will let me have your address. If you don’t want to publish your address, you can call me at 858-646-5488 and leave your address on my voice recorder. I won’t even ask you to agree to read it although I would hope you would. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:31 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). Here is what Richard Feynman said about that when his father asked him a question about physics: He said, I understand that when an atom makes a transition from one state to another, it emits a particle called a photon. That's right, I said. He says, Is the photon in the atom ahead of time? No, there's no photon beforehand. Well, he says, where does it come from, then? How does it come out? I tried to explain it to him -- that photon numbers aren't conserved; they're just created by the motion of the electron -- but I couldn't explain it very well. I said, It's like the sound I'm making now: it wasn't in me before. (It's not like my little boy, who suddenly announced one day, when he was very young, that he could no longer say a certain word -- the word turned out to be cat -- because his word bag had run out of the word. There's no word bag that makes you use up words as they come out; in the same sense, there's no photon bag in an atom.) I must say it is ominous that you [John Ross] are consistently failing to answer my questions about the reasoning behind all of this At this point the cause of all this evasion and lack of logic is obvious, John Ross is a certified card carrying crackpot. 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
RE: TRONNIES
I believe there is a need for my model because I believe it is a great improvement over existing currently accepted models. My book should be in your hands in a very few days if it is not already there. I suggest you read it a decide for yourself whether it has any merit. After you have read it, I suggest you give it to your son. If you do so, warn him that his professors probably are great supporters of the standard model and relativity. Also see my response to John Clark. John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 2:36 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). I assume one of the particles making up the nucleus was in some state equivalent to an electron being in an outer electron shell, and drops into its ground state after a while. I can check with my son, who is studying nuclear physics at school at this very moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_transition#Decay_processes I must say it is ominous that you are consistently failing to answer my questions about the reasoning behind all of this, but just picking on some small simple point each time and ignoring most of my posts. I'm beginning to wonder how much reasoning there actually was. I still don't know why you think there is a need for this model, what questions is answers that the original fails to, etc. On 17 May 2014 03:44, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: A radioactive atom that decays with a gamma ray photon has within itself before it decays something that will be released as a gamma ray photon when it decays. That something (I say that something is an entron) has a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. When the decay occurs the mass of the atom decreases by an amount equal to the mass of the gamma ray photon and the gamma ray photon leaves with a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. How can you disagree with this simple logic? In your analysis is that something “rest mass” and if it is not what is it? JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 16 May 2014 06:54, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: LizR, See my reply to Russell. I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared. This is true in relativity as well. Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined mass of the electron and a positron. Visible light photons have a very small mass. The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg. You can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula. My neutrino photon has a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton! We know a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass. I think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass because it is travelling at the speed of light which should make that mass go to infinity Only if it has a rest mass, which it doesn't. . I don’t have that problem with my model. All of this is explained very well in my book which should be arriving in about one week. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:32 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 15 May 2014 04:59, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I assume you would agree that a photon is self-propelled. Protons and alpha particles are also self-propelled. They are sel-propelled by their own internal coulomb forces. Electrons, protons, atomic nuclei and atoms are all perpetual motion machines. You have to give a better explanation than that. According to all our current theories and observations, photons and other massless particles are in a different category from particles that have a rest mass. You need to explain why we should assume there is any equivalence between a massless particle that always travels at c, as measured in all reference frames, and a massive particle which travels at some fraction of c, a fraction that will vary depending on which frame its velocity is measured in. Also, a photon doesn't violate Galilean, Newtonian or Einsteinian relativity. Self propelled particles do - they define an absolute state of rest. I know of no observational reason to assume
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
Here's a slightly different direction for this topic. Religion purportedly answers the why, questions, and science is attributed with answering the how, questions. Regarding God, as I guess him/her/it, would be a centralized super intelligence that created the Hubble Volume, or likely this, and other galaxies. Atheist, Michael Shermer, coined Shermer's Last Law as Any sufficiently advanced ET is indistinguishable from God. My reaction has been, So? It's not like we all have to obey the writings of St Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, on who or what is God. They have a voice, a vote, but not a veto. So maybe God is Krezwell, the Alien? It's not as if we, mere mortals, have any choice in the matter. So, knowing this, we might be wiser in focusing on the How questions of the Universe, rather the Why? Maybe we will find the why, more profound, after we identify the how's? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, May 17, 2014 1:35 pm Subject: Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion On 17 May 2014, at 10:10, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But it is worth to reflect on the mere idea of Agnosticism that comes from Kant and his approach to metaphysics. Kant did not invented it, but it is was the logical consequence of his philosophy and almost every western agnostic is kantian despite that he does not know this fact. It is very important to follow historically the development of that way of thinking to know what this philosophy mean and what more things besides God (a lot, and very important) you are living without. Very generaly, we can say that a believer M is agnostic with respect to a proposition A if M does not believe A *and* does not believe ~A. If G is for God exists, someone agnostic obeys ~[]G and ~[]~G. He does not believe in God and he does not believe in the inexistence of God. Either because he is not interested in the question, or because he waits for more information, and better precision, or he believes may be that it is in God nature than humans can't decide, whatever. Atheists, or at least strong Atheists, are believer, as they tend to believe or assert the non existence of God (instead of the I don't know of the agnostic). Many are believing, or taking for granted, in a primitive material universe, but in science, i think we should be agnostic on this too, especially in front of the debate on the meaning of QM, and the mind- body problem. I understand that agnosticism about space and time can be related to Kant, but for god , matter, energy, that seems to me less clear. Bruno 2014-05-17 0:06 GMT+02:00, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com: Dear Liz, thanks for your care to reflect upon my text and I apologize for my LATE REPLY. You ask about my opinion on Tegmark's math-realism - well, if it were REALISM indeed, he would not have had to classify it 'mathemaitcal'. I consider it a fine sub chapter to ideas about *realism* what we MAY NOT KNOW at our present level. Smart Einstein etc. may have invented 'analogue' relativity etc., it does not exclude all those other ways Nature may apply beyond our present knowledge. Our ongoing 'scientific thinking' - IS - inherently mathematical, so wherever you look you find it in the books. I did not find so far a *natural spot* self-calculating 374 pieces of something. and draw conclusions of it NOT being 383. Nature was quite well before humans invented the decimal system, or the zero. And please, do not call it a 'discovery'. Nowhere in Nature are groupings of decimally arranged units presented for processing/registration. Unless you 'discover' within the human mind. Your closing phrase doesn't mean that it isn't inherently mathematical is true as to the content it states. It also does not mean that it may not be anything else beyond. It was a pleasure to follow your argumentation. John M On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 May 2014 08:42, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: In my agnostic vocabulary the 'real' includes lots of 'inconnues' that may change whatever we THINK is included - as historic examples show. I still hold mathematics an exorbitant achievement of the H U M A N mind What do you think of Max Tegmark's argument for mathematical realism - that all the clues we have so far indicate that nature is inherently mathematical, and that if we ever find a ToE, and it turns out to be just a bunch of equations, then there will be no reason to think the universe is anything other than those equations - as he puts it, how they look from the inside ? Obviously this is speculative, of course, in that we don't have a ToE yet. But everything we have learnt about reality so far does appear to indicate it has (in some sense) a mathematical nature. If this trend continues and we eventually
Re: The Evolutionary Tree of Religion
Bruno: I frown when I read *ontology* because it means something like the science (philosophy???) of the *existing* everything (improved definitions gladly accepted). I am not sure about such existing. Maybe we have some ideas what we THINK it may be. (in the ballpark of reality?) Older savants made useful application of terms we cannot really fixate. This is part of my agnosticism: to discount the 'oldies' - no matter how smart (wise?) they were. I start the time for 'oldies' at the present and count them on any backwards scale. Even include my own past oeuvre. Now *THAT* you may call wishful thinking. John M On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 May 2014, at 16:38, John Mikes wrote: Bruno (excuse me!) - what is the difference between * stable patterns of information, e.g. perception...* and::(your ontological existence?, 'explained' as): * the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence,* Ontology is a word. Existence another. So is Information and Perception. I would say ontology is a word. But ontology is what exist, and that can be a word in some theory but could be a giraffe or a dinosaur, or a planet, or a number, in this or that other theory. The same for existence, information and perception, those are words. But I don't see why information, perception and existence would be word. (Later, in the math thread, I might denote the number 2 by s(s(0)), and denote the sequence s(s(0)) by the number 2^(code of s)*5^(code of (; , which will give a large number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(...(0)))...). This is necessary to distinguish in arithmetic a number and a code for that number.) Both definitions are based on ASSUMING.human ways of cognition/mentality. We can work from the cognitive abilities of machines. Those abilities can be defined in elementary arithmetic, or in any computer language. Phenomenological in my vocabulary points to as we perceive something, the epistemological points to changes of the same. Within our mental capabilities. All right. None cuts into anything R E A L . You don't know that. WE CAN NOT. You cannot know that too. What we cannot do, is express that we can. But we can't express that we cannot do it either. We cannot pretend having stumble on some truth, but we might still stumble on some truth. Why not? Bruno On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 Apr 2014, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: So what does existence mean besides stable patterns of information, e.g. perception of the Moon, landing on the Moon, tidal effects of the Moon,... I distinguish the ontological existence, which concerns the primitive objects that we agree to assume to solve or formulate some problem, and the phenomenological, or epistemological existence, which are the appearance that we derive at some higher emergent level. With comp we need to assume a simple basic Turing complete theory (like Robinson arithmetic, or the SK combinator). And we derive from them the emergence of all universal machines, their interactions and the resulting first person statistics, which should explains the origin and development (in some mathematical space) of the law of physics. I like when David Mermin said once: Einstein asked if the moon still exist when nobody look at it. Now we know that the moon, in that case, definitely not exist. Well, that was a comp prediction, with the difference that the moon doesn't exist even when we look at it. Only the relative relations between my computational states and infinitely many computations exists. Thus completely eviscerating the meaning of exist. ? Are you not begging the question? I would say that comp does not eviscerate the meaning of exists. The meaning is provides by the standard semantics of predicate logic, where exists is a quantifier. But that is quite a different sense of exist. It is most basic one, used at the ontic level. May be you *assume* a notion of primitive physical existence. Then indeed, with comp we assume only a simple notion of arithmetical existence (on which most scientists agree) and derive the physical reality from an epistemological type of existence. It just means satisfying axioms and inferences from those axioms. It means more, as we work in a theory which is supposed to be a theory of everything. It is not pure logic or pure math. It is theology or TOE. Depending on the axioms and the rules of inference you can prove that something exists or that it cannot exist or that it might exist but can't be proven. We work in the comp frame. It presuppose you agree with sentences like it exist a number equal to the successor of the successor of 0, etc. We want explain complex phenomena, from particles interactions to conscious awareness,
Re: TRONNIES
On 18 May 2014 07:27, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: John Clark, I assure you I am not a crackpot. I am a graduate Nuclear Engineer, a Patent Attorney and Vice President Intellectual Property of a respected corporation engaged in important scientific research and development. I am a good friend of many brilliant scientist. Most of them are also skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic errors in my theory, other than it is inconsistent with existing accepted theories. We are at the Auckland Writers Festival this weekend, and just went to see last year's Man Booker prize winner, Eleanor Catton, author of The Luminaries. And she was brilliant - wise, insightful, precise, humble, genuine. Just wonderful. Virtually the first thing she said (at the prompting of the interviewer) was to tell us about why she believes in astrology. My publishers call it dropping the A-bomb, she said. I know this is going to make it hard for a lot of people to take me seriously,.. Which of course it was. She was wise, insightful etc DESPITE (for some reason) believing in an ancient system of pre-psychology with no theoretical or empirical evidence (apart from perhaps a correlation between the season someone is born and their personality - which of course should be flipped when you switch hemispheres...) I wanted to shout FFS, Eleanor, just use it as a clever structuring device, don't actually believe it! - but perhaps she couldn't have written the book had she done that. Why do I mention this? Well, I trust I don't have to spell out the parallel, but just in case, obviously you have friends who look at you as I regarded Ms Catton. You may well be wise and insightful, you seem a nice person from what one can judge online - and you happen to believe in what is looking rather like a crackpot theory (at least I keep asking you to prove otherwise, so far without success). I have developed my “Theory of Everything “ through 13 years of hard work. Like all theories (like the relativity theories and the standard model) my theory may or may not be correct. It is certainly not generally accepted by the scientific community like relativity and the standard model are. The scientific community is not yet even aware of my theory. Other than my own friends and family, this chat group is the first people to be aware of it. This group has asked a lot of good questions all of which I have tried to answer quickly; however, to my knowledge no one in this group has read my book. It is available at Amazon.com. And I have offered to send copies to several of this group who have appeared to be seriously interested in my theory. I honestly believe my theory is a great improvement over the standard model and relativity theories. But I am not absolutely certain of that. Time will tell. I will have a look at it. Either I will find that I have so many questions after the first few pages that I need to come online and deluge you, or I will find that (imho) you really have something. My bet is on the former, but I would love to be proved wrong. In the meantime, Richard Feynman’s father was on the right track and Richard Feynman’s answer was not a good one. Richard was correct that the photon was not in the atom. The photons that his father was talking about are much too large to fit in an atom. However, as I have explained several times to this group the energy part of the photon is an entron. The entron is two tronnies traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light. The diameter d’ of the entron circle is: d’ = λ/1431 so most entrons can easily fit inside and atom and there are many entrons inside of atoms. There are even entrons inside of the nuclei of atoms. When entrons escape from atoms or their nuclei they do so as photons. A photon is an entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light as I have explained before. A photon is a medium of energy exchange as far as I know. It can be created and destroyed, as various particles can, from energy. The photon happens to be its own antiparticle and hence when you create one it's akin to an electron-positron pair. It may have internal structure we're unaware of, of course - maybe even the one you suggest. But I would like to kow the reasoning that leads to that conclusion! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES
On 18 May 2014 07:38, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I believe there is a need for my model because I believe it is a great improvement over existing currently accepted models. I get that, but everyone with a theory believes that. I'm interested in the specific flaws with the standard model that it fixes, and / or the reasoning that leads you to believe that it is better. (The reasoning should be the reasoning, not just a description of the end result of the reasoning!) For example, I believe special relativity addresses the problems that Maxwell's equations break down for an object moving near lightspeed, and the anomalous results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, while general relativity addresses the advance of Mercury's perihelion. They are both based on equivalence principles, SR being that no moving observers should be privileged, GR on the equivalence between aceleration and gravity (the apparently fortuitous fact that the mass values in F=ma and F=Gm/r^2, if I have those right, is the same). So you can see how Einstein used certain principles he believed to be fundamental to support his reasoning, and how the results fixed particular problems with the existing models. I would expect your theory to have similar theoretical and experimental underpinnings if it's to be taken seriously. You're probably in a better position than Einstein as far as time and resources go since he was working in the Swiss patent office at the time he developed SR, if I remember correctly. My book should be in your hands in a very few days if it is not already there. I suggest you read it a decide for yourself whether it has any merit. After you have read it, I suggest you give it to your son. If you do so, warn him that his professors probably are great supporters of the standard model and relativity. Also see my response to John Clark. They are great supporters with good reason! But of course they know those theories can't both be correct... John Ross *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 2:36 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES Apparently gamme rays are emitted by nuclei when they drop from an excited state to a lower energy state (much as a lower energy photon can be emitted when an electron in an atom moves from a high to a low energy state). Hence what the atom had beforehand was excess energy (in some form). I assume one of the particles making up the nucleus was in some state equivalent to an electron being in an outer electron shell, and drops into its ground state after a while. I can check with my son, who is studying nuclear physics at school at this very moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomeric_transition#Decay_processes I must say it is ominous that you are consistently failing to answer my questions about the reasoning behind all of this, but just picking on some small simple point each time and ignoring most of my posts. I'm beginning to wonder how much reasoning there actually was. I still don't know why you think there is a need for this model, what questions is answers that the original fails to, etc. On 17 May 2014 03:44, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: A radioactive atom that decays with a gamma ray photon has within itself before it decays something that will be released as a gamma ray photon when it decays. That something (I say that something is an entron) has a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. When the decay occurs the mass of the atom decreases by an amount equal to the mass of the gamma ray photon and the gamma ray photon leaves with a mass equivalent to the energy of the gamma ray photon. How can you disagree with this simple logic? In your analysis is that something “rest mass” and if it is not what is it? JR *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:23 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES On 16 May 2014 06:54, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: LizR, See my reply to Russell. I know this is going to upset you but in my model every single photon in our Universe has a mass and that mass is determined by E = mc squared. This is true in relativity as well. Specifically the 1.02 MeV gamma ray photon has the same mass as the combined mass of the electron and a positron. Visible light photons have a very small mass. The green light photon has a much smaller mass of 4.08 X 10-36 kg. You can calculate it yourself using Albert’s formula. My neutrino photon has a mass almost equal to the mass of a proton! We know a photon has momentum which should indicate that it also has mass. I think the problem is that no one wants to admit that a photon has a mass because it is
RE: TRONNIES
Photons and electrons have internal structures both photons and electrons are made from the same things, tonnies. You will see the structures when my book arrives. You should not have any problem with the first few pages. The first chapter is a summary of existing theories. The second chapter describes tronnies. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:18 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On 18 May 2014 07:27, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: John Clark, I assure you I am not a crackpot. I am a graduate Nuclear Engineer, a Patent Attorney and Vice President Intellectual Property of a respected corporation engaged in important scientific research and development. I am a good friend of many brilliant scientist. Most of them are also skeptical of my theory, but none of them has convinced me of any basic errors in my theory, other than it is inconsistent with existing accepted theories. We are at the Auckland Writers Festival this weekend, and just went to see last year's Man Booker prize winner, Eleanor Catton, author of The Luminaries. And she was brilliant - wise, insightful, precise, humble, genuine. Just wonderful. Virtually the first thing she said (at the prompting of the interviewer) was to tell us about why she believes in astrology. My publishers call it dropping the A-bomb, she said. I know this is going to make it hard for a lot of people to take me seriously,.. Which of course it was. She was wise, insightful etc DESPITE (for some reason) believing in an ancient system of pre-psychology with no theoretical or empirical evidence (apart from perhaps a correlation between the season someone is born and their personality - which of course should be flipped when you switch hemispheres...) I wanted to shout FFS, Eleanor, just use it as a clever structuring device, don't actually believe it! - but perhaps she couldn't have written the book had she done that. Why do I mention this? Well, I trust I don't have to spell out the parallel, but just in case, obviously you have friends who look at you as I regarded Ms Catton. You may well be wise and insightful, you seem a nice person from what one can judge online - and you happen to believe in what is looking rather like a crackpot theory (at least I keep asking you to prove otherwise, so far without success). I have developed my “Theory of Everything “ through 13 years of hard work. Like all theories (like the relativity theories and the standard model) my theory may or may not be correct. It is certainly not generally accepted by the scientific community like relativity and the standard model are. The scientific community is not yet even aware of my theory. Other than my own friends and family, this chat group is the first people to be aware of it. This group has asked a lot of good questions all of which I have tried to answer quickly; however, to my knowledge no one in this group has read my book. It is available at Amazon.com. And I have offered to send copies to several of this group who have appeared to be seriously interested in my theory. I honestly believe my theory is a great improvement over the standard model and relativity theories. But I am not absolutely certain of that. Time will tell. I will have a look at it. Either I will find that I have so many questions after the first few pages that I need to come online and deluge you, or I will find that (imho) you really have something. My bet is on the former, but I would love to be proved wrong. In the meantime, Richard Feynman’s father was on the right track and Richard Feynman’s answer was not a good one. Richard was correct that the photon was not in the atom. The photons that his father was talking about are much too large to fit in an atom. However, as I have explained several times to this group the energy part of the photon is an entron. The entron is two tronnies traveling in a circle at pi/2 times the speed of light. The diameter d’ of the entron circle is: d’ = λ/1431 so most entrons can easily fit inside and atom and there are many entrons inside of atoms. There are even entrons inside of the nuclei of atoms. When entrons escape from atoms or their nuclei they do so as photons. A photon is an entron traveling in a circle at twice the speed of light and forward at the speed of light as I have explained before. A photon is a medium of energy exchange as far as I know. It can be created and destroyed, as various particles can, from energy. The photon happens to be its own antiparticle and hence when you create one it's akin to an electron-positron pair. It may have internal structure we're unaware of, of course - maybe even the one you suggest. But I would like to kow the reasoning that leads to that conclusion! :-)
Re: TRONNIES
On 18 May 2014 11:25, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Photons and electrons have internal structures both photons and electrons are made from the same things, tonnies. You will see the structures when my book arrives. You should not have any problem with the first few pages. The first chapter is a summary of existing theories. The second chapter describes tronnies. Well, OK, I meant the first few pages that are relevant to your ideas. I hope The second chapter describes tronnies is not *all* there is to it, because you've already described them here. I am hoping for the intellectual scaffolding that supports your theory, not to mention the *specific* reasons it scores over the existing theory. Plus I hope predictions of future experiments that can be used to distinguish your theory from existing ones. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:48:26 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2014, at 22:44, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:31:17 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote: On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is real. If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare with nature. When we compare with nature we find that some things exist and some don't. Like other worlds don't exist, or atoms don't exist ... the question about what exists hasn't been answered yet. Or indeed the question about what it means for something to exist. So is it your view that no matter what comp predicts it's not falsified because it may be true somewhere else? I find it hard to read that into what I wrote. (Unless no matter what comp predicts is a slightly awkward, but potentially rather funny, pun?) But anyway, no that isn't my view. Either comp is true or it isn't, which is to say, either consciousness is Turing emulable at some level, or it isn't. And if it is, either there is some flaw in what Bruno derives from that assumption, or there isn't. But the question is about how to test comp. Bruno has offered that we should compare its predictions to observed physics. My view is that this requires predictions about what happens here and now, where some things happen and some don't. Predictions that something happens somewhere in the multiverse don't satisfy my idea of testable. But comp do prediction right now. At first sight it predicts white noise and white rabbits, but then we listen to the machines views on this, and the simplest pass from provability to probability (the local erasing of the cul-de-sac worlds) gives a quantization of the arithmetical sigma_1 proposition. A good chance that arithmetic provided some quantum erazing, or destructive interference in the observations. To me, Gleason theorem somehow solve the measure problem for the quantum theory, but we have only some promise that it will be so for comp, as it needs to if comp is true. My point is that if you say yes to the doctor, and believe in peano Arithmetic, that concerns you. It is a problem. We have to find the equivalent of Gleason theorem in arithmetic, for the arithmetical quantum logics. I submit a problem, and I provided a testable part. The quantum propositional tautologies. Bruno So it looks like it isn't just me that doesn't understand your story of testability. So may I do a little test here. Can anyone here, other than Bruno, explain this paragraph in terms of realizable falsiibility and attest to that? *By looking to our neighborhood close enough to see if the physics match well a sum on infinities of computations. If comp is true, we will learn nothing, and can't conclude that comp has been proved, but if there is a difference, then we can know that comp is refuted (well, comp + the classical theory of knowledge). * How does the end part well, comp + the classical theory of knowledge change the commitment to falsification? Good question. I let other answer, but frankly, it is just a matter of *studying* the papers. Note that in some presentation, I take the classical theory (or definition) of knowledge granted, but in other presentation, I explain and answer your question with some detail, and it is the object of the thesis. More on this, and you can ask the question to me. The point is in focus, not the success of my pedagogy on this list. Bruno I think you're confused where your theory ends and scientific standards, conventions, definitions begin. The arguments and explanations you lay out in your theory, may certainly arrive at various conclusions for the implications comp has for the world. And I'm quite sure within that you offer your explanation for the falsifiability of comp. But you're getting ahead of yourself dramatically Bruno, if you think the details of your argument is an influential factor in settling the matter of falsifiability. What you profess within your theory is irrelevant...on this encapsulating turf. In fact from memory you've made about 4 arguments at various times. In at least one of your papers you offer this...little package of philosophical reasoning, which 5 lines and 30 seconds later concludes your work is falsifiable so scientific. I mentioned at the time the same argument can be formulated for all philosophy...and probably religion and everything else. Then you insisted your theory is falsifiable
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
Hibbs, I do not often share your opinion, but in this instance I do. It seems to me that Bruno's principal argument for comp is that it predicts MWI. Yet MWI itself is not falsifiable or testable. And I think MWI fails the measure problem despite the Gleason Theorem. I think it is a mistake for Bruno to connect comp to MWI. Comp like string theory is so rich in results that I suggest that it could as well predict a single world. However, I do appreciate Bruno's intellect and humility, a rare combination. Richard On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:47 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:48:26 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2014, at 22:44, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:31:17 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 May 2014, at 03:29, meekerdb wrote: On 5/13/2014 6:11 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 11:15, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/13/2014 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 May 2014 06:29, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/12/2014 9:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Turing **emulation** is only meaningful in the context of emulating one part relative to another part that is not emulated, i.e. is real. If you say so. We can still listen to the machine, and compare with nature. When we compare with nature we find that some things exist and some don't. Like other worlds don't exist, or atoms don't exist ... the question about what exists hasn't been answered yet. Or indeed the question about what it means for something to exist. So is it your view that no matter what comp predicts it's not falsified because it may be true somewhere else? I find it hard to read that into what I wrote. (Unless no matter what comp predicts is a slightly awkward, but potentially rather funny, pun?) But anyway, no that isn't my view. Either comp is true or it isn't, which is to say, either consciousness is Turing emulable at some level, or it isn't. And if it is, either there is some flaw in what Bruno derives from that assumption, or there isn't. But the question is about how to test comp. Bruno has offered that we should compare its predictions to observed physics. My view is that this requires predictions about what happens here and now, where some things happen and some don't. Predictions that something happens somewhere in the multiverse don't satisfy my idea of testable. But comp do prediction right now. At first sight it predicts white noise and white rabbits, but then we listen to the machines views on this, and the simplest pass from provability to probability (the local erasing of the cul-de-sac worlds) gives a quantization of the arithmetical sigma_1 proposition. A good chance that arithmetic provided some quantum erazing, or destructive interference in the observations. To me, Gleason theorem somehow solve the measure problem for the quantum theory, but we have only some promise that it will be so for comp, as it needs to if comp is true. My point is that if you say yes to the doctor, and believe in peano Arithmetic, that concerns you. It is a problem. We have to find the equivalent of Gleason theorem in arithmetic, for the arithmetical quantum logics. I submit a problem, and I provided a testable part. The quantum propositional tautologies. Bruno So it looks like it isn't just me that doesn't understand your story of testability. So may I do a little test here. Can anyone here, other than Bruno, explain this paragraph in terms of realizable falsiibility and attest to that? *By looking to our neighborhood close enough to see if the physics match well a sum on infinities of computations. If comp is true, we will learn nothing, and can't conclude that comp has been proved, but if there is a difference, then we can know that comp is refuted (well, comp + the classical theory of knowledge). * How does the end part well, comp + the classical theory of knowledge change the commitment to falsification? Good question. I let other answer, but frankly, it is just a matter of *studying* the papers. Note that in some presentation, I take the classical theory (or definition) of knowledge granted, but in other presentation, I explain and answer your question with some detail, and it is the object of the thesis. More on this, and you can ask the question to me. The point is in focus, not the success of my pedagogy on this list. Bruno I think you're confused where your theory ends and scientific standards, conventions, definitions begin. The arguments and explanations you lay out in your theory, may certainly arrive at various conclusions for the implications comp has for the world. And I'm quite sure within that you offer your explanation for the falsifiability of comp. But you're getting ahead of yourself dramatically Bruno, if you think the details of your argument is an influential factor in settling the matter of falsifiability. What
