Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 02-Jun-2014, at 12:05 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 00:25, Samiya Illias wrote: On 01-Jun-2014, at 12:14 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 May 2014, at 05:43, Samiya Illias wrote: On 30-May-2014, at 7:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 May 2014 14:26, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: These are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion. You, on the outside, are horrified by such acts in the name of Islam, and are terrified of it, rightly so. We, on the other hand, live in midst of this blatant violation of the guidance in the Quran! What these elements have not been able to find or insert in the Quran, they have created Some of the people involved are priests, and some are students of Islam - do you think that these are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion? Again this is a straight question, I'm not drawing any conclusions at the moment. What's wrong is wrong. They may think they're doing right and may feel it to be their pious duty, however it is still wrong. How God will judge them is another matter, let God do that. However, it is important to speak up and point out that it's incorrect and inhumane. Please also bear in mind that all religions have suffered the tragedy of deviation from the original message, misunderstood and convoluted it into something terrible. Islam has also suffered thus. However, the arabic Quran is preserved in written form and in the minds of millions of people since it was revealed. That is the criteria that I apply to evaluate whether something is correct or not. Hmm Because you take as axioms that those word are divine. The Quran seems to contain threats for those departing of the text, but that is an authoritative argument. It can be true that departing from Truth is a problem, but I am not sure that this can be said. You may have noticed that I present Quranic verses to answer or explain my point, which I believe is divinely revealed, Is that not a problem? No, because (a) the questions being asked are about the contrast between core beliefs of Islam and the practical implementation (b) to show that Quranic guidance is far from the ideas people have developed about the religion All right (although we might discuss the responsibility of a text for his possible misinterpretation). Fair enough. The Quran claims that there is it is clear guidance and there is no crookedness in it, and that it is protected from changes. I think there are mainly two sources of misinterpretation: 1) insertion of words in translation which are not in the original text 2) lack of knowledge of the translator of a particular subject, mostly apparent in verses of scientific significance. Is that not a warning for anybody to not criticize any point in the text. No. I have not taken offence to the so many things said in this and other threads, and politely tried to answer the points raised. The reason I quote is so that people can verify for themselves, instead of just accepting my words Nice. Most mystics text fall easily in the theological trap, where true proposition becomes false, as they were unassertable. It is like a machine picking up a proposition in its own G* \ G, and asserting it. They are true about them, but cannot be asserted. Let me ask you a question. Imagine we agree on some terms of comparison, and decide to compare G* (the main root of machine's theology) with the Quran, and imagine that the G* interpretation of the Quran appears much closer to the Sufi interpretation than the mainstream one, with more symbolics and less literalism, would you conclude that computationalism is false or that the Sufi are right? You will have to explain comp in more detail in plain English, or teach me how to interpret your mathematical notation. Also, I need to understand your machine theology better before I can start commenting on it. As far as Sufism is concerned, what I've read of it and about it, I'm not convinced about their beliefs. Fair enough. So let me be straight and naive on this. And short. There has been a big discovery: the discovery of the universal machine, or number. It is an arithmetical notion. We can compare the discourse of the religious people with the discourse of an ideally correct universal number. It looks like the discourse of the mystics, notably the rationalist mystics like the Neoplatonists, and Plato itself (arguably), is closer than the Aristotelian theologies. At the start, I am not sure, but current of platonism were strong among christians (like most students of Hypatia), and similarly with the Jewish and the Muslims. Unfortunately in 523 Plato's academy is closed, and free pagan or non confessional theology judged heretic and banished (in the best case). So
Re: Pluto bounces back!
I hope none of this is true. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
Or this... http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Galway-historian-reveals-truth-behind-800-orphans-in-mass-grave.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Unfortunately, the stoning to death law exists and is implemented in some countries. However, it is not prescribed in the Quran. It is indeed sad that other sources are taken for legislation for matters which are quite clear in the Quran. In fact, the way the Quran demands witnesses for adultery makes it very difficult to implement the punishment. I am reproducing here Chapter 24, verses 1 - 35, translator: Pickthall , which deal with adultery and it's punishment, so that you can read what the divine directive is in letter and in spirit. 1 (Here is) a surah which We have revealed and enjoined, and wherein We have revealed plain tokens, that haply ye may take heed. 2 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment. 3 The adulterer shall not marry save an adulteress or an idolatress, and the adulteress none shall marry save an adulterer or an idolater. All that is forbidden unto believers. 4 And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers - 5 Save those who afterward repent and make amends. (For such) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 6 As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; 7 And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. 8 And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, 9 And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth. 10 And had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you, and that Allah is Clement, Wise, (ye had been undone). 11 Lo! they who spread the slander are a gang among you. Deem it not a bad thing for you; nay, it is good for you. Unto every man of them (will be paid) that which he hath earned of the sin; and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be an awful doom. 12 Why did not the believers, men and women, when ye heard it, think good of their own own folk, and say: It is a manifest untruth? 13 Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah. 14 Had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you in the world and the Hereafter an awful doom had overtaken you for that whereof ye murmured. 15 When ye welcomed it with your tongues, and uttered with your mouths that whereof ye had no knowledge, ye counted it a trifle. In the sight of Allah it is very great. 16 Wherefor, when ye heard it, said ye not: It is not for us to speak of this. Glory be to Thee (O Allah)! This is awful calumny. 17 Allah admonisheth you that ye repeat not the like thereof ever, if ye are (in truth) believers. 18 And He expoundeth unto you the revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise. 19 Lo! those who love that slander should be spread concerning those who believe, theirs will be a painful punishment in the world and the Hereafter. Allah knoweth. Ye know not. 20 Had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you, and that Allah is Clement, Merciful, (ye had been undone). 21 O ye who believe! Follow not the footsteps of the devil. Unto whomsoever followeth the footsteps of the devil, lo! he commandeth filthiness and wrong. Had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you, not one of you would ever have grown pure. But Allah causeth whom He will to grow. And Allah is Hearer, Knower. 22 And let not those who possess dignity and ease among you swear not to give to the near of kin and to the needy, and to fugitives for the cause of Allah. Let them forgive and show indulgence. Yearn ye not that Allah may forgive you? Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 23 Lo! as for those who traduce virtuous, believing women (who are) careless, cursed are they in the world and the Hereafter. Theirs will be an awful doom 24 On the day when their tongues and their hands and their feet testify against them as to what they used to do, 25 On that day Allah will pay them their just due, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth. 26 Vile women are for vile men, and vile men for vile women. Good women are for good men, and good men for good women; such are innocent of that which people say: For them is pardon and a bountiful provision. 27 O ye who believe!
Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to
Wow, a couple of twinkly encapsulations that I was not even aware of. On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 2 June 2014 03:50, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote: On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote: On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com jason...@gmail.com wrote: Richard, I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which only in aggregate contain all possible universes? Neither is religiously acceptable Richard According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience? According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to that extent including knowing what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience. But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the bad for example in the rebirth process.. God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within comp. Richard what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that they are at the level of religion I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about it. Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the distinctiveness of Science. However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he does here. and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, and it's position of encapsulating the first two and the fag-end gutter scientism at the dirt end of everything, and
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Oh, it matters a lot, but I was just thinking how unkind civilized societies are to the families of the victim. I don't have a immediate answer. What I would choose to do if I had the clout, is to be able to bring charges against Judges, District Attorneys, Police, for malpractice. This, at least, would better screen against those in power for malpractice of the laws. I would like it for lying politicians too. But my idea is if we can bring criminal charges against Judges, etc, it will be a motivation to eliminate laziness, or malice on their part. This is my fix. What are you talking about? Not killing someone is a pass ? In your world nothing short of death will do, and never mind if the guy was framed / innocent / stitched up? -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 1, 2014 8:23 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 2 June 2014 09:52, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You could be correct, but I am troubled that the bad guys often get a pass on your side of the street, What are you talking about? Not killing someone is a pass ? In your world nothing short of death will do, and never mind if the guy was framed / innocent / stitched up? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating that for me, the salient point about the article was that the distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth. Nice. It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist Jacques Arsac who said As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp) book on this. But even among the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the right level. Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the solution of the diophantine equations. and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having mention a problem (except J.P. Delahaye)? Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowledged that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1- views (like John Clark). In brussels, they have invoked a philosopher who judged the thesis not receivable (which means not even a private defense: they have never heard me, even in private) from his personal conviction (and later invoke the free-exam principle for that, like if the free-exam is the right for professor to give bad note to student without questioning them). So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer reviewed enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some people makes ideas having to wait they died before people talk and think, and special interests and all that, so I admit the results are still rather ignored, though some people seems to be inspired by them also, hard to say). The so-called radicality of what I say is in the mind of those who thought that science has solved all problem, and that it has notably decided between Plato and Aristotle (almost the genuine difference believer/non-believer), and that comp explains the mind and its relation with matter. I show that this is not true, and that if we can accept that comp and computer science does indeed explain a large part of the mind, including knowledge and perhaps consciousness, it can only succeed on this if it explains the observable by a complex sum on all computations seen from the possible machine's points of view. (and that can be handled mathematically if we accept some definitions). you are the one's being less than honest, intellectually. Not me. I disagree, because you insinuate that there is a problem without showing one, besides the fact that you may dislike comp, bet it is false, etc. At least Richard has the honesty to recognize his use of a god of the gap. And please don't take my word for comp and its consequences, just try to understand. It is not easy, due to our quasi-instinctual aristotelianism, but it is neither that much difficult (probably easier for those who remember their dreams, and dig on the spiritual side). Sometimes, I think you got the main point, but have a critics at some metalevel. That might be right, but up to now, you did not succeed in making it clear for me, nor others, I think. You acknowledge that, so good luck for being more understandable. 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
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno in not responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or criticisms of something I have actually or effectively done. I constructed a basic test event, obviously it had to be tied to a very specific argument, involving a specific charge or suspicion, in a situation featuring possible two of us. It isn't a problem to construct a falsifiable prediction that is in keeping with the criteria of step one of the definition. So he chooses one of the Bruno counter points I did not answer, and goes for the knock down hardest one he thinks I'll find. And I will say why that point did not make a case to answer. And why I have dug my heels and stopped showing him the courtesy of answering anyway. This is because I don't he has even now read my definition seriously, because his own objections are clearly illegitimate or misconceived, and his own offers of events of testing or whatever clearly do not meet the critieria of definition. In fact his positions have not changed at all. I cannot reconcile this with a serious reading. And there's actually no point in continuing unless and until Bruno does make the decision to read my definition, which he requested and I supplied for. And absorb it, and be able to distinguish where any position he has does or does meet a criteria. He doesn't have to agree with any of it. But he had to know where the argument is, if he's serious. Because one way that his theory NOW ACTUALLY IS, falsifiable is in terms of the status he claimed for it, of falsifiability. The reason that isn't actually falsifiability is because every theory at a falsifiable status has spent a long time in a pre-falsifiable stage. And may well still be that phase, because to falsifiable the process itself has to not only start but finish, and there are a lot of constraints what a delay has to meet in criteria to be legitimate. Most delays quickly correspond to falsification events, but of the status only. Which never falsifies the theory and can never. Because IT'S DECOUPLED and never knows much what the fuck the theory is !!Anyway, here was example,. So for example, Bruno has argued that I failed address an he has said saw what he regards as a successful test., He then infers from my silence that I have effectively rejected it, and he concludes I must therefore be in contradiction with myself because I said I didn't have the skills to be doing things like that. So everything connects and is logical in what he says and his conclusion. But once again he's still on the inside of his theory, and still being driven along by the influence of the same misconception that the dichotomy which seems to regard the interaction between the falsification structure as an end to process - and in this setting the interaction is via me obviously, in that the action I took in not responding amounts to a rejection of some element in his theory. Which on its own its perfectly correct. not responding is a response. But the same problematic misconception remains in his thinking here, which best illustrated here, amounts to believing decoupling between anything to do with the process of falsification, and anything to do with anything in his theory theory is a dichotomy of correct interaction with the interior of his theory, in this case that if I am going to effectively reject something by not addressing it, I am immediately contradicting myh own position thatI do not have skills to be making judgement calls about elements of his theory. So it's clearly perfectly sound reasoning he's got in play there. But falsification doesn't care what is reasoned correct or not, within a theory. It doesn't care and will never care. Because it can never care about one particular theory, when it is process that runs across the entirety of science through the entirety of the history of science. How can anything like that have any dependence on a particular logical reasoning that on its own terms demands a reason why it can't be heard? It's all good though, because the logical that is correct can be clearly stated as the consequence of the definition and my response to Bruno, which proxies for the interaction of the falsification structure to the theory. Bruno is right in act that silence is not an adequate response to the issues that he raising. Because the part of the falsification, if it is to deaf to all theories is also to deliver explicit and simple criteria to that theory. This is only connection possible. It is one way to the interface, the outer surface of the theory, from the structure to the theory. That must be a very simple request for, initially a condition that meets the criteria of the first step of falsification. Now I have asked Bruno for this a few times, and I have explained each time why this is all I ever
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote: Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non- virtual reality environments have measure one in the space of environments hosted by the UD, as UD* has the cardinality of the continuum, whereas virtual reality environments are strictly aleph_0. But aren't we as physically instantiated beings, also of the cardinality of the continuum? Yes, we are, but not the virtual reality environments, which must be countable by virtue of there only being a countable number of programs. With COMP, and via the UDA, the number of real environments experienced must be the cardinality of the continuum, and would include all the CantGoTu environments. We could therefore conclude (contra Bostrom), that we are most likely not in a simulation, but that we can never prove it by any finite observation (Deutsch's CantGoTu argument). I agree that sometimes we can know we're in a virtual reality - Deutsch's chess VR example, for instance - but only by it being logically incompatible with our existence as an observer. The question remains - suppose someone finds a physical phenomenon that contradicts the laws of physics derived from COMP. Does that falsify COMP, or does it imply we're in a virtual reality? How can you possibly distinguish those two situations? We can't. But this is similar to the fact that, for accepting that we can at least refute a theory, we still need to bet that we are not dreaming or that we are not in some emulation (made normal by being physical, that is built on the top of the sum on all computations). So, to answer the question more precisely, we will need to describe more precisely how much the physical phenomenon depart from the comp physics, like for the case with the natural physics. If the emulation is gross (too big pixel) we can see quickly we are dreaming or emulated, or branched to a virtual (programmed) environment/video-game. By default, when I say that comp is falsifiable, I suppose we are at the base level, and that QL and QM does describe the base levels. Comp (and QL) saves us (normally) from the diabolical white rabbits, but it does not save us from the human and indeed universal Löbian consistent deception. Bruno I would say that COMP predicts we must be at the base level, and not in a virtual reality, by virtue of the cardinality difference between the set of all environments and the set of virtual ones. Hmmm I see what you mean, and in that sense we are at the base level. yet, we can still belong to an emulation build on the top of that base level, so that it inherits of the measure on all computations. If that was not possible, we would not been able to survive with an artificial brain. If we can, we can survive with the right relative measure in virtual environment, like the emulation of Washington and Moscow in step six. But this is also what makes it possible for us to discover that we are in virtual environment, or that we are dreaming. Therefore if we do discover ourselves in such a virtual variety (eg Deutsch's chess world) violating the laws of physics derived from COMP, then COMP must be falsified. Not necessarily. I might have given you a pill, and then put you in a very well done emulation, without you noticing any difference (before comparing the comp physics and the physics of your environment). Whilst COMP could be rescued by stating that it's just bad luck that we are in one of these virtual worlds, there is no epistemological benefit in doing so, because then COMP would not provide a description of our phenomenological physics. Just the same is if we ever found the Anthropic Principle to be violated (and didn't immediately wake up and realise it to be a dream), then we'd have to declare the AP falsified, because it no longer has any epistemological value. We could alternatively conclude that we're living in a Sim (DD's argument), but that would be simply a statement of faith, making the AP unfalsifiable. I am not sure we can make something falsifiable into something non falsifiable by an act of faith, ... except indeed by invoking a dream, or a Daemon, but this is of course is a very weak refutation. I would say that it is better to bet we are not in a second order dream/ emulation by default. If the comp-QL differ from the empiric-QL, it will be time to hesitate between the truth of comp, or of the the classical theory of knowledge, or if we are in a simulation (that might depends on the way the comp-QL is violated). The fact in dispute with ghibbsa is that I am giving a precise way to test comp (with nuance due to the vague character of test applied to reality) when translated in
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
John Clark, Thanks for your May 30 post. It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space. Here are my basic thoughts on space. Pardon me if I am repeating myself. Space is total nothingness. It can’t be curved. I suppose it could be expanded. If you move to a bigger house, you will have more space. The Ross Model proposes a shell for our Universe. It is a cold plasma shell comprised of mostly electrons and positrons. It may be many light years thick. On the inside of the shell are 100 to 400 galaxies. I don’t know what is beyond the shell, but I could guess. The shell is currently expanding due to photon pressure from all of the stars in all of the galaxies, which means that the volume of our Universe is expanding. Reflections from the shell and low temperature radiation from the shell gives us our cosmic background radiation. Our shell is like an integrating sphere. Faraway galaxies are all moving away from each other due to photon pressure from the same stars. The pressure is small per square meter but the cross section of galaxies is very large. Plus the pressure is continuous providing an accelerating force that increases the velocity of the galaxies every second for billions of years. The velocities of faraway galaxies may approach or exceed the speed of light. This is anti-gravity. Nearby galaxies are being attracted to each other. This is the result of gravity. According to the Ross Model gravity is the result of destruction of protons and anti-protons in Black Holes. This releases a neutrino entron with each destruction. Neutrino entrons exit the Black Holes as neutrino photons. Neutrino photons are about 1,000 times more energetic than gamma ray photons. Most neutrino photons illuminating stars, planets and moons pass right through providing a backward force directed toward the source of the neutrino photon. A few are temporally stopped and later released giving stars, planets and moons their gravity. I have calculated that the destruction of one earth-size planet in the Milky Way’s Black Hole would produce a neutrino photon flux at our solar system of about 68,000 neutrino photons per meter squared-second. The flux at nearby galaxies would be much less but I believe it is enough to overcome the photon pressure between nearby galaxies. Low-energy photons pass through large distances of intergalactic space more efficiently than neutrino photons. So at very large distances low-energy photons trump the neutrino photons. Since my model proposes that tronnies are point particles occupying no space and that everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or things made from tronnies, our Universe and everything in it must be 100 percent empty space. But every tronnie, based on its charge, is continuously producing Coulomb force waves that expand continuously. This means that our Universe is filled 100 percent with Coulomb waves. These are all traveling at the speed of light in all direction. The result is a huge number (probably infinite) of Coulomb grids. Photons travel in Coulomb grids. Each major thing in our Universe with all of its charged particles creates its own Coulomb grid. Our Universe has a Coulomb grid. Each galaxy has a Coulomb grid. Each star and its planets have one. Planets and moons each have a Coulomb grid. As all of these things move through our Universe at a variety of speeds they carry their grids along with them. Photons travel at the speed of light through Coulomb grids. Large masses can definitely produce a curvature in the mass’s Coulomb grid. So if we define “space” as Coulomb grids, then my model may not be much different than general relativity John Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:56 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I believe that if we try to measure how fast time is passing in a reference that is moving very fast with respect to our reference frame, we will get a different answer than someone measuring how fast time is passing in the fast moving reference frame. True. we could measure how much time has passed since the Big Bang, we would all get the same answer. True. I read somewhere that the Big Bang occurred 13.72 billion years ago and that the number was accurate to 4 decimal places. Basically true although the new revised figure from the Planck satellite is 13.82 billion years ago. I understand some galaxies are moving away from us very fast maybe at speeds close to the speed of light. Yes, and although we can never see them there is every reason to believe that some galaxies, perhaps an infinite number of them, are moving FASTER than the speed of light. This is not in
numenta
http://numenta.org/ An organization formed by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of the Palm Pilot) to study artificial intelligence. Hawkins idea is that lower level modules in the brain continually try to predict what signals they will next receive; and it is only when the predictions fail that signals are passed up to higher (more interconnected) modules, and it is at the highest level they become conscious thoughts. 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: numenta
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: http://numenta.org/ An organization formed by Jeff Hawkins (inventor of the Palm Pilot) to study artificial intelligence. Hawkins idea is that lower level modules in the brain continually try to predict what signals they will next receive; and it is only when the predictions fail that signals are passed up to higher (more interconnected) modules, and it is at the highest level they become conscious thoughts. I read his book On Intelligence a few years ago and recommend it. It is quite interesting and has some nice ideas on how to implement an AGI. It conveys a lot of information on neuroscience with a strong focus on the visual cortex. He even derives a machine learning model from his ideas, and it appears to have practical applications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_temporal_memory On the other hand, the excitement appears to have fizzled out after some initial hype, but maybe I'm just unaware of further progress. Will look into it. Pro: I really appreciate his it's time for computer science to tackle the brain attitude, focused on actually building things; Con: He dismisses the mind-body problem by essentially claiming that consciousness doesn't even exist. It annoys me, but I can tolerate it because he delivers interesting ideas and models on the practical side of things. Best, Telmo. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 02 Jun 2014, at 09:27, Samiya Illias wrote: On 02-Jun-2014, at 12:05 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 00:25, Samiya Illias wrote: On 01-Jun-2014, at 12:14 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 30 May 2014, at 05:43, Samiya Illias wrote: On 30-May-2014, at 7:35 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 May 2014 14:26, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: These are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion. You, on the outside, are horrified by such acts in the name of Islam, and are terrified of it, rightly so. We, on the other hand, live in midst of this blatant violation of the guidance in the Quran! What these elements have not been able to find or insert in the Quran, they have created Some of the people involved are priests, and some are students of Islam - do you think that these are people who are committing crimes in the name of religion? Again this is a straight question, I'm not drawing any conclusions at the moment. What's wrong is wrong. They may think they're doing right and may feel it to be their pious duty, however it is still wrong. How God will judge them is another matter, let God do that. However, it is important to speak up and point out that it's incorrect and inhumane. Please also bear in mind that all religions have suffered the tragedy of deviation from the original message, misunderstood and convoluted it into something terrible. Islam has also suffered thus. However, the arabic Quran is preserved in written form and in the minds of millions of people since it was revealed. That is the criteria that I apply to evaluate whether something is correct or not. Hmm Because you take as axioms that those word are divine. The Quran seems to contain threats for those departing of the text, but that is an authoritative argument. It can be true that departing from Truth is a problem, but I am not sure that this can be said. You may have noticed that I present Quranic verses to answer or explain my point, which I believe is divinely revealed, Is that not a problem? No, because (a) the questions being asked are about the contrast between core beliefs of Islam and the practical implementation (b) to show that Quranic guidance is far from the ideas people have developed about the religion All right (although we might discuss the responsibility of a text for his possible misinterpretation). Fair enough. The Quran claims that there is it is clear guidance and there is no crookedness in it, and that it is protected from changes. Hmm... But this is circular. What if the real original Quran contained a verse saying and please add comments, criticize and correct the text if needed as I have to simplified myself to be understood by you in the short term; but then, for special interest, a human changes it into ... protected from changes? You ask that we read the Quran with scientific eyes, but for this we have test it without prejudice. We have to be neutral on whatever its source can be. I think there are mainly two sources of misinterpretation: 1) insertion of words in translation which are not in the original text 2) lack of knowledge of the translator of a particular subject, mostly apparent in verses of scientific significance. Yes. On the net, the first Quran appearing in Google proposes translation in different languages, and often, there are different nuance between relation the french, dutch and english translation. Is that not a warning for anybody to not criticize any point in the text. No. I have not taken offence to the so many things said in this and other threads, and politely tried to answer the points raised. The reason I quote is so that people can verify for themselves, instead of just accepting my words Nice. Most mystics text fall easily in the theological trap, where true proposition becomes false, as they were unassertable. It is like a machine picking up a proposition in its own G* \ G, and asserting it. They are true about them, but cannot be asserted. Let me ask you a question. Imagine we agree on some terms of comparison, and decide to compare G* (the main root of machine's theology) with the Quran, and imagine that the G* interpretation of the Quran appears much closer to the Sufi interpretation than the mainstream one, with more symbolics and less literalism, would you conclude that computationalism is false or that the Sufi are right? You will have to explain comp in more detail in plain English, or teach me how to interpret your mathematical notation. Also, I need to understand your machine theology better before I can start commenting on it. As far as Sufism is concerned, what I've read of it and about it, I'm not convinced about their beliefs. Fair enough. So let me be straight and naive on this. And short. There has been
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 3 June 2014 01:15, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Oh, it matters a lot, but I was just thinking how unkind civilized societies are to the families of the victim. I don't have a immediate answer. Clearly. And indeed there is no answer, the logic is very straightforward. What I would* choose* to do if I had the clout, is to be able to bring charges against Judges, District Attorneys, Police, for malpractice. This, at least, would better screen against those in power for malpractice of the laws. I would like it for lying politicians too. But my idea is if we can bring criminal charges against Judges, etc, it will be a motivation to eliminate laziness, or malice on their part. This is my fix. Obviously this would not be a fix for the death penalty, but it would certainly help to have this as well as no death penalty. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
To seek your goal I am guessing elements of society, law, and technology, must improve. For many, nothing is broken, or they have an interest in things continuing as they are. We'd have to get into problem soving mode to do all that. The world does not seem to be in a problem solving mood. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 2, 2014 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 3 June 2014 01:15, spudboy100 via Everything List lt;everything-list@googlegroups.comgt; wrote: Oh, it matters a lot, but I was just thinking how unkind civilized societies are to the families of the victim. I don't have a immediate answer. Clearly. And indeed there is no answer, the logic is very straightforward. What I would choose to do if I had the clout, is to be able to bring charges against Judges, District Attorneys, Police, for malpractice. This, at least, would better screen against those in power for malpractice of the laws. I would like it for lying politicians too. But my idea is if we can bring criminal charges against Judges, etc, it will be a motivation to eliminate laziness, or malice on their part. This is my fix. Obviously this would not be a fix for the death penalty, but it would certainly help to have this as well as no death penalty. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 3 June 2014 10:28, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: To seek your goal I am guessing elements of society, law, and technology, must improve. I am not sure what you mean by to seek my goal. For many, nothing is broken, or they have an interest in things continuing as they are. We'd have to get into problem soving mode to do all that. The world does not seem to be in a problem solving mood. This is of course true, business as usual is nideed in the process of destroying the world. Not sure what it has to do with the previous topic but FWIW I agree. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 3 June 2014 05:04, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: John Clark, Thanks for your May 30 post. It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space. Here are my basic thoughts on space. Pardon me if I am repeating myself. Space is total nothingness. It can’t be curved. I suppose it could be expanded. If you move to a bigger house, you will have more space. If space was nothingness, it wouldn't be able to keep things apart. The Ross Model proposes a shell for our Universe. It is a cold plasma shell comprised of mostly electrons and positrons. It may be many light years thick. On the inside of the shell are 100 to 400 galaxies. I'm guessing that should read 100-400 *billion* galaxies. Does this imply that we happen to be (roughly) in the centre of the universe? If the distance to the CMBR / shell is 13.82 billion lyr or whatever it's currently measured as, and that result holds in all directions, the chances of us being in such a favoured position is, erm, lemme see ... according to my best estimate that's astronomically unlikely. Of course the current model of the universe and the CMBR doesn't require any such coincidence, because it explains how any observer would see roughly the same things we do. (So one falsifiable prediction of the Ross model is that future measurements of the CMBR in different directions will almost certinaly give at least slightly different distances.) I don’t know what is beyond the shell, but I could guess. The shell is currently expanding due to photon pressure from all of the stars in all of the galaxies, which means that the volume of our Universe is expanding. Reflections from the shell and low temperature radiation from the shell gives us our cosmic background radiation. Our shell is like an integrating sphere. Faraway galaxies are all moving away from each other due to photon pressure from the same stars. The pressure is small per square meter but the cross section of galaxies is very large. Plus the pressure is continuous providing an accelerating force that increases the velocity of the galaxies every second for billions of years. The velocities of faraway galaxies may approach or exceed the speed of light. This is anti-gravity. Have you done the calculations? Galaxies are VERY faint sources, I believe an observer placed at a typical position in the universe would see hardly anything (if they had human senses). Of course this photon pressure would have to be fairly even to accelerate everything in a galaxy at the same rate. My guess is that it would just blow all the hydrogen clouds out into intergalactic space, so all galaxies would resemble comets with tails pointing away from the centre of the universe. I don't believe this has been observed. Nearby galaxies are being attracted to each other. This is the result of gravity. According to the Ross Model gravity is the result of destruction of protons and anti-protons in Black Holes. This releases a neutrino entron with each destruction. Neutrino entrons exit the Black Holes as neutrino photons. Neutrino photons are about 1,000 times more energetic than gamma ray photons. Most neutrino photons illuminating stars, planets and moons pass right through providing a backward force directed toward the source of the neutrino photon. I don't see how this would work. Any momentum transfer would tend to push objects *away *from the source. A few are temporally stopped and later released giving stars, planets and moons their gravity. I have calculated that the destruction of one earth-size planet in the Milky Way’s Black Hole would produce a neutrino photon flux at our solar system of about 68,000 neutrino photons per meter squared-second. The flux at nearby galaxies would be much less but I believe it is enough to overcome the photon pressure between nearby galaxies. Low-energy photons pass through large distances of intergalactic space more efficiently than neutrino photons. So at very large distances low-energy photons trump the neutrino photons. As already noted this requires black holes to swallow mass at a constant rate, maybe averaged over a few years - which seems highly unlikely. Some BHs remain unfed for billions of years once they have cleared out their immediate neighbourhood. Since my model proposes that tronnies are point particles occupying no space and that everything in our Universe is made from tronnies or things made from tronnies, our Universe and everything in it must be 100 percent empty space. But every tronnie, based on its charge, is continuously producing Coulomb force waves that expand continuously. This means that our Universe is filled 100 percent with Coulomb waves. These are all traveling at the speed of light in all direction. The result is a huge number (probably infinite) of Coulomb grids. Photons travel in Coulomb grids. Each major thing in our Universe with all of
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Monday, June 2, 2014 5:06:07 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Jun 2014, at 01:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:19:54PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 01:53, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 01:40:58PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 5/30/2014 11:45 PM, Russell Standish wrote: Yet it seems to me that CantGoTu environments and other non- virtual reality environments have measure one in the space of environments hosted by the UD, as UD* has the cardinality of the continuum, whereas virtual reality environments are strictly aleph_0. But aren't we as physically instantiated beings, also of the cardinality of the continuum? Yes, we are, but not the virtual reality environments, which must be countable by virtue of there only being a countable number of programs. With COMP, and via the UDA, the number of real environments experienced must be the cardinality of the continuum, and would include all the CantGoTu environments. We could therefore conclude (contra Bostrom), that we are most likely not in a simulation, but that we can never prove it by any finite observation (Deutsch's CantGoTu argument). I agree that sometimes we can know we're in a virtual reality - Deutsch's chess VR example, for instance - but only by it being logically incompatible with our existence as an observer. The question remains - suppose someone finds a physical phenomenon that contradicts the laws of physics derived from COMP. Does that falsify COMP, or does it imply we're in a virtual reality? How can you possibly distinguish those two situations? We can't. But this is similar to the fact that, for accepting that we can at least refute a theory, we still need to bet that we are not dreaming or that we are not in some emulation (made normal by being physical, that is built on the top of the sum on all computations). So, to answer the question more precisely, we will need to describe more precisely how much the physical phenomenon depart from the comp physics, like for the case with the natural physics. If the emulation is gross (too big pixel) we can see quickly we are dreaming or emulated, or branched to a virtual (programmed) environment/video-game. By default, when I say that comp is falsifiable, I suppose we are at the base level, and that QL and QM does describe the base levels. Comp (and QL) saves us (normally) from the diabolical white rabbits, but it does not save us from the human and indeed universal Löbian consistent deception. Bruno I would say that COMP predicts we must be at the base level, and not in a virtual reality, by virtue of the cardinality difference between the set of all environments and the set of virtual ones. Hmmm I see what you mean, and in that sense we are at the base level. yet, we can still belong to an emulation build on the top of that base level, so that it inherits of the measure on all computations. If that was not possible, we would not been able to survive with an artificial brain. If we can, we can survive with the right relative measure in virtual environment, like the emulation of Washington and Moscow in step six. But this is also what makes it possible for us to discover that we are in virtual environment, or that we are dreaming. Therefore if we do discover ourselves in such a virtual variety (eg Deutsch's chess world) violating the laws of physics derived from COMP, then COMP must be falsified. Not necessarily. I might have given you a pill, and then put you in a very well done emulation, without you noticing any difference (before comparing the comp physics and the physics of your environment). Whilst COMP could be rescued by stating that it's just bad luck that we are in one of these virtual worlds, there is no epistemological benefit in doing so, because then COMP would not provide a description of our phenomenological physics. Just the same is if we ever found the Anthropic Principle to be violated (and didn't immediately wake up and realise it to be a dream), then we'd have to declare the AP falsified, because it no longer has any epistemological value. We could alternatively conclude that we're living in a Sim (DD's argument), but that would be simply a statement of faith, making the AP unfalsifiable. Yo Russell, I was just wondering...what do you include when you reference Anthropic Principle. Like above. I mean...I can see that if we're talking about AP as the explanation for our universe and us here within it, then just for that, there the inference of large number of other universes. Is this roughly as far as things go, or are there further inferences directly from these first two? What I'm
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Space doesn’t keep things apart. This is from wiki: An integrating sphere (also known as an Ulbricht sphere) is an optical component consisting of a hollow spherical cavity with its interior covered with a diffuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection white reflective coating, with small holes for entrance and exit ports. Its relevant property is a uniform scattering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering or diffusing effect. Light rays incident on any point on the inner surface are, by multiple scattering reflections, distributed equally to all other points. The effects of the original direction of light are minimized. An integrating sphere may be thought of as a diffuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(optics) which preserves power but destroys spatial information. It is typically used with some light source and a detector for optical power measurement. A similar device is the focusing or Coblentz sphere, which differs in that it has a mirror-like (specular) inner surface rather than a diffuse inner surface. You are right about 100 to 400 billion. I admit my calculation was very rough. But the photon pressure does not have to be great if you are talking about something the size of a galaxy and it continues pressing for billions of years. I would like to see a more precise calculation of the photon pressure from the entire universe on a single galaxy especially one near the edge of our Universe. I know that photons from our sun turns the tail of comets away from the sun. Neutrino photons are a 1,000 times smaller than gamma ray photons which can pass some distance through steel. They are traveling at the speed of light. Neutrino photons are so small that they rarely impact any charged particle. Charged particles do not feel the Coulomb forces from neutrino photons until the neutrino photon has passed by, but the charged particles feel the Coulomb forces spreading out behind the neutrino photon once the neutrino photon is gone. It’s kind of like the shock wave from a jet. It takes a long time for a Black Hole to digest a star. First the Black Hole has to create anti-protons and then the anti-protons have to mate up with the protons. Then the neutrino photons have to make their way from near the center of the Black Hole to the surface before they can take off through the galaxy. I understand it takes visible light energy (entrons) to travel from the core of our sun to the surface. Light travels at the speed of light through Coulomb grids. The Coulomb grid travel at the same speed as the galaxy it is associated with. The Coulomb grid associated with a galaxy near the edge of our Universe is probably receding from you and me at near the speed of light, I understand, maybe faster. Einstein thought that massive objects curved space and that photons travel through space. I say that space is nothing, it can’t be curved, but Coulomb grids are definitely curved. Our sun’s Coulomb grid is curved and our earth’s grid is curved. And I also say photons travel not through space but, through Coulomb grids. So my guess is that I would get the same answer as Einstein for Mercury’s path. I love your questions! John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 4:08 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 3 June 2014 05:04, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: John Clark, Thanks for your May 30 post. It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space. Here are my basic thoughts on space. Pardon me if I am repeating myself. Space is total nothingness. It can’t be curved. I suppose it could be expanded. If you move to a bigger house, you will have more space. If space was nothingness, it wouldn't be able to keep things apart. The Ross Model proposes a shell for our Universe. It is a cold plasma shell comprised of mostly electrons and positrons. It may be many light years thick. On the inside of the shell are 100 to 400 galaxies. I'm guessing that should read 100-400 billion galaxies. Does this imply that we happen to be (roughly) in the centre of the universe? If the distance to the CMBR / shell is 13.82 billion lyr or whatever it's currently measured as, and that result holds in all directions, the chances of us being in such a favoured position is, erm, lemme see ... according to my best estimate that's astronomically unlikely. Of course the current model of the universe and the CMBR doesn't require any such coincidence, because it explains how any observer would see roughly the same things we do. (So one falsifiable prediction of the Ross model is that future measurements of the CMBR in different directions will almost certinaly give at least slightly different distances.) I don’t know what is beyond the shell, but I
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 3 June 2014 13:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Space doesn’t keep things apart. What does then? This is from wiki: An *integrating sphere* (also known as an Ulbricht sphere) is an optical component consisting of a hollow spherical cavity with its interior covered with a diffuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection white reflective coating, with small holes for entrance and exit ports. Its relevant property is a uniform scattering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering or diffusing effect. Light rays incident on any point on the inner surface are, by multiple scattering reflections, distributed equally to all other points. The effects of the original direction of light are minimized. An integrating sphere may be thought of as a diffuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuser_(optics) which preserves power but destroys spatial information. It is typically used with some light source and a detector for optical power measurement. A similar device is the focusing or Coblentz sphere, which differs in that it has a mirror-like (specular) inner surface rather than a diffuse inner surface. I'm not sure why that is significant. You are right about 100 to 400 billion. I admit my calculation was very rough. But the photon pressure does not have to be great if you are talking about something the size of a galaxy and it continues pressing for billions of years. I would like to see a more precise calculation of the photon pressure from the entire universe on a single galaxy especially one near the edge of our Universe. I know that photons from our sun turns the tail of comets away from the sun. So why don't all galaxies have tails, given that the universe has a definite centre in the Ross model, and the photon pressure will be greater from that direction? Neutrino photons are a 1,000 times smaller than gamma ray photons which can pass some distance through steel. They are traveling at the speed of light. Neutrino photons are so small that they rarely impact any charged particle. Charged particles do not feel the Coulomb forces from neutrino photons until the neutrino photon has passed by, but the charged particles feel the Coulomb forces spreading out behind the neutrino photon once the neutrino photon is gone. It’s kind of like the shock wave from a jet. The shock wave would be travelling outwards radially, surely? It takes a long time for a Black Hole to digest a star. First the Black Hole has to create anti-protons and then the anti-protons have to mate up with the protons. Then the neutrino photons have to make their way from near the center of the Black Hole to the surface before they can take off through the galaxy. There shouldn't be any time required for objects inside a black hole to connect up, because the hole's gravity crushes everything to a point. So all the point particles will be in the same place. Escaping from the hole is more difficult, although if you can travel faster than light I guess there may no be a problem. I understand it takes visible light energy (entrons) to travel from the core of our sun to the surface. I think you missed something out there. It takes photons a long time to travel from the core of the sun to the surface because the sun is a plasma and they keep being absorbed and re-emitted. The distance a photon can travel inside the sun is very short, which is why the sun is opaque I guess. I'm not sure what the connection is with black holes. Light travels at the speed of light through Coulomb grids. The Coulomb grid travel at the same speed as the galaxy it is associated with. The Coulomb grid associated with a galaxy near the edge of our Universe is probably receding from you and me at near the speed of light, I understand, maybe faster. Einstein thought that massive objects curved space and that photons travel through space. I say that space is nothing, it can’t be curved, but Coulomb grids are definitely curved. Our sun’s Coulomb grid is curved and our earth’s grid is curved. And I also say photons travel not through space but, through Coulomb grids. So my guess is that I would get the same answer as Einstein for Mercury’s path. Don't guess. If you have a decent theory you should be able to work out the answers. I love your questions! You didn't answer the one about the massive coincidence of us being at the exact centre of the universe. John R *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 4:08 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 3 June 2014 05:04, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: John Clark, Thanks for your May 30 post. It looks like we are fairly close on time but not on space. Here are my basic thoughts on space. Pardon me if I am repeating
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating that for me, the salient point about the article was that the distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth Nice. Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy or .nice like yeah mother fucker I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread! Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. What about the issue itself though? It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist Jacques Arsac who said As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp) book on this. But even among the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the right level. Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is can replace organA with majorRevolutioninFieldA + majorRevoltion in field B+..+...major revolution in field N One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience consciousness in my head, why not my liver? Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the solution of the diophantine equations. So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at some point involving god and something else? This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in terms of comp at all. What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way now from they believe in comp. I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a zebra? Or do I miss the point? and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a problem (except J.P. Delahaye)? Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: Scientist believes comp= -- Bruno's criteria is assuming-com -- brunos's UDA follows -- Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows -- MWI follows -- Infinite dreams follows * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowledged that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1-views (like John Clark). In brussels, they have invoked a philosopher who judged the thesis not receivable (which means not even a private defense: they have never heard
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating that for me, the salient point about the article was that the distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth Nice. Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy or .nice like yeah mother fucker I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread! Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. What about the issue itself though? It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist Jacques Arsac who said As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp) book on this. But even among the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the right level. Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is can replace organA with majorRevolutioninFieldA + majorRevoltion in field B+..+...major revolution in field N One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience consciousness in my head, why not my liver? Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the solution of the diophantine equations. So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at some point involving god and something else? This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in terms of comp at all. What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way now from they believe in comp. I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a zebra? Or do I miss the point? and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a problem (except J.P. Delahaye)? Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: Scientist believes comp= -- Bruno's criteria is assuming-com -- brunos's UDA follows -- Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows -- MWI follows -- Infinite dreams follows * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowledged that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1-views (like John Clark). In brussels, they have invoked a
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:35:06 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. Another non-answer. Maybe you should have tried one question at a time. Let me have a go. Samiya, you agreed that limb amputation is prescribed by the Quran. Do you condemn this action? I know it isn't just you asking this, but you did it bold. Why should be pressured into condemning selective items in the Quran? People won't want to do this sort of thing, or will do so because they feel they are being held over a barrel and coerced. But doesn't have condemn part of his holy book, all he has to do is not get involved in chopping peoples limbs or do whatever his conscience has him doing. Do any of you know what it means for Muslim to condemn something in the Koran? You should find out first, and make sure you're just being really horrible without realizing 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:16:01 AM UTC+1, Samiya wrote: On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript: wrote: On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7 2:7 speaks of a seal on hearts and 2:9 speaks of a disease in the heart because of lying. My blogpost lying Sinful Forelock and Rust Upon Their Hearts may be of interest (www.signsandscience.blogspot.com ) However 2:26,27 further explains who and why Allah causes to stray. If it's any comfort, Allah also promises that everything is being recorded (54:53) (99:7,8) (34:2-4) and not the least injustice will be done to anyone. We are directed to remind in case the reminder benefits anyone. (6:68,69) Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66 An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we are forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that follows. However, as directed, I don't eat pigs. Is there really a tradition of believing we're linked to pigs? That's pretty interesting, because what may become the pre-emininet theory...and me and Liz are so cool cos we read it first, is actually a theory that humans are the result of an Ape/Pig hybridization. Is the sort of belief expressed by your cousine..do you know much about the character of the belief? Is it considered folklore for example. I'm just wondering because it seems possible in some cases of communities today, that some beliefs stretch right back, past recorded history, and may have their roots goodness knows when. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch
He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework. I hope people will read it and say what they think...cos I probably can't understand it. http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563 article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 3 June 2014 15:57, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:35:06 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias samiya...@gmail.com wrote:So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. Another non-answer. Maybe you should have tried one question at a time. Let me have a go. Samiya, you agreed that limb amputation is prescribed by the Quran. Do you condemn this action? I know it isn't just you asking this, but you did it bold. Why should be pressured into condemning selective items in the Quran? Because the first time when I didn't use bold, the question was ignored. People won't want to do this sort of thing, or will do so because they feel they are being held over a barrel and coerced. But doesn't have condemn part of his holy book, all he has to do is not get involved in chopping peoples limbs or do whatever his conscience has him doing. That is fine so long as she doesn't start arguing that the Quran is perfect, divinely inspired, 100% true and so on. But she had argued just that, so I'm entitled to ask about every little 1% of it. It wasn't me who made all the grandiose claims for this text. Do any of you know what it means for Muslim to condemn something in the Koran? You should find out first, and make sure you're just being really horrible without realizing it. I should make sure I'm being horrible? It sounds like you are using the respect everyone's viewpoints argument here. But I'm under no obligation to respect sadistic or insane pronouncements, so I'd like to know where we stand on the sadism and insanity that is apparently in this particular holy work. I'd do the same for the Bible or the Kabbalah or the works of L Ron Hubbard or what-have-you, given someone making similar claims for them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 3 June 2014 16:06, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we are forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that follows. However, as directed, I don't eat pigs. Is there really a tradition of believing we're linked to pigs? That's pretty interesting, because what may become the pre-emininet theory...and me and Liz are so cool cos we read it first, is actually a theory that humans are the result of an Ape/Pig hybridization. Is the sort of belief expressed by your cousine..do you know much about the character of the belief? Is it considered folklore for example. I'm just wondering because it seems possible in some cases of communities today, that some beliefs stretch right back, past recorded history, and may have their roots goodness knows when. Also it's the word of god, and he should know. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch
According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of reality... But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory??? ... http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU [?] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch
Reading on, it looks like this may be a form of computationalism, not of the Bruno type but more of the Edgar Owen variety - using constructors instead of information processors. (I wonder if there is an absolute time in which constructors do their thing...) On 3 June 2014 16:26, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of reality... But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory??? ... http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU [?] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 03-Jun-2014, at 9:06 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:16:01 AM UTC+1, Samiya wrote: On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote: You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among people. The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7 2:7 speaks of a seal on hearts and 2:9 speaks of a disease in the heart because of lying. My blogpost lying Sinful Forelock and Rust Upon Their Hearts may be of interest (www.signsandscience.blogspot.com ) However 2:26,27 further explains who and why Allah causes to stray. If it's any comfort, Allah also promises that everything is being recorded (54:53) (99:7,8) (34:2-4) and not the least injustice will be done to anyone. We are directed to remind in case the reminder benefits anyone. (6:68,69) Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66 An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we are forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't researched the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that follows. However, as directed, I don't eat pigs. Is there really a tradition of believing we're linked to pigs? That's pretty interesting, because what may become the pre-emininet theory...and me and Liz are so cool cos we read it first, is actually a theory that humans are the result of an Ape/Pig hybridization. Interesting. Can you send me a link? Is the sort of belief expressed by your cousine..do you know much about the character of the belief? Is it considered folklore for example. I'm just wondering because it seems possible in some cases of communities today, that some beliefs stretch right back, past recorded history, and may have their roots goodness knows when. I don't know where he got this idea from. But he seems pretty convinced. When he mentioned it to me, I sort of looked at him with incredulity, like huh? However, in the Quran it is mentioned that the sabbath violators were punished, after multiple serious violations and warnings, as 'qirdatan khasaieen' translated as despised apes / pigs. (2:65) sabbath is also mentioned at: 4:47, 4:154 , 16:124). Samiya -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:31:05 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: Reading on, it looks like this may be a form of computationalism, not of the Bruno type but more of the Edgar Owen variety - using constructors instead of information processors. (I wonder if there is an absolute time in which constructors do their thing...) On 3 June 2014 16:26, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of reality... But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory??? ... http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU Liz, I hope you, Bruno and Russell read itI'm not that good at comprehending things in a reading or a few. So please please please be my mummy and spoon feed me some baby-deutsch. Because I'm only a washing machine. ..no fuck off wash your own shirts -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:26:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of reality... But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory??? ... http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU This is going to mean zip to you, but the reason I feel hopeful about his constructor theory is becauseit sort of shares some features with my theory (hence this will mean zip to you). He's in a totally different way. He's trying to do something that he's probably been thinking about throughout. It's very hard to know how things will go for him. Most central, is that absolutely inherent to the CT is that its in contradiction with almost everything he's spent his life believing. I feel sure he perceives by now, he can't really have his philosophy and CT consistently. .. I think how far he gets will be decided here. It's so hard to step away from a lifelong love. He doesn't have to...he could simply reconcile it. But if does that, he'll go not very far. The next one is that he keeps his philosophical first and greatest love...but hide it away from CT like a mistress. Better...a lot better. But he won't go a lot further for this, because the philosophical thing is set of beliefs..influences...not just whether it's being instantiated in the theory on the paper. It's in the head. Third is he takes the step few ever take, and drops the philosophy and allows that he slowly falsifies. it. I don't know how far he gets this waybut a lot further. But also, if he has balls to flush a lifetimes work down the toilet for a new theory that's better. Then in many and really all meaningful ways, he didn't flush anything down the toilet, because he just did the ultimate popper-correct thing. A great way to say goodbye. I think someone - anyone - who takes strides like that, is the makings of a genius. Butto be honest, I don't Deutsch doing it. But I'll pray for him. Lizthere you are...come let us kneel together again. You had the apple last time, give it here. Now let's oink for Deutshc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
