Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

[LizR]

Cool!

(So to speak)


On 23 June 2014 16:25, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Thought this bit of news was interesting. Yes… it was a holiday, but still
> more than half of a summer day peak demand of the major European economy
> coming from solar electricity, is a pretty major milestone.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> http://phys.org/news/2014-06-germany-day-energy-percent-solar.html
>
>
>
> The Fraunhofer ISE research institute has announced that Germany set a
> record high for solar use on June 9—on that day the country's solar power
> output rose to 23.1 GW—50.6 percent of all electricity demand. The record
> occurred over a holiday, which meant less demand, but it still marks a
> major step forward for the world's solar power leader.
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update)

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

Thought this bit of news was interesting. Yes. it was a holiday, but still
more than half of a summer day peak demand of the major European economy
coming from solar electricity, is a pretty major milestone.

Chris

 

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-germany-day-energy-percent-solar.html

 

The Fraunhofer ISE research institute has announced that Germany set a
record high for solar use on June 9-on that day the country's solar power
output rose to 23.1 GW-50.6 percent of all electricity demand. The record
occurred over a holiday, which meant less demand, but it still marks a major
step forward for the world's solar power leader. 



 

-- 
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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

[LizR]

You could try a search for "quaternions"on the forum.

-- 
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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:59 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 23 June 2014 04:51, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> I apply math on the mathematician (the dreamer) like Everett applied
>> physics on the physicians.
>>
>
> I suspect you meant to say physicists. Physicians are doctors :-)
>
>
Somebody should start a cipher thread for Bruno's consistent uhm... English
typing habits. Been reading this place for too long, I didn't even notice
that. Are they recursively enumerable?

Russell mentioned something about Brent referencing quarternions in
relation to QM. Can somebody point to or mention the thread/reference as I
missed that?

On that note I wonder if there is any kind of number/algebra beyond the
sedenian?

I'd guess there isn't much more to "relax" beyond alternative, power
associativity, and flexibility properties, right? Do sedenians find some
application in QL still, as the octonians do?

Not looking for some comprehensive serious response, just curious about
types of numbers, algebra, their application etc. PGC


>  --
> 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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

[LizR]

On 23 June 2014 04:51, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> I apply math on the mathematician (the dreamer) like Everett applied
> physics on the physicians.
>

I suspect you meant to say physicists. Physicians are doctors :-)

-- 
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: Selecting your future branch

[LizR]

On 23 June 2014 06:24, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>  >>  the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
>>> says.
>>>
>>
>> > I agree,
>>
>
> Good.
>
>  > but
>>
>
> But? There is no "but", Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game over.
>
> OK. That would be a good exercise for Liz. Showing that there is a 1-3
> confusion here (is it volontarily?).
>

Well, I have experienced this confusion myself when I think too hard about
comp or the MWI. In both cases I "know" that I will experience all possible
futures, in the sense that someone who is (in the jargon) fungible with me
will experience them all. But I can't help myself thinking as though I will
only experience one of them. When I look up the weather for tomorrow
on-line, I plan to wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella (say - especially
at this time of year) even though I know the met office is only giving me
one of any number of futures, all equally real - freak sunshine, comets,
cloudy with meatballs...

>
> I predict only "0.5" in most diaries.  The prediction is about the first
> person experience, as seen from the first person themselves, which are the
> one writing either M, or W, and never both in their histories. Bruno
> predicts 1.0 only in the 3p-diary.
>

If I knew for a fact that I was going through a duplicator, I might well
put 1.0 in my diary, because I would know and accept what the "3p"
situation was. But retrospectively, I would say, "well, it seems I ended up
in Moscow!" - as though there was a 0.5 chance that I would find myself
here, being me, now, rather than over in W being the other me...

However this is all psychological, if I know the situation then it's merely
my inability to think 3p-aly, to misquote "Back to the furture", that would
make me think the chance was 0.5. In practice there is a 100% chance of me
seeing both places, if I define "me" as me-before in that statement,
because me-before ends up in both places, at least for a split second
(before the copies diverge). But I have to admit that me-before will not
see them both at the same time, or with the same eyes!

(At this point I have to take my medicine and lie down in a dark room for a
while...)

-- 
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: Selecting your future branch

[LizR]

On 23 June 2014 05:49, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>  >>  the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
>>> says.
>>>
>>
>> > I agree,
>>
>
> Good.
>
>  > but
>>
>
> But? There is no "but", Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game over.
>

It isn't a prediction, as far as I can see, it's a description of how
people think about probability. I don't see how anything hinges on what
someone would intuitively predict about their future.

>
> > I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In practice Mr H and the
>> quantum physicist both assign probabilities retroactively,
>>
>
> Since they both involve probabilities the 2 experiments must  be repeated
> many times to test the underlying theoretical predictions, the 2 slit
> experiment to test the MWI and Bruno's thought experiment to test his
> Universal Dance Association theory.
>

Yes.


> When you repeat the 2 slit experiment you find that sometimes the electron
> went through slit X and sometimes it did not, but no
>

With the electron you find that it always appears to go through both slits,
otherwise no interference fringes.


> matter how often you repeat Bruno's thought experiment you ALWAYS find
> that Mr. You (or Mrs. You) sees Moscow. The results of these experiments
> tell us that the MWI might be true but Bruno's Universal Dance Association
> theory is definitely wrong because it made the wrong prediction.
>

It isn't an experiment, it's merely showing the same thing Everett did (as
far as I can see).

>
>
>> > I know that the MWI says I will do all sorts of bizarre things in the
>> next second
>>
>
> And Mrs. I will indeed do all sorts of bizarre things in the next second.
>
> > including spontaneously being teleported to Helsinki
>>
>
> True, although Mrs I also never saw Helsinki and was instead spontaneously
> being teleported to Moscow. This would be a very odd situation but it is
> NOT a logical paradox because Mrs. I HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.
>

Yes, I think we all agree on that.

>
> > but I act just as though I only have one future.
>>
>
> Acting as if you have only one future is not the same as having only one
> future, that's why the MWI isn't intuitively obvious to everybody.
>

I agree. And I think the same applies to comp.

>
> > The probability assignment question is only a psychological matter
>>
>
> Until about 90 years ago physicists would say that all probability is just
> a psychological matter, it's just a measure of our ignorance; then they
> said probability is inherent to the thing itself, but if the MWI turns out
> to be true then probability goes back to being subjective.
>

Yes, and comp parallels the MWI. OK.

>
> > Bruno is only using it to illustrate that duplication gives the effect
>> of apparent indeterminacy, just as it does in the MWI.
>>
>
> No, Bruno has said over and over that he has found some new sort
> of indeterminacy that is fundamentally different from Turing style
> indeterminacy or
> Heisenberg style indeterminacy, I say it's just the same old indeterminacy.
>

I agree, I think - comp indeterminacy is based on the same principle as
Everettian indeterminacy (I'm not sure what Turing indeterminacy is, and I
assume the Heisenberg type is "genuine physical" indeterminacy?)

But I wasn't aware Bruno thought any differently. Are you sure this isn't
just a semantic disagreement?

-- 
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: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

[LizR]

On 23 June 2014 11:29, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> > Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
> > spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
> > ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
> > green is a relatively insignificant blip?
> >
> > After all we only see less than one light octave. There's a LOT of EM
> > radiation out there we can't detect.
> >
> > Or am I barking up the wrong tree? :-)
> >
>
> Not really - the peak of the solar spectrum is yellow light. The IR and UV
> portions are relatively small components, and what little there is is
> further
> absorbed by water vapour and the ozone layer respectively.
>

That doesn't surprise me. I thought there must be a good evolutionary
reason why most animals, insects, reptiles etc see light in roughly the
visible spectrum, with a few exceptions.

So plants missing out on green IS a mystery, at least to me.

-- 
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

[LizR]

On 23 June 2014 04:53,  wrote:

> I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his "Theory of
> Everything" that science has become too complicated and that we need "to
> discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad
> principal by everyone, not just a few scientists".


Theories tend to become easier to understand with time, as more people
popularise them and find new ways to explain them. As already mentioned,
this has happened to GR, which has gone from 3 people understanding it,
allegedly, to now - 100 years later - anyone who is prepared to take the
time and effort having a good chance.

Not so sure about QM, although supposedly anyone into new age nonsense has
a stake in 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: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:19:24PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
> spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
> ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
> green is a relatively insignificant blip?
> 
> After all we only see less than one light octave. There's a LOT of EM
> radiation out there we can't detect.
> 
> Or am I barking up the wrong tree? :-)
> 

Not really - the peak of the solar spectrum is yellow light. The IR and UV
portions are relatively small components, and what little there is is further
absorbed by water vapour and the ozone layer respectively.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

[John Mikes]

Maybe a BLACK tree? how 'bout "barking" in humanly non-audible
spectrum-parts of the frequencies? dogs may hear it. How 'bout if your
question touches items beyond our humanly accessible/accessed inventory?
Consider my appreciative reply within those parts.
JM


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:19 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
> spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
> ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
> green is a relatively insignificant blip?
>
> After all we only see less than one light octave. There's a LOT of EM
> radiation out there we can't detect.
>
> Or am I barking up the wrong tree? :-)
>
> --
> 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: Disproving physicalism from COMP

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Jun 2014, at 05:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/19/2014 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Why is that a contradiction?



In fact there are two contradictions.

I explain the contradiction which is relate to about.


'To prove A', classically,  is equivalent to showing that ~A leads  
to a contradiction,  that is  ~A is inconsistent. This mirrors the  
fact that []A is the same as ~<> ~A.


To prove the existence of anything is equivalent to prove that its  
non existence leads to a contradiction, or "0=1".


So can you prove that the non-existence of Bruno Marchal leads to  
"0=1"?



I bet I can't.








So you cannot prove *validly* the existence of Primitive Matter  
(PM, hereafter) and keep your belief (above) that the non existence  
of primitive matter is consistent with arithmetic.


That's only true if you prove the existence of PM from the same  
axioms as arithmetic.


+ any amount of finite observations, and theories on them using  
computable relations. That can include the ostention argument, or the  
knock the table argument. If valid, it works in arithmetic, through  
the infinitely many diophantine approximations with or without oracles.






And why shouldn't PM exist without a proof.


My point was just that a proof would prove nothing. Step 8 weakens  
only the "explanatory" power of that notion. Physics never relies on  
it, really. Only the materialist theologian or metaphysician relies on  
it, to make us unique or special, or something.



Bruno






Brent

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

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


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



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

Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP

[Bruno Marchal]

On 20 Jun 2014, at 01:20, Russell Standish wrote:


On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 07:53:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:






And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove*
the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact.


I played the devil advocate. I put my foot in Peter Jones' food, and
imagine he could convince us of the existence of primitive matter,
and from that I get a contradiction.

In the case such a "valid" proof exist, it is just trivial to make a
mechanical procedure to find it, that's why I said any zombie can
find it. Validity is a recursive/decidable/total-computable/sigma_0
notion, unlike provability, which is sigma_1 (partial-computable,
semi-decidable), and consistency, which is pi_1 (like Riemann
Hypothesis).



Ah, yes I see that now. I guess I was implicitly assuming that such a
proof didn't necessarily exist. Non-existence of the proof does not
entail that primitive matter doesn't exist.

But I understand you've now shown that such a proof cannot exist. I
wasn't party to your conversations with Peter Jones (I probably  
skipped

over them at the time when they got interminably long), so cannot
comment how that result fits in with that discussion. But I don't see
how you parlay this into a proof of step 8.


It's nice that the misunderstanding is cleared up.

I have to think more.

If primitive matter existed, and if it has a role for consciousness,  
or for consciousness instantiation, step 8, and the argument above,  
makes that role very mysterious, so much that it is not clear why we  
could still say yes to the doctor in virtue of correct digital  
rendering.


Then that primitive matter should be detectible by the comp argument,  
so the argument for reifying "primitive matter" is made into an  
argument of not searching to test its existence, which is unscientific.


But I have to clarify the relation between both arguments. No doubt.

Best,

Bruno





--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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.


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



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

Re: Selecting your future branch

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Jun 2014, at 19:49, John Clark wrote:


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR  wrote:

>>  the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as  
Bruno says.


> I agree,

Good.

> but

But? There is no "but", Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game  
over.


OK. That would be a good exercise for Liz. Showing that there is a 1-3  
confusion here (is it volontarily?).


I predict only "0.5" in most diaries.  The prediction is about the  
first person experience, as seen from the first person themselves,  
which are the one writing either M, or W, and never both in their  
histories. Bruno predicts 1.0 only in the 3p-diary.


I told you before, you don't do the thought experience. You put your  
foot out of the shoes after the duplication. Both the W-guy and the M- 
guy get one bit of information from their first person experience. If  
a population of machines are duplicated, the FPI is locally third  
person sharable, like in QM.


Bruno






> I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In practice Mr H and  
the quantum physicist both assign probabilities retroactively,


Since they both involve probabilities the 2 experiments must  be  
repeated many times to test the underlying theoretical predictions,  
the 2 slit experiment to test the MWI and Bruno's thought experiment  
to test his Universal Dance Association theory. When you repeat the  
2 slit experiment you find that sometimes the electron went through  
slit X and sometimes it did not, but no matter how often you repeat  
Bruno's thought experiment you ALWAYS find that Mr. You (or Mrs.  
You) sees Moscow. The results of these experiments tell us that the  
MWI might be true but Bruno's Universal Dance Association theory is  
definitely wrong because it made the wrong prediction.


> I know that the MWI says I will do all sorts of bizarre things in  
the next second


And Mrs. I will indeed do all sorts of bizarre things in the next  
second.


> including spontaneously being teleported to Helsinki

True, although Mrs I also never saw Helsinki and was instead  
spontaneously being teleported to Moscow. This would be a very odd  
situation but it is NOT a logical paradox because Mrs. I HAS BEEN  
DUPLICATED.


> but I act just as though I only have one future.

Acting as if you have only one future is not the same as having only  
one future, that's why the MWI isn't intuitively obvious to everybody.


> The probability assignment question is only a psychological matter

Until about 90 years ago physicists would say that all probability  
is just a psychological matter, it's just a measure of our  
ignorance; then they said probability is inherent to the thing  
itself, but if the MWI turns out to be true then probability goes  
back to being subjective.


> Bruno is only using it to illustrate that duplication gives the  
effect of apparent indeterminacy, just as it does in the MWI.


No, Bruno has said over and over that he has found some new sort of  
indeterminacy that is fundamentally different from Turing style  
indeterminacy or
Heisenberg style indeterminacy, I say it's just the same old  
indeterminacy.


  John K Clark

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

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


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



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

Re: Selecting your future branch

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Jun 2014, at 19:25, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


> You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we  
were more than three to show you that in each case, you were  
confusing 1-views and 3-views.


That was your one and only retort in our debate, no explanation just  
a repeat of the mantra, you really should get a rubber stamp made of  
"you're confusing 1-views and 3-views".  And yet I would humbly  
submit that there is not a single person on planet Earth who  
"confuses the 1-view from the 3-view"; or at least nobody this side  
of a looney bin.


I have never said that you confuse the 1-view and the 3-view all the  
time. I said that you ignore the definition I gave, and make the  
confusion, always once, at different places, in any of your  
"refutation" of step 3.


Yes, it is easy notion, although in science we use precise definition  
(here provided by the diaries accompanying the teleportation), and  
then as it is easy, no one buy your "refutation".






>> a proof is built on the foundations of previous steps therefor  
it would be idiotic to keep reading a proof, any proof, after a  
mistake has been found.


> This means you don't suspect errors in the sequel. Nice.

I have no idea if you made additional errors and I don't care, it  
doesn't matter how strong the walls of a skyscraper are if it's  
built on top of a mound of jello it's going to come crashing down.  
After an error has been made in a proof everything that follows is  
just gibberish.


Each time we showed you where you made the 1-3 confusion, we get only  
insults as explanation.



Bruno







  John K Clark







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

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


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



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

Re: Selecting your future branch

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:15 AM, LizR  wrote:

>>  the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as Bruno
>> says.
>>
>
> > I agree,
>

Good.

> but
>

But? There is no "but", Bruno predicted 0.5, we observe 1.0, game over.

> I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In practice Mr H and the
> quantum physicist both assign probabilities retroactively,
>

Since they both involve probabilities the 2 experiments must  be repeated
many times to test the underlying theoretical predictions, the 2 slit
experiment to test the MWI and Bruno's thought experiment to test his
Universal Dance Association theory. When you repeat the 2 slit experiment
you find that sometimes the electron went through slit X and sometimes it
did not, but no matter how often you repeat Bruno's thought experiment you
ALWAYS find that Mr. You (or Mrs. You) sees Moscow. The results of these
experiments tell us that the MWI might be true but Bruno's Universal Dance
Association theory is definitely wrong because it made the wrong
prediction.


> > I know that the MWI says I will do all sorts of bizarre things in the
> next second
>

And Mrs. I will indeed do all sorts of bizarre things in the next second.

> including spontaneously being teleported to Helsinki
>

True, although Mrs I also never saw Helsinki and was instead spontaneously
being teleported to Moscow. This would be a very odd situation but it is
NOT a logical paradox because Mrs. I HAS BEEN DUPLICATED.

> but I act just as though I only have one future.
>

Acting as if you have only one future is not the same as having only one
future, that's why the MWI isn't intuitively obvious to everybody.

> The probability assignment question is only a psychological matter
>

Until about 90 years ago physicists would say that all probability is just
a psychological matter, it's just a measure of our ignorance; then they
said probability is inherent to the thing itself, but if the MWI turns out
to be true then probability goes back to being subjective.

> Bruno is only using it to illustrate that duplication gives the effect of
> apparent indeterminacy, just as it does in the MWI.
>

No, Bruno has said over and over that he has found some new sort
of indeterminacy that is fundamentally different from Turing style
indeterminacy or
Heisenberg style indeterminacy, I say it's just the same old indeterminacy.

  John K Clark

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

Re: Selecting your future branch

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:

PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.  
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first  
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original  
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the "reversal" - the argument  
that we don't need a physical universe).


I might add perhaps that the reversal appears already at the step  
seven (and this shows also what Tegmark missed, at least in some of  
its "multiverse level protocol".


But to conclude the comp reversal at this point, does not follow  
logically, by the small primitive universe assumption.


Given that the math already gives the clues of a quantum reality, we  
can already believe that the small universe move is rather ad hoc, but  
what the step 8 (MGA) explains, is that the small universe move can  
protect physicalism + computationalism (without FPI on UD*), but only  
in still adding non Turing emulable quality to matter.


This is just to help you for the step 8. Sometimes people put too much  
in step 8, like if I was saying that comp makes primitive matter  
logically impossible, when it only makes primitive matter into a God- 
of-the-gap or a stop-doing-research type of move.





Step 3, iirc, is just the demonstration of first person  
indeterminacy, which is I would think no more contraversial here  
than it is in Everett.


Yes. Quentin explained this point more than once to John Clark,  
without success.


Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: Selecting your future branch

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Jun 2014, at 02:00, LizR wrote:

PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.  
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first  
two steps. Most people either disagree with the original  
assumption(s), or go for the MGA (i.e. the "reversal" - the argument  
that we don't need a physical universe). Step 3, iirc, is just the  
demonstration of first person indeterminacy, which is I would think  
no more contraversial here than it is in Everett.


Nice to hear this.

Bruno






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

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


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



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

Re: O-machines

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Jun 2014, at 00:38, LizR wrote:

As far as I can see the only connection here is the fact they both  
used the letter O. O-regions are interesting of course but don't  
appear to be relevant to the current discussion?


On the subject of O-machines, in the case of Olympia I believe this  
is a TM with access to a trace from another TM. Why would a TM which  
is able to read in data constitute an oracle? Can't TMs generally  
read in data from an outside source, and if not, what does that do  
to the MGA?


Nothing. I think the author missed Maudlin's point, and Turing's  
notion of oracle. More in my preceding post on this.


Bruno





On 19 June 2014 01:30, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:
More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were  
conjectured about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf



-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 4:54 am
Subject: Re: O-machines

Mind you anyone who uses "The Cyberiad" for his names (or indeed  
"The Sandman" for that matter) is OK with me.



On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR  wrote:
Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia  
performs.
In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no  
amount
of fiddling with machine tables will suffice to improve a TM to  
Trurl’s level.


Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in  
the oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a  
(very large) number which is equivalent to the result of a  
particular computation?


Or does it???



On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the  
argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me,  
he posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains  
the result of the halting problem... and because such table is a  
lookup table, all lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem  
correct to me.


Regards,
Quentin


2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :

Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's  
Olympia argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?


http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

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.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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



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

Re: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Jun 2014, at 22:49, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is  
"löbian" in the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb  
rule:  if K proves  []A -> A, for some modal formula A, then K  
proves A. []([]A->A)->[]A is true about K.


I will take a look when I have the times, and I hope it is not  
"trivial", as K is indeed very weak and very general, and  I could  
argue that there is some substance (pun) in Birkhoff and von Neumann.


I felt a bit uneasy about this going through the paper with  
"refutation" ringing in my head, so any observations are most  
welcome :-) PGC



Quantum logic usually designates the logical structure associated to  
the lattice of the subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert  
space, where lives the atomic physical states (the rays, or unit  
vectors, the so called pure states). A base of pure states define an  
observable, and the linear structure of the Hilbert spaces determine  
the yes-no logic obeyed by the observable. Typical axioms of  
classical logic are violated, like the distributivity (a & (b V c)  
is no more equivalent with (a & b) V (a & c). The logic is rich, but  
miss the tensor products to get close to the quantum formalism per  
se. Also, von Neumann algebras and non commutative geometry  
formalism can be related, although nothing is very easy there. QL  
can also be related to quantum computation, but here too, the  
relation are not trivial at all.


When I say that comp + classical theory of knowledge is refutable,

I'm not sure we're on the right level here, as I wasn't precise  
enough. Apologies.


My misunderstanding. No problem :)





I meant the paper's claim that Van Neumann thesis is refuted, that  
logic of QM is non-classical. I think I can see the outlines of the  
point, but my answer would still be "yes and no!' at this point. PGC


Indeed von Neumann theorem, actually, made hidden variable impossible  
(and thus classical logic irretrievable), but his theorem was  
"refuted" by some counter-examples (to be short). Those were non- 
local, and later Bell will show that the (local) non-locality of  
quantum mechanics is testable, and has been tested (Aspect, but also  
many quantum gates) confirming the non classical logic of the local  
observations.
Similar no-go theorem in quantum mechanics have been found like the  
Kochen-Specker theorem.
The many-worlds, saves locality and determinacy for the multiverse,  
but the appearances of non-locality and indeterminacy are explained by  
the relative states of the universal schroedinger wave or heisenberg  
matrix.


And then, as you know, my point is that is that if mechanism is true,  
the heisenberg matrix can be extracted from a sort of statistics on  
the universal numbers' possible "dreams" (computations seen from the  
1p). I apply math on the mathematician (the dreamer) like Everett  
applied physics on the physicians.


Bruno




I mean that you can compare the QL infered by empiric studies, and  
the QL given by Z1*, X1*, S4Grz1.
van Fraassen wrote a paper entitled "the labyrinth of quantum  
logics", but comp provides only three one, and it should be compared  
to the more reasonable (empirically) quantum logic. the comparison  
must be done in term of the "measure one" logic, not necessarily in  
term of this or that formalism, which can ofetn be related by  
representation theorems.


UDA should explain why we have to proceed in this way, and the  
advantage is that we get the nuances, on the physical reality,  
between the core physics, the geography, the communicable, the  
sharable, etc.


The translation in arithmetic is made necessary by the self- 
reference incompleteness (Gödel, Löb) and the nuances on provability  
brought by that incompleteness.


May be I am quick  explaining the importance of the logic of self- 
reference, but UDA is based only on self-referential question (like  
probability of surviving here or there).


Feel free to ask for any precision. (Just expect some answer delays  
due to June business).


Bruno





He might also be fuzzy on observer. The comp hypothesis  
automatically enrich the normal and non normal modalities.


Bruno


On 16 Jun 2014, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:


This may be of interest.

Brent


Quantum Logic as Classical Logic
Simon Kramer
(Submitted on 13 Jun 2014)

We propose a semantic representation of the standard quantum  
logic QL within the classical, normal modal logic K via a lattice- 
embedding of orthomodular lattices into Boolean algebras with one  
K-modal operator. Thus the classical logic K is a completion of  
the quantum logic QL. In other words, we refute Birkhoff and von  
Neumann's classic thesis that the logic (the formal character) of  
Quantum Mechanics woul

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[jross]

I greatly appreciate the criticism of you, Liz and  John Clark, but I have
seen nothing  that has caused me to back down on any portion of my theory.
 I never expected that my defense of my theory would be easy, since I am
up against the Standard Model and Einstein's theories of relativity.

I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his "Theory of
Everything" that science has become too complicated and that we need "to
discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad
principal by everyone, not just a few scientists".

For more than 13 years I have been trying to discover that theory.  I
think I either have it or am pretty close.  I think there is a good chance
that this group could help me improve on my theory if its members would
begin to look at it more positively than they have in the past, at least
to the extent of allowing me to send the really interested people a copy
of my book.

John Ross



>
>
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 19 June 2014 14:34, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
 On 19 June 2014 02:01,  wrote:

> My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
> relativity theories is faulty.
>

 In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all
 non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is
 based
 on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely
 falling observers. What's wrong with the logic?

>
> Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by
> gravity.
> Clock speeds may be affected but not time.  Time passes at the same
> rate
> everywhere in our Universe.
>

 Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the
 link I posted?

 If not, here is a direct link to it ...  http://www.astronomy.ohio-
 state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html

 Look in particular at the "photon clock" and tell me where the flaw in
 the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people
 who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may
 become
 worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation

>>>
>>> p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm
>>> definitely
>>> not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of
>>> the
>>> people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in
>>> my
>>> eyes during the time I've been
>>>
>>
>> Thank you, I appreciate that :-)
>>
>>
>>> (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of
>>> ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to
>>> justify ongoing attention for long).
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that.
>>
>>>
>>> But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have
>>> been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a
>>> direct
>>> interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And
>>> mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about
>>> crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I
>>> would
>>> strongly guess including you...
>>>
>>> John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due
>>> to
>>> much evidence of long term hard work at his end,
>>> however...unfortunately
>>> and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top
>>> risks we all face when our ideas  for whatever reason have been either
>>> exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I
>>> believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too
>>> well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found
>>> in
>>> fan clubs.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a
>> work
>> of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid
>> developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve
>> of
>> the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries
>> back)
>> and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a
>> few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I
>> hover
>> on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense...
>>
>>>
>>> Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be
>>> influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So
>>> that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that
>>> we
>>> see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something
>>> like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them
>>> when I
>>> address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with
>>> a
>>> silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of
>>> salivating
>>> wolves peeping through a bush to w

Re: Selecting your future branch

[John Clark]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 6:29 PM,  wrote:

>>> I won't enter with you again on this debate
>>>
>>
>> >> Coward.
>>
>
> > Call him a coward johnnie boy
>

OK I will ghibbsaboy.

> wot about you?
>

At least I have enough courage to sign my real name, the name on my birth
certificate is John K Clark, what's yours? I'm not reluctant to tell people
my real name because I'm not ashamed of anything I wrote. Are you?

 > I just went to that trouble to explain why your core reasoning about
> humans not 'seeing' consciousness  does not equate with evolution and what
> it can 'see'.
>

I assume you're talking about your June 18 post where you said:

"I would certain admit I'm not at a point of being willing to BEHAVE and/or
be purely motivated by, an adequately detached/objective
positioning regarding what took place in that thread, particularly toward
the end. What I could promise but not be willing to provide or evidence of,
is that already by the time that closing phase began, I had actually been
through a process at my end, of regarding the overall thread as a failure,
and been through and completing a process of analysing that, purely from
the perspective (i.e. as a principle of the process) taking full
responsibility. Not for some angelic purity, but because there were
aspects in play there, involving goals, that are important to me to
understand in terms of barriers and skills and competencies at my
end. There can be no interest in what other people do wrong when there is
commitment to a goal. And in that process I identified several - mostly
occurring very early - strategies that I knew would create certain
impressions, but that I felt would fall away once things became clearer. I
was wrong..for large reasons nothing to do with individuals here (because
that wouldn't be interesting either). Wrong because certain impressions can
be very very 'sticky', particulary first ones.  A case of a well known
truth, missed due to a different and new context (for me)."


Do me a favor and read your above paragraph aloud, it's been several days
since you wrote it so I'm curious, today can even YOU make any sense out of
it? The reason I didn't respond is that if you put a gun to my head I
couldn't say what the hell you're babbling about. However if you're talking
about some other post, a more coherent one (have you really written any?)
then I somehow missed it, please repeat it here. If it contains more than
bafflegab and personal insults then I promise I will respond.

  John K Clark

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

Re: O-machines

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were  
conjectured about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf



?

I don't see any relation between Oracle (in Turing sense) and O-regions.

An oracle O is only an infinite information (a real number, or a  
subset of N), usually not mechanically (recursively) enumerable, and  
an O-machine is a machine which is allow to consult the oracle (to get  
an answer for question like "does n belong to O?") in the course of  
its computation. For each such computation the machine can only  
consult the oracle a finite number of time.


It is usually used to show that the arithmetical gods can't overcome  
incompleteness. I mean, if O is a set definable in arithmetic, even  
strongly not computable (like sigma_n or pi_n for high n), the O- 
machine can't generate the arithmetical truth. God, The One,  
Arithmetical truth, is (are) not arithmetical.


Bruno







-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 4:54 am
Subject: Re: O-machines

Mind you anyone who uses "The Cyberiad" for his names (or indeed  
"The Sandman" for that matter) is OK with me.



On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR  wrote:
Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia  
performs.
In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no  
amount
of fiddling with machine tables will suffice to improve a TM to  
Trurl’s level.


Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in  
the oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a  
(very large) number which is equivalent to the result of a  
particular computation?


Or does it???



On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the  
argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me,  
he posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains  
the result of the halting problem... and because such table is a  
lookup table, all lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem  
correct to me.


Regards,
Quentin


2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :

Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's  
Olympia argument, which  of course also applies to the MGA?


http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

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.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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



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

Re: Pluto bounces back!

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

The blasphemy problem concerning religious text that was brought up by
Bruno in this thread, is present in Christianity/bible. What I have
difficulty understanding is how people who know that their God has
irreducible attributes that we cannot begin to comprehend, stick so close
to a text, that "uses God's name in vain" by telling us how to comprehend
the world, the role of humans, and God. A text about God itself violates
the greatness of its own god (if god were something we can comprehend, we
can write about god... if not, why not remain silent and do the work?).

The only theologians that I respect therefore, are the ones that tend to be
not overly literal: they read other books, the books of the "competition",
even listen to the devil if that principle presents itself... if only to
keep the pledge that one does not perceive any book or voice to be the
"book of answers", and in so doing blaspheme one's god in personal vanity,
advertising them in vulgar fashion everywhere, and therefore pretend to
know what we cannot.

I can therefore relate to preference therefore of old mystics, shamans,
negative theologies like Neo-Platonists, Buddhists etc, because they have
this safety switch, that prevents using some interpretation of God, as
weapon against others and to cause pain in "good clothing".

My question to you Samiya: How does Quran meet this problem? Does it meet
the problem of overly literal interpretation, and all the pain that can
cause? PGC


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> Dear John,
> According to what I read in the Quran and my understanding of it, all of
> us humans, men and women, are in pledge for our beliefs and our deeds
> (Quran 52:21), and will benefit from our truthfulness (Quran 5:119). We are
> all being tested, and all those who pass this terrestrial exam and get
> accepted in Heaven, will find their reward, far above and beyond their
> expectations and imagination (Quran 32:17), awaiting them! God is keeping
> an accurate account of all thoughts and deeds, and the record doesn't leave
> out a single thing (Quran 18:49).
> In Quran, 66:10-12, God gives the example of four women: two who
> disbelieved (the wife of Noah and and wife of Lot) who will not be able to
> enter Heaven in spite of having been married to righteous persons in this
> world, and God gives the example of two believing women (Aasiya, the queen
> of Pharoah, and Maryam, the daughter of Imran / mother of Jesus) who will
> enter Heaven because of their righteousness.
> While many verses speak of fair and just reward for all believing men and
> women, 'huris' are mentioned in only four of the 6000+ verses of the Quran.
> Mostly 'huris' are understood to be females, but I'm not too sure about
> that, as the word itself is neuter gender in Arabic. Whether we humans will
> retain our genders or not in Heaven and if there will be sex / procreation
> in Heaven is also subject to speculation. Honestly, I don't know, but I
> trust that all those who are accepted in Heaven, will be in a perfect state
> of joy, comfort, happiness and pleasure. When I dwell upon the various
> verses of the Quran giving a preview of Heaven, I think the human soul's
> yearning for the perfect person, its soulmate, will be fulfilled.
> As regards the terrestrial portion of your question, men and women are but
> two types of humans, one of whom is responsible for the financial and
> security needs of the family (the man), while the other (the woman) has the
> domestic responsibility. In many ways, women enjoy a privileged position. I
> attempted to answer a similar question some years ago, you may wish to read
> this:
> http://islam-qna.blogspot.com/2008/11/to-be-or-not-to-be-equal-comments-on.html
>
> I hope I've answered your main question. Please feel free to ask further.
> Reproduced below are few relevant verses:
> 5:119 Allah will say, "This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from
> their truthfulness." For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which
> rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with
> them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment. [Translator: Sahih
> International]
> 6:32 And the worldly life is not but amusement and diversion; but the home
> of the Hereafter is best for those who fear Allah , so will you not reason?
> [Translator: Sahih International]
> 9:71 The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They
> enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give
> zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Those - Allah will have mercy upon
> them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise. [Translator: Sahih
> International]
> 18:49 And the record [of deeds] will be placed [open], and you will see
> the criminals fearful of that within it, and they will say, "Oh, woe to us!
> What is this book that leaves nothing small or great except that it has
> enumerated it?" And they will find what they did present [before them]. An

Re: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

[LizR]

Is it possible that plants are actually efficient in other parts of the
spectrum that we can't see? Maybe they utilise a lot of infra red and
ultraviolet, and the fact that there is a missed opportunity in visible
green is a relatively insignificant blip?

After all we only see less than one light octave. There's a LOT of EM
radiation out there we can't detect.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree? :-)

-- 
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: Selecting your future branch

[LizR]

On 21 June 2014 16:00, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>>
>>>  >>> that doesn't actually alter the logic of the argument, which is
 only concerned with what he reports in his diary.

>>>
>>> >> He? 3 people are keeping a diary, one writes "I'm still here in
>>> Helsinki and nothing has happened, maybe the matter transmitting machine
>>> broke down".  Another writes in his diary "I'm in Moscow and it's dark and
>>> snowing". And the third writes in his diary "I'm in Washington and it's
>>> bright and sunny".  So which one is Mr. He?
>>>
>>> > They all are, surely?
>>
>
> If so then the probability that Mr. He will see Moscow is 1.0 not 0.5 as
> Bruno says.
>

I agree, but I don't see that it invalidates his argument. In practice Mr H
and the quantum physicist both assign probabilities retroactively, and from
that perspective 0.5 makes sense. Hence they both reason (incorrectly) that
the probability must have been 0.5 beforehand, because they have what I
suppose could be called a common sense intuition that "they" will only end
up in one branch. This is wrong, according to the MWI, but it's very hard
not to think like that. For example I know that the MWI says I will do all
sorts of bizarre things in the next second, including spontaneously being
teleported to Helsinki - but I act just as though I only have one future.

However I don't see how any of this invalidates Bruno's argument. The
probability assignment question is only a psychological matter, not
something that has any fundamental importance to Bruno's thesis. As far as
I can see Bruno is only using it to illustrate that duplication gives the
effect of apparent indeterminacy, just as it does in the MWI.

-- 
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: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes

 

Dear Chris,

not that your answer sounds a bit vague - I have deeper problems.

 

I can understand your point of view – though I am not quite certain what it is 
either. However basic terms like “black” need to be commonly understood (at 
least to some threshold of shared meaning) in order for a symbolic system that 
employs them to be effective as a means of bridging the gulf from mind to mind.

Not questioning your right to be skeptical, and in fact am appreciative of the 
perspective you bring, but isn’t it also important for there to be broad 
agreement on the meaning of terms?

Cheers,

Chris

 

In my lately (2+decades) absobed agnostic views I find our science a bit 
incomplete as explanatory ideas (with mathematical underlying) upon poorly 
understood (iff...?) phenomena adjusted both into the previous images AND the 
capabilities of our present mentality (previous meaning here: based on an 
inventory of old, explained as well on the basis of the THEN theories we could 
manage). 

I find the dark things (matter, energy, hole) exciting and brilliant. Not 
'real'. 

They serve well in bringing our incomplete theories into a fit (just as the 
'inflation' after the Big Bang etc.).

As a former chemist (1/2c polymer pioneering) I do not believe (my own?) 
molecules of which I derived implemented technologies. They are maybe-s. How 
'bout infinite complexities?

 

Throw in infinite combinations of basic physical constants into the mix of the 
multiverse and what do you get?

How much can the brain contain before triggering whiteout --  total information 
overload inducing sudden mental paralysis? I jest but it truly can become mind 
boggling.

Cheers,

Chris

 

Best regards

 

John M 

 

On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Mikes
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: Solar power's "bright future" [ may be brighter thanks to us aping 
the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

 

They ARE black! Our eyes err. - Without joke:

how about those plants that are not green? do they have a chlorophyl 

variation that is not green? or a different photosynth-mechsm?

JM

 

Not sure I understand what you are saying – How I have understood the terms -- 
darkness (or black materials as well) is the absence of photons, or for a black 
material the absorption of incident photons.  Plants reflect a large number of 
photons. This glaring (well reflective at least LOL) sub-optimal utilization of 
available spectrum does seem to indicate that this could be the result of a 
local evolutionary optima as Russell suggested. 

My – off the top of my head guess – would be that the genetics and/or the 
molecular machinery of chloroplasts have evolved into this corner and cannot 
back out of this local optimization without breaking the machinery in place 
that is necessary in order to sustain the organism. Even with this sub-optimal 
apparatus green plants have done well for themselves on earth – a life form 
just needs to be good enough to outcompete the alternatives and fill an 
environmental niche (until it meets its match or the edge boundaries of the 
niche in which it has a competitive advantage)

Cheers,

Chris

 

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:15 PM, LizR  wrote:

I have long thought that plants should be black, too, for this reason. Anyone 
know why not?

 

On 20 June 2014 11:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 wrote:

Perhaps because the two mechanisms function quite differently and apparently 
evolved independently. But I also sometimes wonder why in the many hundreds of 
millions of years of time that no species has found a way to utilize the 
missing chunk of spectrum.

A perfect plant would have jet black leaves -- and use photons across all 
wavelengths of the spectrum. Then there truly would be black forests.

Chris

 

 

Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook 

 



 

 image

 

 Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook

Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner 
independent of chlorophyll. Read more about bacteriorhodopsin in the Bou...




 

 View on www.boundless.com

Preview by Yahoo




 


Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner 

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 10:04:48AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Russell Standish 
> wrote:
> 
> >> Mathematica discovers new solutions to Differential Equations that have
> >> never been solved before every hour of every day; if you mean basic
> >> techniques for solving Differential Equations the most important ones were
> >> discovered in the 19th and early 20th century.
> >>
> >
> > > It most certainly does not.
> 
> 
> It most certainly does not what? 

Does not find new solutions. See above.

> You work with computers so you know that
> when a computer finds what 848922457 times 320559618 is it isn't able to do
> so because at some point in the past a human multiplied those 2 numbers
> together with pencil and paper and then put the answer in the computer's
> memory (although I bet many people, perhaps even most, still think that's
> how computers work).
> 

Absolutely. And nobody would say the computer is working out new sums
(or products for that matter).


> 
> > > It does not find *new* previously unknown solutions.
> 
> 
> It depends on what you mean, if you mean important new GENERAL techniques
> for solving differential equations no human or computer has found one of
> those for almost a century.
> 
> > A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient
> > patience,
> 
> 
> A monkey could type out the complete works of Shakespeare if he had
> sufficient patience, but a person with a IQ of 80 could NOT solve
> intricate

Performing an algorithm is not the same as randomly hitting keys on a
typewriter. Whether monkeys could ever perform an arbitrary algorithm
is a moot point, but I'm sure any human capable of language can do so,
again - given sufficient patience and motivation.

> equations who's exact solutions take up 3 pages of small type as
> Mathamatica can, he'd very soon get hopelessly lost; a man who never made a
> mistake when running down a logical labyrinth of astronomical complexity
> wouldn't have a IQ of 80. Well OK, Mr. IQ80 could solve it, but for every
> correct solution he found he'd also come up with 6.02*10^23 incorrect
> solutions.
> 

Not if he followed the algorithm correctly.

> > I think you are confusing the level where creativity lies.
> 
> 
> My point is that there is no absolute level where creativity lies.
> 

That is a different point to asserting Mathematica is creative. I have
no problem with you stating that creativity is a difficult concept to
define.

I also have no problem with claims that some computer programs are
creative. John Koza's Genetic Programming seems like a strong
candidate. Nevertheless, there are strong quantifiable differences
between all computer processes studied to date, and say biological or
technical evolution, which appear to have something to do with the
nebulous concept of creativity. Finding out how to make those
computational processes exhibit the same quantifiable attributes as
those other processes will certainly tell us something important, and
I have a hunch it will lead us to a better understanding of creativity.

> 
> > > Renoir paining "A luncheon on a boating party" is a creative act. A
> > photocopier doing the same physical job millions of times faster is not
> > being
> > creative.
> >
> 
> The meaning of the word "creativity" changes about as often as light
> flickers off the glassware in Renoir's painting; creativity is whatever a
> computer isn't good at. Yet.
> 

The definition of Life also changes as often as a new textbook get
published. Does this make biology a pseudo-science?


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

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.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.