Solomonoff Induction
Are there any practical implementations of Solomonoff Induction on a hypothesis space of bounded length programs? Like with actual code? -- 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: Solomonoff Induction
It is difficult, since the original solomonoff theory of inductive inference about the next value of a sequence only says how to calculate the inference once we have obtained the set of algorithms that agree with the known part of the sequence. It say nothing about how to obtain the algorithms. But the philosophical implications of the theory are deep. I know that schmidhuber worked together with solomonoff and did a lot of practical research on machine learning (which is what induction is about) http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ 2015-01-29 9:30 GMT+01:00 Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com: Are there any practical implementations of Solomonoff Induction on a hypothesis space of bounded length programs? Like with actual code? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:46, Samiya Illias wrote (to Chris): Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? Very good, and common, definition. It is in most of my theological dictionaries. Note that the Universe is itself among the things which may, or may not, exist. Glad you agree. Most people are okay with Creator but not okay with Sustainer... The raison d'être of everything? OK. :) The unanswerable and unexplainable first reason? This is saying more than needed, but I agree, and it follows from the definition above if we assume computationalism. Hmm.. Who chooses to remain hidden but Whose presence cannot be denied? OK. We might be able to explain why he chooses to remain hidden, once we agree on some definition and axioms. My favourite text does contain some clues such as: 1. that God is the 'noor' [spiritual light?, radiation?, ??? http://quran.com/24/35 ] of the Heavens and Earth; 2. vision perceives Him not but He perceives all [http://quran.com/6/103 ]; 3. that when Moses asked to see God, he was told that if the mountain can bear to see God, then perhaps Moses might be able to see God [ http://quran.com/7/143 ]; 4. it is not for any 'bashr' [mortal?] to communicate with God except by revelation or from behind a veil or through a messenger [ http://quran.com/42/51] 5. and that God's command descends through the entire creation, and He has encompassed everything in His knowledge [http://quran.com/65/12 ] The question that nobody can begin to answer?! I can agree, but to be honest, I am not always sure you do agree yourself with this, due to some attachment you illustrate with literal interpretation of some human text. Some attachment? Great attachment!!! I am quite convinced that it not a human text, and the more I study it, the more fascinatingly convincing I find it to be [http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ ] And why nobody can answer? Simply because God is not like anything else [ http://quran.com/112/ ] Samiya I agree those text does not give the answer, though, but it looks like it answers them implicitly, in some way, which can be very misleading if taken literally. It introduces the argument-per-authority (non valid) in the discourse. We can see how some non-believers can exploit that, for special interests. Bruno Samiya Brent Jason -- 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 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
RE: The TPP
Transnational corporate globalism, has not turned out to be all that good for freedom, quality of human life or the environment; it has however been great for the quarterly bottom line… and profit is the only value that seems valued these days. -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0s https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0sask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 ask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 28 Jan 2015, at 18:33, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Cantor brought the contradiction by assuming there is a bijection between N and the set of infinite binary sequences Yes, and then he showed that such an assumption was incorrect by producing a infinite binary sequence that did not correspond to any natural number. The procedure that I use does not assume such bijection. On the contrary, as I said explicitly each finite sequence of digits generated at any time is admitted as being the initial segment of a continuum (uncountable sequence). You can't do hand waving like that in a proof! You've got to show exactly how that uncountably infinitely long sequence was produced. The 01 appearing above is supposed to be an initial segment of one sequence, OK, you gave me 2 elements, but what's the third element in this uncountably infinitely long sequence of yours? I have never pretended that I can enumerate them. I say only that I can generate all of them by dovetailing. The easyness comes from the fact that I generate them all, by zigzagging on their initial fragment. Each initial segment is admittedly denoting its many different precisions. We both agree that the set of binary infinite sequences is uncountable. Cardinality 2^aleph_0. When we say that a program generate a real number, it means that it generates all the initial fragment of that real numbers. Usually, it means also that it generates only that real number. Here the method consists in generating all of them, in that sense of generating all individual sequences pieces by pieces. You can't enumerate the real numbers, but you can still dovetail on all of them. It plays some role in the UDA too. Then I'm even more happy that I stopped reading at step 3. Without succeeding explaining why to anyone. I recall your main error: stopping considering the first person experience after the duplication, despite computationalism provided an excellent approximation good enough for our purpose: the content of the diary. Take the case of the infinite self-duplication, as it illustrates a form of pure randomness: I describe the content of the diaries at each step, and write 0 and 1 instead of W and M. Let us say that the subject is duplicated in room 0 and 1, and he can distinguish them. After the first duplication, we get two different first person experience described in the two diaries: 0 1 After the second duplication, we get the four different first person experience in four diaries: 00 01 10 11 After the third duplication, we get the height first person experiences, described in 8 diaries: 000 001 010 011 100 101 110 111 Simple combinatory argument can explain why, when the iteration grows, most of the 2^n resulting sequence are not algorithmically compressible, and so the average on the first person views in that simple iteration of self-duplication, is indistinguishable from pure randomness. Now, in front of a universal dovetailer, or elementary arithmetic, the matter are no more simple at all. You say that consciousness is the way data feels when treated, but you are unclear if they must be treated by this or that universal machine. There are infinities of universal numbers competing below our substitution level, so what? Associating consciousness and data treatment is nice, but done by which machine(s)? Are you invoking the physical universe? How can a universal digital machine distinguish a physical universe from a non physical universe, like a diophantine emulation of a physical universe (quantum if needed)? Universal machine cannot know which machines they are, nor which universal machine support them, but they can find a bastard calculus (as Plato call it in the Timeaeus, and Plotinus in the two matters Ennead). The computationalist bastard calculus is only the relative computational state probability calculus, which generalizes Everett on all computations in the Church-Turing sense. Physics becomes a self-referential statistics on universal numbers relations. Advantage, thanks to Gödel-Löb-Solovay, we get the distinction between what will be justifiable and what will be not justifiable (which was to be expected for consciousness, truth, etc.). 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.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 29 Jan 2015, at 11:12, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2015, at 11:46, Samiya Illias wrote (to Chris): Why not define God as the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe and Everything Else that is or may exist? Very good, and common, definition. It is in most of my theological dictionaries. Note that the Universe is itself among the things which may, or may not, exist. Glad you agree. Most people are okay with Creator but not okay with Sustainer... I think that without God, we get 0 = 1 in a second. I have more problem with creator. But don't mind. It is very technical. The raison d'être of everything? OK. :) The unanswerable and unexplainable first reason? This is saying more than needed, but I agree, and it follows from the definition above if we assume computationalism. Hmm.. Do you agree that God has either to submit to Truth, or to be Truth? Who chooses to remain hidden but Whose presence cannot be denied? OK. We might be able to explain why he chooses to remain hidden, once we agree on some definition and axioms. My favourite text does contain some clues such as: 1. that God is the 'noor' [spiritual light?, radiation?, ??? http://quran.com/24/35 ] of the Heavens and Earth; 2. vision perceives Him not but He perceives all [http://quran.com/6/103 ]; 3. that when Moses asked to see God, he was told that if the mountain can bear to see God, then perhaps Moses might be able to see God [http://quran.com/7/143 ]; OK. 4. it is not for any 'bashr' [mortal?] to communicate with God except by revelation But with computationalism, in the case of the sound machine, revelation are kept silent. or from behind a veil or through a messenger [http://quran.com/42/51] Who will decide its authority? This is dangerous, the people with bad intention (stealing, controlling others) can use that idea. 5. and that God's command descends through the entire creation, and He has encompassed everything in His knowledge [http://quran.com/ 65/12 ] Well, a lot. Omniscience is self-contradictory. But take that remark as academical, as omniscience makes sense for large domain, just not *everything*. The question that nobody can begin to answer?! I can agree, but to be honest, I am not always sure you do agree yourself with this, due to some attachment you illustrate with literal interpretation of some human text. Some attachment? Great attachment!!! I am quite convinced that it not a human text, May be it is not a human text. But how can you be convinced on this? The Quran is a divine poem. Nothing in a poem should be taken literally. If you take it literally, you do insult all other searchers, because you tell them, we are the one having had the genuine contact with the genuine God. I don't ask you to abandon your faith, but to doubt the literacy of its rendering. and the more I study it, the more fascinatingly convincing I find it to be [http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/ ] You can confirm most theories by selecting facts. It is not a valid procedure. And why nobody can answer? Simply because God is not like anything else [http://quran.com/112/ ] If you want approach the truth, you need more training in the art of doubting. You need to find a morphism (bridge) between your theory, and theories by others. Literalism makes that task impossible, and this is a reason why literal people get violent. They concentrate on the differences instead of looking to the important things they have in common. Bruno Samiya I agree those text does not give the answer, though, but it looks like it answers them implicitly, in some way, which can be very misleading if taken literally. It introduces the argument-per- authority (non valid) in the discourse. We can see how some non- believers can exploit that, for special interests. Bruno Samiya Brent Jason -- 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
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? Tronnies may explain pi's precision.
On 28 Jan 2015, at 19:43, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Note that a theory which would requires nature to exploit infinite precision would entail the falsity of computationalism. Yes, and if the theory was correct it would also prove that the Real Numbers are really real. Ah Really real does mean for you primary physical. So you do assume, in your theory a primary physical universe. In some post you seemed open that this might not be the case. 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: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 01 appearing above is supposed to be an initial segment of one sequence, OK, you gave me 2 elements, but what's the third element in this uncountably infinitely long sequence of yours? I have never pretended that I can enumerate them. I say only that I can generate all of them Then generate the third element. by dovetailing It is not allowed to say in a algorithm after you have completed these infinite number of tasks then do this and such. The easyness comes from the fact that I generate them all, by zigzagging on their initial fragment. Each initial segment is admittedly denoting its many different precisions. So your algorithm will have to perform a infinite number of tasks before it gets around to finding that third element. That's no good. We both agree that the set of binary infinite sequences is uncountable. And you can't find a one to one correspondence between the set of subsets of the Real Numbers and the Real numbers, there will always be a subset of the Real numbers with no corresponding Real number. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The TPP
Spengler, in the decadence of the West says that societies are more like plants. 2015-01-29 22:05 GMT+01:00 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com: People worry that one day machines will take over, and we will become subservient slaves to their ends, that they will set the rules, control the government, and be above the law. We no longer need to fear that day because it already happened, quite some time ago. These machines are corporations: self-sustaining, evolving (in a Darwinian sense), hyper-intelligent, extremely-knowledgeable, immortal, transnational, entities which see and utilize humans as mere cogs in their own machinery. They are independently intelligent entities which we humans think we control, but we no more control them than any cell in our body controls our own personal actions. Jason On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:44 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Transnational corporate globalism, has not turned out to be all that good for freedom, quality of human life or the environment; it has however been great for the quarterly bottom line… and profit is the only value that seems valued these days. -Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0sask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 -- 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. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The TPP
People worry that one day machines will take over, and we will become subservient slaves to their ends, that they will set the rules, control the government, and be above the law. We no longer need to fear that day because it already happened, quite some time ago. These machines are corporations: self-sustaining, evolving (in a Darwinian sense), hyper-intelligent, extremely-knowledgeable, immortal, transnational, entities which see and utilize humans as mere cogs in their own machinery. They are independently intelligent entities which we humans think we control, but we no more control them than any cell in our body controls our own personal actions. Jason On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:44 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Transnational corporate globalism, has not turned out to be all that good for freedom, quality of human life or the environment; it has however been great for the quarterly bottom line… and profit is the only value that seems valued these days. -Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0sask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The TPP
I agree these would exist even if not legally recognized as separate entities. However we should still view them as autonomous and potentially very powerful organisms which operate with their own set of morals which can be quite alien from our own. Nation States can be viewed similarly but I think they're more less adaptable, and perhaps better reflect the will and interests of its subcomponents. Jason On Thursday, January 29, 2015, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/29/2015 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Could Segey Brin and Larray Page wake up one day and decide to shutdown Google and succeed in doing so? I would find such a scenario unlikely to succeed in practice even if they were in their legal rights to do so. Even if they did succeed in closing the doors, a Google2, composed of Google's former employees, would quickly spring up. Sure, but that's because they were organized around certain technologies and products - not because the government granted them incorporation. Suppose there was no such thing as incorporation. There would still be large, somewhat autonomous self-serving organizations. There would just be fewer because they would have to be funded by investors willing to accept liability for the organization. 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: The TPP
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:05 PM Subject: Re: The TPP People worry that one day machines will take over, and we will become subservient slaves to their ends, that they will set the rules, control the government, and be above the law. We no longer need to fear that day because it already happened, quite some time ago. These machines are corporations: self-sustaining, evolving (in a Darwinian sense), hyper-intelligent, extremely-knowledgeable, immortal, transnational, entities which see and utilize humans as mere cogs in their own machinery. They are independently intelligent entities which we humans think we control, but we no more control them than any cell in our body controls our own personal actions. But in practice corporations often do not behave intelligently by even the most forgiving definition of intelligent behavior -- corporations may have been accorded a pseudo eternal existence as legal entities (in some countries such as the US), but in practice they act as amplification engines for the edicts, desires and whims of the corporate officers. We humans -- or most of us at least -- may have been demoted to being considered and treated as fungible resources, but the corporation does not exist independently of the humans (e.g. the officers, the boards, the shareholders) controlling it. -Chris Jason On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:44 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Transnational corporate globalism, has not turned out to be all that good for freedom, quality of human life or the environment; it has however been great for the quarterly bottom line… and profit is the only value that seems valued these days.-Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0sask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 -- 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.
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?
On 29 Jan 2015, at 21:50, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 01 appearing above is supposed to be an initial segment of one sequence, OK, you gave me 2 elements, but what's the third element in this uncountably infinitely long sequence of yours? I have never pretended that I can enumerate them. I say only that I can generate all of them Then generate the third element. There is no third element. by dovetailing It is not allowed to say in a algorithm after you have completed these infinite number of tasks then do this and such. I would need to do to generate some special subset of the reals, not for generating them all. The easyness comes from the fact that I generate them all, by zigzagging on their initial fragment. Each initial segment is admittedly denoting its many different precisions. So your algorithm will have to perform a infinite number of tasks before it gets around to finding that third element. That's no good. There is no third element. There is no bijection between the real and N. You know that. We both agree that the set of binary infinite sequences is uncountable. And you can't find a one to one correspondence between the set of subsets of the Real Numbers and the Real numbers, there will always be a subset of the Real numbers with no corresponding Real number. Sure, but that is not the point. 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: The TPP
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:28 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: -- *From:* Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com *To:* Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:05 PM *Subject:* Re: The TPP People worry that one day machines will take over, and we will become subservient slaves to their ends, that they will set the rules, control the government, and be above the law. We no longer need to fear that day because it already happened, quite some time ago. These machines are corporations: self-sustaining, evolving (in a Darwinian sense), hyper-intelligent, extremely-knowledgeable, immortal, transnational, entities which see and utilize humans as mere cogs in their own machinery. They are independently intelligent entities which we humans think we control, but we no more control them than any cell in our body controls our own personal actions. But in practice corporations often do not behave intelligently by even the most forgiving definition of intelligent behavior No human has anywhere near the knowledge, experience, expertise or competence to create an ipod. It takes an entity with the collective knowledge of many thousands, if not millions of years of experience, with the cumulative intelligence of all its individual employees subject-specific field expertise. They may operate more slowly than individual humans, and thus appear stupid, but a human would also appeared stupid when its behavior is analyzed on the timescales of its individual neurons. -- corporations may have been accorded a pseudo eternal existence as legal entities (in some countries such as the US), but in practice they act as amplification engines for the edicts, desires and whims of the corporate officers. Should any of those corporate officers substantially deviate as to threaten the survival of the corporation, the corporation will either removal that officer as a surgeon would remove a cancerous tumor, or it will die and leave more strongly self-preserving corporations to inherit its business. We humans -- or most of us at least -- may have been demoted to being considered and treated as fungible resources, but the corporation does not exist independently of the humans (e.g. the officers, the boards, the shareholders) controlling it. Neither does the brain exist independently of its component neurons, but my point is that the will of the corporation is something greater than the sum of the parts of the will of its individual employees and owners. It has its own will, goals, desires, survival instinct, motivations, etc. which are distinct from those of any one of its officers. Could Segey Brin and Larray Page wake up one day and decide to shutdown Google and succeed in doing so? I would find such a scenario unlikely to succeed in practice even if they were in their legal rights to do so. Even if they did succeed in closing the doors, a Google2, composed of Google's former employees, would quickly spring up. Jason -Chris Jason On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:44 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Transnational corporate globalism, has not turned out to be all that good for freedom, quality of human life or the environment; it has however been great for the quarterly bottom line… and profit is the only value that seems valued these days. -Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR https://action.sumofus.org/a/tpp-final-talks/?akid=9154.7664677.NhaQ0sask=1rd=1sub=fwdt=2 -- 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
Re: The TPP
On 1/29/2015 3:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Could Segey Brin and Larray Page wake up one day and decide to shutdown Google and succeed in doing so? I would find such a scenario unlikely to succeed in practice even if they were in their legal rights to do so. Even if they did succeed in closing the doors, a Google2, composed of Google's former employees, would quickly spring up. Sure, but that's because they were organized around certain technologies and products - not because the government granted them incorporation. Suppose there was no such thing as incorporation. There would still be large, somewhat autonomous self-serving organizations. There would just be fewer because they would have to be funded by investors willing to accept liability for the organization. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: The TPP
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:28 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: _ From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 1:05 PM Subject: Re: The TPP People worry that one day machines will take over, and we will become subservient slaves to their ends, that they will set the rules, control the government, and be above the law. We no longer need to fear that day because it already happened, quite some time ago. These machines are corporations: self-sustaining, evolving (in a Darwinian sense), hyper-intelligent, extremely-knowledgeable, immortal, transnational, entities which see and utilize humans as mere cogs in their own machinery. They are independently intelligent entities which we humans think we control, but we no more control them than any cell in our body controls our own personal actions. But in practice corporations often do not behave intelligently by even the most forgiving definition of intelligent behavior No human has anywhere near the knowledge, experience, expertise or competence to create an ipod. It takes an entity with the collective knowledge of many thousands, if not millions of years of experience, with the cumulative intelligence of all its individual employees subject-specific field expertise. They may operate more slowly than individual humans, and thus appear stupid, but a human would also appeared stupid when its behavior is analyzed on the timescales of its individual neurons. That is true of a plethora of cultural entities besides corporations as well. I broadly agree that culture is itself external to any given individual within a culture; it is an emergent social phenomena. There is nothing magical or unique about a corporation; it is similar in many ways to other cultural entities, which also emerge in social species, such as humans, or termites, or bees for that matter. In a broader sense the emergent patterns that also shape an environment, exist independently of the individual animals and plants, even if caused by them. They shape the existence of the individual living entities within the environment. A tree like network of animal paths that emerges, being shaped by a Darwinian type processes (such as network effect) itself becomes part of the locales individual organisms memory and habit, which in turn leads to more importance for that route, and guarantees the paths survival; the path channels and routes animals in 4-D spacetime, even though the path may have emerged from many animals hooves and paws. There is nothing particularly novel about a corporation vis a vis other large institutions. -- corporations may have been accorded a pseudo eternal existence as legal entities (in some countries such as the US), but in practice they act as amplification engines for the edicts, desires and whims of the corporate officers. Should any of those corporate officers substantially deviate as to threaten the survival of the corporation, the corporation will either removal that officer as a surgeon would remove a cancerous tumor, or it will die and leave more strongly self-preserving corporations to inherit its business. You are aware of just how many corporations have been driven into bankruptcy by incompetent arrogant executive management? Management that WAS NOT removed in those cases, and modern history is littered with the carcasses of failed corporations, most driven under by competitors, but many destroyed by incompetent and even criminal executive leadership. I fail to see any real evidence that the ideal you paint is actually the prevailing present practice in the global oligopoly where too big to fail is the principle guarantor of survival. We humans -- or most of us at least -- may have been demoted to being considered and treated as fungible resources, but the corporation does not exist independently of the humans (e.g. the officers, the boards, the shareholders) controlling it. Neither does the brain exist independently of its component neurons, but my point is that the will of the corporation is something greater than the sum of the parts of the will of its individual employees and owners. It has its own will, goals, desires, survival instinct, motivations, etc. which are distinct from those of any one of its officers. Could Segey Brin and Larray Page wake up one day and decide to shutdown Google and succeed in doing so? I would find such a scenario unlikely to succeed in practice even if they were in their legal rights to do so. Even if they did succeed in closing the doors, a Google2, composed of Google's former employees, would quickly spring up. Culture – which corporations are an example of – emerges in social
