date:20150404



On 03 Apr 2015, at 19:17, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Apr 3, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Imagine the iterated duplication, the average history in the  
diaries obtained contained histories like W (I was unable to

  predit that), W again!

Bruno Marchal keeps making the exact same error over and over and  
over again. Whatever is in the diary that the Washington Man is  
carrying is totally irrelevant because it was not written by the  
Washington Man he's just carrying it, the diary was written by the  
Helsinki Man. And Bruno Marchal just can't kick that personal  
pronoun addiction. For the 123rd time WHO THE HELL IS I?



You are the one saying that personal identity is needed, and that we  
need to use ammbiguous pronoun. But the question is about a result of  
an experiment. You need only to agree that you survive (in both place  
if you want), but that in any place where you survive, you will see  
only one outcome. here you is used for the Helsinki guy, trying to  
predict what will happen when he push on the button. Then, it is a  
simple exercise to see that the prediction W  M is made wrong in  
all consistent future (in that precise protocol). W and M leads to  
contradiction, W v M is made correct in all consistent future. Given  
the definition of first person and third person, this leads to the FPI.






 I don't see what is not clear with that.

The I in the above sentence causes no unambiguity because matter  
copying machines do not yet exist and because there was no  
prediction about what Mr. I will experience in the future;   
otherwise it would be so ambiguous there would be no way to  
determine even in theory if the prediction turned out to be correct  
or not; in other words the sentence would be meaningless.



What is wrong with what is above? May be it is just the vocabulary.  
let me ask you step 4 with your vocabulary/ Does the ambiguity remains  
the same if we introduce a delay of reconstitution in Moscow?





 Nobody grasp where you see a difficulty.

Perhaps because like Bruno Marchal they can't stop themselves from  
effortlessly spewing out personal pronouns without thinking. That's  
fine for everyday conversation, poetry and even most technical  
writing, but personal pronouns don't work worth a damn in thought  
experiments that try to uncover the fundamental nature of personal  
identity.


See the math treatment if you have really a problem. Using Kleene's  
second recursion, we can write a program e such that phi_e() = execute- 
and-dovetail on (e in M) and (e in W), and see which option is valid  
in both. That works without problem, and eliminate the use of  
pronouns. See the longer text for all details.


Bruno




 And the step 4 question is

Is step 4 infested with personal pronouns just like everything else  
Bruno Marchal writes about personal identity?


  John K Clark

 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: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi John

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 TELMO:
 I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and
 theoretical exercise of Marx-Engels (irrespective of Lenin's intermitted
 LATER speculations) as blueprint for a (still?) viable(?)  political
 system.


I don't think it was ever viable, and I don't think it's relevant to the
current times, as it is based on too many assumption from an era that is
long gone (early Industrialism).

What I mean is, when people use the word communism, there is a document
that describes precisely what this word is supposed to mean. A blueprint
for communism.

I do think that Marx-Engels correctly identified social problems that
remain being problems to this day, namely the self-reinforcing nature of
wealth inequality. The issue is that their proposed solution seems to
equalize society by throwing the majority of people into extreme poverty
and servitude.


 It never got further than a tyranny of 'leftish-sounding' slogans by
 pretenders. As the original authors dreamed it up, it never (and nowhere)
 did get off from the ground.
 I know, I lived in a so called Peoples' Democracy (Called 'commi' system
 - ha ha)  which was neither peoples' nor democracy. Nor Marxist, nor
 Leninist.
 It was a Stalinist tyranny. And Maoist, Pol-Pot, plus a KimIrSen-istic one.


I would be very interested in any story you had to share about those times.

I agree that these societies never achieved anything resembling what Marx
proposed. The remaining communists of today tend to argue that all of past
communist movements were not sincere in their motivations. That might very
well be true, but even then it is an important piece of information on
human nature. If we are trying to get from A - B and we always stumble on
the same horrors along the way, maybe the plan is just not viable for this
world. So far we have learned that either communism is a terrible idea or
communist revolutions always end up being hijacked by sociopaths. To be
honest, I think both are true.




 Capitalism - in my view an advanced form of slavery, following feudalism -
 started to destroy the entire human experiment on this Globe - way before
 the warming entered the picture.
 It never 'faced' a competition of any 'socialistic' challenger. It
 succumbbed to the authoritarian religious tyrannies (brutal and violent, or
 just retracting and philosophical).


As with communism, there is a big gap between the theory and the
implementation. Advanced form of slavery might be a way to put it, but an
even more cynical view would be that there's always been slavery to some
degree.

I believe that the big challenge that we face is how to move to a jobless
society. Worse, I think this transition already started but there is still
no political will to admit it. Robotics and AI are Marx's worse nightmare.
In the limit, the number of employees required by a business will tend to
zero, while the ability of a business to provide goods for the rest of us
keeps being more and more leveraged by technological advance. One of the
realities about the current economic crises that few are willing to admit:
there simply are no longer jobs for everyone.

I think the best idea that we have so far is the universal flat salary.

Best,
Telmo.





 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:



 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:19 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 2 April 2015 at 15:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  In practice Communism was evil but in theory it was just stupid

  Almost as stupid as capitalism,


 The defining characteristic of stupid is that stupid doesn't work, so
 regardless of what you may personally think of capitalism's ethics (and
 there is no disputing matters of taste) the fact remains that if capitalism
 was stupider than communism then it wouldn't have won the 40 year long face
 to face confrontation with it.


 It didn't. Communism hasn't been tried except at the tribal/village
 level (you're getting confused because some people called themselves
 communist).


 The same claim can be made about anything. Reality never seems to conform
 to the idealized version of any political theory.

 Communism has a blueprint, The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels.
 Several societies of varying sizes and cultural backgrounds attempted to
 implement these ideas. In all cases so far, the results have been
 horrendous. I have no doubt that this is not the outcome that Marx desired,
 but there is now strong empirical evidence that this is the outcome you get
 when applying the idea to societies of human beings.


 My point is that capitalism is in the process of destroying the world,
 so it hasn't won anything and may well lose the entire human experiment
 thanks to the greed of a few short sighted individuals.


 If the world is indeed being destroyed by pollution, then this is being

Re: The Object

Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only  
discover. would assess a platonist.


Bruno


On 07 Jan 2015, at 23:54, Jason Resch wrote:

From Douglas Jone's short story ( http://frombob.to/you/ 
aconvers.html ):



But suppose it were possible to create physical universes like yours  
within an appropriately specified computational universe. What could  
you say about the origin of the universe then?


Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers  
are equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation  
within any one computational universe, then there are an infinite  
number of computational universes in which this computation is  
performed. If you were to try to follow the chain of causality back  
past the origin of your physical universe, you would find an  
infinite number of causes.


These are all deep, deep questions. We have been thinking about  
them, and doing experiments, for a very long time. Our  
mathematicians have proven certain things... I’m sorry, I have to be  
very careful about what I say here. There is the very real  
possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say  
too much. So let me say some vague things:


There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain  
properties. For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general  
agreement on what the best name for this object is, so for the sake  
of convenience, let’s just call it The Object.


Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an  
infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is every  
universe that can possibly exist. And everything else that can  
exist, whether or not you would call it a universe. All of  
Mathematics is inside that Object. And the various parts of that  
Object are somehow connected together.


We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the  
properties of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it.


As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything.  
And exploring the nature of the connections between the various  
parts of The Object is the most fundamental kind of exploration  
there is. And some of the most interesting kinds of connections are  
related to Consciousness.


The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no  
beginning and no end; it simply Is.


It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you  
live in one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal  
too. The Time within them is visible only from a particular point of  
view.


Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of  
creating a physical universe, or of creating anything, we are not  
really speaking of creation; we are really speaking of making a  
connection. Making a connection between different parts of The Object.


The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we  
don’t really make the connection; the connection was always there  
too. We just discover what is already there. In other words, we just  
become aware of it.


So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity  
of the ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there,  
within The Object.






B: What do you mean, the Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an  
infinite number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t  
just happen when you die. It happens to you all the time.


In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number  
of different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe.  
And some of those versions of yourself have found themselves in  
universes that are very different from the one you all shared just  
over five minutes ago. Just because you don’t recall ever  
experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that it never  
happens to you.


The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all  
possible initial conditions. So there are an infinite number of  
computational universes which contain, as part of their initial  
conditions, You as you exist at this precise instant. And this  
instant too. And all of the other instants of your life.


And in precisely zero percent of those universes, which is to say an  
infinite number of them, you will find yourself in a world like the  
one I live in, the Realm of Possibilities. Where you will have  
freedom, and infinite choices, and immortality. Where you can visit  
worlds of invention, and live innumerable lives. Where you can  
follow, for a time, the paths of other Souls.


Of course, in the vast majority of those universes, you will find  
yourself completely alone. But nevertheless, it can be shown that  
there are an infinite number of universes that will also contain all  
of your friends and loved ones. Even the ones who are already dead  
in your world.


And we can take this even further. It can be shown that there exist  
an infinite number of universes

Re: The MGA revisited



On 04 Apr 2015, at 01:26, Bruce Kellett wrote:


meekerdb wrote:

On 4/2/2015 8:55 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
The only reason that the dovetailer might have to worry about time  
limitations is if it is actually a physical computer. Physical  
computers have to contend with such things as physical laws, the  
finite speed of light, the properties of materials, the generation  
of heat (entropy) and the need to remove that heat to a safe  
distance before everything melts down. If your computer is not a  
physical device, then it has none of these limitations, and there  
is no such concept available as the 'speed' of the computation,  
the 'time for each step', or anything of this sort. From our  
external concrete perspective, the whole thing is instantaneous,  
or it enters statis at some point and gets nowhere. For a non- 
physical computer these things are equivalent.


So without a physical computer you have no dynamics. A mere  
ordering of states is still a static thing, and the dovetailer  
does nothing useful that could not more easily be done by  
referring to a normal number.
Why would it not have the same dynamics as in any Platonia version  
of physics, e.g. a block universe simulated in a digital computer?  
The states don't even have to be computed in their inherent time  
order.


Bruno doesn't argue for this -- as far as I can see he moves from a  
physical computer straight into Platonia,


? No, I often use the block universe to illustrate the similarity  
here. and I don't move straight into Platonia, I use the MGA, and  
eventually the math.





without any attempt at a justification for the move.


You have not answer the question: do you agree that at step 7, and  
thus in presence of primitive physical universe running a universal  
dovetailer,  physics is reduce to a mathematical problem.





Unfortunately for his case, if you start with a physical computer,  
you have to start with a set of physical laws and that will run this  
machine composed of physical matter in an orderly manner. It cannot  
bootstrap itself -- run the machine and this itself generates the  
laws that enable the machine to run? Argue the self-referential  
bootstrap, don't just ignore the problem.


To avoid such problem, I divided the reasoning in smaller step. I  
can't comment this without knowing if youe have seen the reversal in  
step seven. It looks you do. So what you say amount to say that you  
believe there is something wrong in the MGA.

OK, so what is wrong?





But a more significant point, it seems to me, is that time in the  
block universe works by taking some subsystem and using it as a clock.


But that can be done in the simulation of the Milky Way, or of any  
computable solution of some physical laws. And also, in  
platonia (sigma_1 arithmetical truth), you have a universal clock:  
the steps of the UD itself.




But the clock function is instantiated by showing correlations  
between the regular dynamics of the clock and the dynamics of the  
rest of the universe. In other words, the universe has to run  
according to regular dynamical laws that apply equally to the clock  
subsystem and to the rest. Without these regular correlations you  
have no clock, and no time.


Digitalness entails the existence of a universal time, given by the  
ordering of the steps of the UD, which can be defined in arithmetic.  
Of course, that universal time has only quite indirect relations with  
possible physical time, which emerge from inside, in the first person  
view of the entities emulated by the UD. Your argument is not valid.






Barbour's solution is rather different, and more ingenious, because  
he doesn't actually recreate physical time or dynamics. He simply  
connects otherwise unrelated slices by his 'time capsules'. One can  
argue for ever whether this actually works, but it is an ingenious  
possibility.


The computer's memories of the entities emulated by the UD  
(equivalently sigma_1 arithmetic) plays the role of time capsule, and  
can be defined formally in arithmetic.






The problem I see is that Bruno has not made any attempt to argue  
for any sensible notion of time when he moves into Platonia.


I submit a problem for the computationalist.

Now you are unfair, because the math part shows the solution (and show  
it empirically testable). Both a physical time and a subjective time  
emergence is explained with all details.


The fact that you say that I made no attempt is proof that you have  
not yet begin to study the reasoning, the problem and the illustration  
of testable solution.





He can refer to relations among numbers in arithmetic as  
'computations', but that is just a play with words -- there is still  
no dynamics involved.


There is, and as Brent argue correctly, it is similar to any block  
universe theory, except that I show the block-reality is bigger,  
immaterial, and might contain white rabbits, and then I show why those  
white rabbits

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 04 Apr 2015, at 01:29, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 06:33:52PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Apr 2015, at 00:44, Russell Standish wrote:



The whole point of the MGA is to try and close off a gap in the
argument if you assume that ontological reality


I guess you mean here: physical ontological reality (assuming it
exists).




If we have a robust ontology (ie the full Platonia),


You really mean: robust physical ontology.


No, because the label physical should refer to what is phenomenal,
otherwise it doesn't have any meaning.


?
But then it seems you assume what we want to prove.

I have introduced the term robust only for the physical universe (be  
it ontological or phenomenological). It is just what makes an entire  
(never ending) physical universal dovetailing possible.





The Church Thesis (true by
assumption) shows that what is phenomenal cannot be ontological (or
noumenal, to borrow Kant's term), when the ontology is robust. That is
pretty much the whole point of UDA1-7.


What does it mean than an ontology is robust? UD* is robust in  
arithmetic by definition.


The point of UDA1-7 is only that if we assume the physical universe  
run a UD, then physics is a branch of arithmetic/computer science.









Moreover, I would argue that the MGA doesn't even work, as
recordings can be fully counterfactually correct.



By adding the inert Klara? But then the physical role of the inert
Klara to produce consciousness to the movie is not Turing emulable,
and you stop assuming computationalism.


But in a robust ontology, the Klaras are no longer inert. They  
cannot be.


I don't know what is a robust ontology. It looks that you mean by this  
an everything ontology, or a many-world or many states or many  
computations ontology.
But in that case the Klara are still inert in the relevant branch  
where we do the reasoning. So I am not sure to see the relevance of  
the remark here.








I can understand the role of Klara and counterfactual correctness
for the computation and behavior being correct hen change occur, but
how could they change the consciousness by being non present when
not needed?



If they are not needed, then some non-counterfactually correct
recordings can be conscious.


That is right, but that is the path to the reductio ad absurdum.



I don't have a strong opinion on this, as
the relevant recordings will be really very complex, but do suspect,
along with Brent, that full embodiment in an environment is needed,
along with counterfactual correctness.


?
Then they are no more recordings, but computation.





As I point out in my paper, that, physical supervenience, and the  
MGA entails

a robust ontology (ie something like the Multiverse to exist).


You mean a primitively physical multiverse?
That would already be a quite non trivial result, but I don't see how  
you get it.
That would be weird because it would prove that if can prove the  
existence of primitive matter in arithmetic. I am a bit confused.


Cheers,

Bruno




Cheers
--


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

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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

2015-04-04 Thread meekerdb

On 4/4/2015 7:45 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Whatever the breeder fuel cycle: LFTR or the (seems like the Russians are going in that
direction) plutonium economy; inherent passive safety features are critical. If we
learned anything from Fukushima, I would argue that one of the lessons must be that
reactors need to be walk away safe, being designed with in-built passive safety designed
failure modes. This also argues for smaller scale units than behemoths like the MarkII
design. The very big units just generate too much heat all, in a remarkably small place…
too much for passive safety to be practical. I think a better reactor scale would be
around 200MW, big enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable in failure mode.

Most proposed advanced reactors will operate at higher temperatures than the older
designs. This both makes them more thermodynamically efficient and it allows them to be
air cooled.

The safety problem isn't from the high temperature in the design use, it's from the
residual radioactive components that continue to decay after the reactor shuts down.
There's been assertions about Fukushima's core melt down and escaping the reactor vessel
based on muon imaging. But the corium didn't escape the concrete containment under the
reactor.

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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:58 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

On 4/4/2015 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast  breeder 
 design is being carried ahead in Russia.

It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the molten 
lead would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the Russians have 
used this sort of design before in their submarines and that's not exactly a 
sterling recommendation in my book. And it makes Plutonium from U238 and that's 
not my favorite element, call me old fashioned but I think the world already 
has more than enough Plutonium in it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more 
than the Uranium fuel cycle.

Also thorium is much more abundant.  And it has been demonstrated at Oak Ridge 
as part of the Air Force's program to build a nuclear powered bomber.  I don't 
think any new reactor technology is likely to get built unless some government 
gets involved to fund research and to tailor regulations to the new technology.

Also, and this is a major point in its favor LFTR reactor types would be walk 
away safe. Because the U233 fuel plus fertile thorium is solution in the 
fluoride salt coolant a simple and effective failure plug could be designed in 
at the low point of the inner core circulating design. If the reactor ever 
started overheating the plug would be made of a material with a substantially 
lower melting point than the vessel. In other words it would fail first; 
guaranteed.

In this manner the hot fuel/fertile/salt mix (plus various by products in the 
mix) would get channeled into a sub catchment chamber made of neutron absorbing 
materials and with a surface shape that would disperse the hot liquid core 
circulating fluid over a relatively wide flat area beneath the reactor, and 
without any intervention the reaction speed would very significantly slow down 
(free neutron starvation); the hot liquid (also radioactively very hot of 
course) fluid would cool down and solidify into what can be pictured as a kind 
of cupcake shaped containment.

It would still be a big cleanup, but it would be a manageable one that would in 
many senses have elf-contained itself.

Another advantage of the LFTR design is that they have a broader neutron 
bandwidth (being able to utilize both fast neutrons as well as slower 
neutrons). I guess one could say LFTR has a higher neutron efficiency; being 
able to use them across a broader spectrum of energies.

Whatever the breeder fuel cycle: LFTR or the (seems like the Russians are going 
in that direction) plutonium economy; inherent passive safety features are 
critical. If we learned anything from Fukushima, I would argue that one of the 
lessons must be that reactors need to be walk away safe, being designed with 
in-built passive safety designed failure modes. This also argues for smaller 
scale units than behemoths like the MarkII design. The very big units just 
generate too much heat all, in a remarkably small place… too much for passive 
safety to be practical. I think a better reactor scale would be around 200MW, 
big enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable in failure mode.

Chris

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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

2015-04-04 Thread meekerdb


On 4/4/2015 5:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


 Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast  breeder 
design
is being carried ahead in Russia.


It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the molten lead 
would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the Russians have used this 
sort of design before in their submarines and that's not exactly a sterling 
recommendation in my book. And it makes Plutonium from U238 and that's not my favorite 
element, call me old fashioned but I think the world already has more than enough 
Plutonium in it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more than the Uranium fuel cycle.


Also thorium is much more abundant.  And it has been demonstrated at Oak Ridge as part of 
the Air Force's program to build a nuclear powered bomber.  I don't think any new reactor 
technology is likely to get built unless some government gets involved to fund research 
and to tailor regulations to the new technology.


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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast  breeder
 design is being carried ahead in Russia.


It doesn't need high pressure which is good and, if there is a leak the
molten lead would soon solidly and self seal which is also good, but the
Russians have used this sort of design before in their submarines and
that's not exactly a sterling recommendation in my book. And it makes
Plutonium from U238 and that's not my favorite element, call me old
fashioned but I think the world already has more than enough Plutonium in
it. I like the Thorium fuel cycle much more than the Uranium fuel cycle.

  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: Iranian joke about the big deal, or understanding that was just reached.

Nicely wry joke, I saw online, making the rounds in Tehran about the just
signed deal: 

 

I went to the store now and they still don't have whiskey! What kind of a
deal is this?

 

My non-sequitur to that: I'll have that joke on the rocks, please.

-- 
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: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

2015-04-04 Thread 'Roger' via Everything List

Chris,

Hi.  It's good that they have new studies confirming this stuff, but 
the looping of DNA into 3D structures inside the nucleus  has been known 
for awhile.   I think they're even starting to map these interactions just 
like the human genome project.  One of the methods they use is to crosslink 
the DNA in the nucleus so that the shape it's currently in is saved, and 
then sequence the crosslinked areas to identify the crosslinked segments of 
DNA.  But, I admit calling this a wormhole is kind of just good marketing. 
 I guess the everything list is kind of like a wormhole that brings 
together distant people so they can talk about everything! :-)

Also, on the epigenetic inheritance thing via histones, it's also good 
that new studies are proving this stuff, but epigenetic changes (changes in 
gene expression caused by things other than changes to the DNA sequence) 
that can be inherited have also been known for 10 years or so.  So far, 
what they know are that these changes are caused by adding or removing 
methyl groups to the DNA bases or methyl and acetyl groups to the histones. 
 That affects how the genes are expressed.  These changes can be affected 
by the environment and your own activities (like exercise).   So, your 
descendants may thank you for exercising and eating right!

The only reason I know some stuff about this is that I have kind of a 
weird job where I read biochem. articles all day and put the new stuff into 
a database. 

See you!

Roger 

 


On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 3:08:19 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote:



 -Original Message- 
 From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] On Behalf Of Russell Standish 
 Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:44 PM 
 To: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 Subject: Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?) 

 Of course, this is what Australia's John Mattick has been saying for 
 decades (I heard him talk on this nearly 15 years ago, for instance, and 
 he'd been railing at the establishment sometime before that). 

  But wormholes? Really? Someone in marketing has been given far too 
 liberal a rein. 

 They're always on the hunt for that catchy title aren't they; I find them 
 amusing :)   
 Still, in seriousness, it's an interesting idea: that previously 
 overlooked, non-local effects,  naturally operating within an organisms DNA 
 may be playing a more fundamental role in life than previously believed (or 
 even considered to be occurring at all) 
 Chris 

 Cheers 


 On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:26:16PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via 
 Everything List wrote: 
  [Have been very busy on a new software project and have not had time 
  to follow and participate on this list... such an active list :). ] 
  Came across this article and found it interesting also from an 
  information science point of view -- taking the perspective of DNA 
  being a fairly dynamic information repository. It seems like the 
  butterfly effect is operating in DNA... a small difference one place 
  can result in effects being triggered in very distant DNA locations... 
  or as the researchers said... kind of like a wormhole.-Chris 
  
  Cancer risk linked to DNA ‘wormholes’ 
  
  February 25, 2015 
  Single-letter genetic variations within parts of the genome once 
 dismissed as “junk DNA” can increase cancer risk through remote effects on 
 far-off genes, new research by scientists at The Institute of Cancer 
 Research, London shows.The researchers found that DNA sequences within 
 “gene deserts” — so called because they are completely devoid of genes — 
 can regulate gene activity elsewhere by forming DNA loops across relatively 
 large distances.The study helps solve a mystery about how genetic 
 variations in parts of the genome that don’t appear to be doing very much 
 can increase cancer risk.Their study, published in Nature Communications, 
 also has implications for the study of other complex genetic diseases.The 
 researchers developed a technique called Capture Hi-C to investigate 
 long-range physical interactions between stretches of DNA – allowing them 
 to look at how specific areas of chromosomes interact physically in more 
 detail.The researchers assessed 14 regions of DNA that contain 
 single-letter variations previously linked to bowel cancer risk. They 
 detected significant long-range interactions for all 14 regions, confirming 
 their role in gene regulation.“Our new technique shows that genetic 
 variations are able to increase cancer risk through long-range looping 
 interactions with cancer-causing genes elsewhere in the genome,” study 
 leader Professor Richard Houlston, Professor of Molecular and Population 
 Genetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London said.“It is sometimes 
 described as analogous to a wormhole, where distortions in space and time 
 could in theory bring together distant parts of the

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-04 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 6:42 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:

  I is a single entity travelling through time in the forward direction.


 If matter copying machines exist there would be nothing single about it,
  Mr. I can split numerous times and can even split into 2 and then
 recombine back to one. And none of this would require a scientific
 breakthrough, all it needs is just very good engineering.


If you take the MWI seriously, then you are open to the possibility that
you are constantly being duplicated already. You are open to this
possibility even though you were never aware of the existence of your
copies.




  If you have duplication you realise this is an illusion.


 In a discussion about subjectivity the word illusion has no place


But you alluded to this illusion yourself, when you said above that 'If
matter copying machines exist there would be nothing single about it'.
Assuming you're like me, you perceive yourself as a single entity
travelling through time in the forward direction. And yet, if you take the
MWI seriously, then you must accept that there is a possibility that this
is an illusion created by our limited perception of reality, just like the
illusion that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits around the earth.


 unless it can be explained exactly how this illusion works. And I remind
 you that illusions are a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon, and
 in this context subjectivity is far more important than objectivity. I
 don't care if objectively I'm dead as long as subjectively I'm not.


  the result is that if you are teleported to two places it will seem to
 you that you are teleported to just one with probability 1/2.


 After the duplication but before the door of the duplication chamber is
 opened objectively there are 2 bodies of Stathis Papaioannou


And yet, he will never be aware of being two people at once (this is just
the initial assumption of a substitution level).


 but subjectively there is only one Stathis Papaioannou because they are
 identical.


Subjectively from whose perspective?


 After the doors are opened they no longer are identical because they see
 different things; one sees Moscow and becomes Mr. Stathis Papaioannou The
 Moscow Man, and the other sees Washington and becomes Mr. Stathis
 Papaioannou The Washington Man.


But before the doors are opened and after the duplication, you can ask them
through the intercom to guess where they are. If they are forced to make a
bet, you will find that they tend to be right 1/2 of the time.

This is all you're being asked to agree with. I can predict with 100%
certainty that it doesn't matter though, because you made your mind before
giving the idea a chance.

Telmo.



   John K Clark


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


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

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 04 Apr 2015, at 00:03, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On Saturday, April 4, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Imagine the iterated duplication, the average history in the  
diaries obtained contained histories like W (I was unable to

  predit that), W again!

Bruno Marchal keeps making the exact same error over and over and  
over again. Whatever is in the diary that the Washington Man is  
carrying is totally irrelevant because it was not written by the  
Washington Man he's just carrying it, the diary was written by the  
Helsinki Man. And Bruno Marchal just can't kick that personal  
pronoun addiction. For the 123rd time WHO THE HELL IS I?


I is a single entity travelling through time in the forward  
direction. If you have duplication you realise this is an illusion.  
However, brains are strongly wired up to persist in this illusion,  
and the result is that if you are teleported to two places it will  
seem to you that you are teleported to just one with probability  
1/2. The original and the copy know it's not objectively true, but  
they can't help the feeling.


Yes, and then, as they assume comp, they have a simple theory  
explaining why it has to be like that: they have been duplicated. ( w  
v m) has been realized in all extensions, and (w  m) is falsified in  
all extensions.


Everything here can be made pure third person, so ... even a p-zombie  
grasps this :)


BTW, I think your argument in your other post might eliminate yes  
doctor from comp. The unprovable part would rely entirely in Church's  
thesis. That would be nice and you make me think so.


Brent criticized my habit to consider consciousness as being binary:  
it exists or it does not exist, despite my acknowledgement of ten  
thousands of possibly conscious states, with different intensity. I  
see that the point if well captured by the fact that partial zombie  
does not make sense.


And this redeems my initial, pre-stroboscop, argument that if you let  
a movie think, in the real time of an actual physical projection, then  
you will have to attribute all possible experience to the projection  
of an empty movie at anytime.


The argument follows like the usual functional substitution, piece by  
piece. You will just eliminate the first component, by digging a hole  
in the pellicle, so that during the projection there is a hole in the  
movie, just on a component (some gate), yet, from that hole, you get  
the right outputs for the corresponding inputs, and so it is  
functionally equivalent, and indeed, that hole does not impact on  
the behavior of any other gates.


If consciousness supervene on the movie, it supervenes on the movie  
with one hole. And the absence of partial zombiness makes both  
experiences (with and without the hole) 100% identical. So, we can  
extend the hole and get a bigger one. But that hole keeps the right  
relative input/output. Non-partial-zombiness makes it allowable to  
extend the hole to the whole brain movie, without touching to the  
motor output, and the person would keep its behavior like if nothing  
happened, but if we still associate the token consciousness,  
impossible to change continuously in virtue of non-partial-zombiness,  
it leads to attach arbitrary experience to arbitrary things. So a  
movie cannot think (i.e. support the thinking which was associated to  
the filmed boolean graph activity).


But then consciousness is not in the physical activity of the neurons  
(a bit already Watson intelligence is not in its gate organization and  
activity), but at a higher level, in its goal, memeoris, personality,  
but abstract higher order pattern: the spirit of the hero, something  
like that.


This aliments the intuition pump that the physical is not responsible  
for consciousness. The physical should be what is responsible for its  
stability and normality, only (by UDA). Physics is a measure calculus   
on the computational histories/computational states.


The theory of everything seems to be Church's thesis. Church-Turing- 
Post-Markov thesis. The discovery of the universal machine. The belief  
that the Turing universal machine(*) is universal for all the  
intuitively computable function.
(*) equivalently: Elementary Arithmetic, or the SK combinators, or  
Algol, of Lisp, of c++, ...)


It is easy to derive incompleteness from Church's thesis. Even from a  
weaker thesis: the thesis that there is a universal machine. I proved  
this to Liz some time ago, I might do it again, it is really the start  
somehow. Church thesis key role is in the step 7.


With comp you convince me that there is truly no zombies, which  
implies that the relative arithmetic dreaming numbers,  relative to  
other universal numbers, cannot be zombies either. The consciousness  
is not in the incarnation/relative-implementation, but the incarnation/ 
implementation makes it possible to manifest itself,

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

2015-04-04 Thread John Mikes

Telmo: I have only a few remarks to your (appreciable) response:
you wrote:
 .
*What I mean is, when people use the word communism, there is a document
that describes precisely what this word is supposed to mean. A blueprint
for communism.*

That 'document' is obsolete and was idealized' even when formulated. Lenin
(in his theoretical work) tried to save (some of) it and postulated a BRAND
NEW type of humans ('the communist man') unselfish and active up to his
capabilities in the favor (benefit) of mankind (society). He was not to
hopeful about it's realization.
I don't give more credit to the M-E *Socialis*t Bible than to the other
earlier one.

I believe in (some?) advancement over the past 2 centuries, so I would be
careful to draw conclusions upon the ancient pattern (wording?).  Today's
'inequality' means haves and havnots, as developed in the capitalistic
world. Havenots not meaning only absolute paupers, rather employees as well
and I am willing to add the very well paid ones. ((A chairman can fire a
CEO etc.)) I contrast them by the OWNERS (of big wealth) - the successors
of the feudal lords. The slave-owners.
Inequality cannot be fixed by re-distribution, it is a system. As long as
people seek jobs to survive with their family as in today's economy, no
re-distribution works.
We have to return to the (original?) M-E ideas of ownership excluded for
all territory, or products of Nature (in-ground, or grown out of ground)
except for the part that is a result of the invested (human's) activity
((work)).
A flat salary is still a salary - not a MINIMUM distribution of the
avalable goods necessary for survival at the level the world can achieve at
any point in time.
Then comes Lenin's super hero (communist man) and works to the top of his
capacity and talents FOR the society, not for a salary. Appreciation
(expressable also in levels of living) may be a 'reward', not an additional
pay.
Such new system requires a new identification of values and activities,
goals and results. I don't think we are ready for such.

At the end you write about jobs (missing for everyone) which is a view
anchored in captialism. In the re-evaluation I mentioned we don't speak
about (paid?) jobs.The entire view has to be different  Of course - in
today's terms - technology will soon eliminate the necessity of working
employees for pay and if we cannot change the entire image of societal
survival a mass-famine will strike, only the owners of the technology will
survive, unless the starving crowd finishes them off.

I need someone smarter-than-me to propose the re-evaluation of this world.

And about your flat salary: WHO ON EARTH will assign and supply it?
 Of course the owners (HA-HA)

Thanks for your thoughts

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

 Hi John

 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 TELMO:
 I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and
 theoretical exercise of Marx-Engels (irrespective of Lenin's intermitted
 LATER speculations) as blueprint for a (still?) viable(?)  political
 system.


 I don't think it was ever viable, and I don't think it's relevant to the
 current times, as it is based on too many assumption from an era that is
 long gone (early Industrialism).

 What I mean is, when people use the word communism, there is a document
 that describes precisely what this word is supposed to mean. A blueprint
 for communism.

 I do think that Marx-Engels correctly identified social problems that
 remain being problems to this day, namely the self-reinforcing nature of
 wealth inequality. The issue is that their proposed solution seems to
 equalize society by throwing the majority of people into extreme poverty
 and servitude.


 It never got further than a tyranny of 'leftish-sounding' slogans by
 pretenders. As the original authors dreamed it up, it never (and nowhere)
 did get off from the ground.
 I know, I lived in a so called Peoples' Democracy (Called 'commi'
 system - ha ha)  which was neither peoples' nor democracy. Nor Marxist,
 nor Leninist.
 It was a Stalinist tyranny. And Maoist, Pol-Pot, plus a KimIrSen-istic
 one.


 I would be very interested in any story you had to share about those times.

 I agree that these societies never achieved anything resembling what Marx
 proposed. The remaining communists of today tend to argue that all of past
 communist movements were not sincere in their motivations. That might very
 well be true, but even then it is an important piece of information on
 human nature. If we are trying to get from A - B and we always stumble on
 the same horrors along the way, maybe the plan is just not viable for this
 world. So far we have learned that either communism is a terrible idea or
 communist revolutions always end up being hijacked by sociopaths. To be
 honest, I think both are true.




 Capitalism - in my view an advanced form of slavery, following feudalism
 - started to

RE: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 1:44 PM
To: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
Subject: Re: DNA Wormholes can cause cancer (what!?)

Of course, this is what Australia's John Mattick has been saying for decades (I 
heard him talk on this nearly 15 years ago, for instance, and he'd been railing 
at the establishment sometime before that).

 But wormholes? Really? Someone in marketing has been given far too liberal 
 a rein.

They're always on the hunt for that catchy title aren't they; I find them 
amusing :)  
Still, in seriousness, it's an interesting idea: that previously overlooked, 
non-local effects,  naturally operating within an organisms DNA may be playing 
a more fundamental role in life than previously believed (or even considered to 
be occurring at all)
Chris

Cheers

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:26:16PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything 
List wrote:
 [Have been very busy on a new software project and have not had time 
 to follow and participate on this list... such an active list :). ] 
 Came across this article and found it interesting also from an 
 information science point of view -- taking the perspective of DNA 
 being a fairly dynamic information repository. It seems like the 
 butterfly effect is operating in DNA... a small difference one place 
 can result in effects being triggered in very distant DNA locations... 
 or as the researchers said... kind of like a wormhole.-Chris

 Cancer risk linked to DNA ‘wormholes’

 February 25, 2015
 Single-letter genetic variations within parts of the genome once dismissed as 
 “junk DNA” can increase cancer risk through remote effects on far-off genes, 
 new research by scientists at The Institute of Cancer Research, London 
 shows.The researchers found that DNA sequences within “gene deserts” — so 
 called because they are completely devoid of genes — can regulate gene 
 activity elsewhere by forming DNA loops across relatively large distances.The 
 study helps solve a mystery about how genetic variations in parts of the 
 genome that don’t appear to be doing very much can increase cancer risk.Their 
 study, published in Nature Communications, also has implications for the 
 study of other complex genetic diseases.The researchers developed a technique 
 called Capture Hi-C to investigate long-range physical interactions between 
 stretches of DNA – allowing them to look at how specific areas of chromosomes 
 interact physically in more detail.The researchers assessed 14 regions of DNA 
 that contain single-letter variations previously linked to bowel cancer risk. 
 They detected significant long-range interactions for all 14 regions, 
 confirming their role in gene regulation.“Our new technique shows that 
 genetic variations are able to increase cancer risk through long-range 
 looping interactions with cancer-causing genes elsewhere in the genome,” 
 study leader Professor Richard Houlston, Professor of Molecular and 
 Population Genetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London said.“It is 
 sometimes described as analogous to a wormhole, where distortions in space 
 and time could in theory bring together distant parts of the universe.”The 
 research was funded by the EU, Cancer Research UK, Leukaemia  Lymphoma 
 Research, and The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR).

 --
 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.

-- 
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

Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

I have literally monitored developments for years that would return some form 
of nuclear fission as a safe possibility to be the main power source for the 
human species. It always sounds interestingly, and innovative, but never takes 
off to become a reality. Thorium, Molten Salt, Micro, Betavoltaic, subcritical 
reactors which switch off when a laser or proton beam stop, all the wonderful 
ideas, and more. But these things never leave the laboratory. I will not argue 
why this is true, or that its a total shame that it never takes off. I think at 
this late date, fusion, a different process,  will wait till the 22nd century, 
and for the next 85 years its going to be natural gas (argue about this later) 
or solar and wind. Electric cars power by solar and wind, factories, homes, and 
the rest of the slack taken up by natural gas. Tesla and Prius will eventually 
lead the way in transportation. Yes, this view is disappointing, but true. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 12:26 am
Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia


 
  
Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast  breeder 
design is being carried ahead in Russia.
  
 
  
An experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor will be built at the Siberian 
Chemical Combine (SCC). If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the 
first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors.
  
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_Siberia_0410121.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. 
 

-- 
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: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:

 I is a single entity travelling through time in the forward direction.


If matter copying machines exist there would be nothing single about it,
 Mr. I can split numerous times and can even split into 2 and then
recombine back to one. And none of this would require a scientific
breakthrough, all it needs is just very good engineering.


  If you have duplication you realise this is an illusion.


In a discussion about subjectivity the word illusion has no place unless
it can be explained exactly how this illusion works. And I remind you that
illusions are a perfectly respectable subjective phenomenon, and in this
context subjectivity is far more important than objectivity. I don't care
if objectively I'm dead as long as subjectively I'm not.


  the result is that if you are teleported to two places it will seem to
 you that you are teleported to just one with probability 1/2.


After the duplication but before the door of the duplication chamber is
opened objectively there are 2 bodies of Stathis Papaioannou but
subjectively there is only one Stathis Papaioannou because they are
identical. After the doors are opened they no longer are identical because
they see different things; one sees Moscow and becomes Mr. Stathis
Papaioannou The Moscow Man, and the other sees Washington and becomes Mr.
Stathis Papaioannou The Washington Man.

  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 Object

My view is that rather than being a simulation, our universe and an infinitude 
of others,are programs that yields physical universes, as a programmatic 
process. The underlying software and hardware are more real than the reality we 
sense, but our lives are very real. Underneath everything is organized data, 
programs, processes, and pipelines to other universes (or parts of a greater 
very big universe). So theoretically, humans and galaxies and bacteria, get 
promoted (as in software) to other places. I am stealing from Eric Steinhart's 
Promotion hypothesis, to suit my own pitiful intellect, and emotions. 



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 11:10 am
Subject: Re: The Object


Nice! Quite Platonist! We never invent anything---we always only discover. 
would assess a platonist. 
  
   
  
  
Bruno  
  
   
  
  
   
   

On 07 Jan 2015, at 23:54, Jason Resch wrote:


 
From Douglas Jone's short story (   http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html ): 
 
   
  
  
   

But suppose it were possible to create physical universes like yours within an 
appropriately specified computational universe. What could you say about the 
origin of the universe then?
   
Very little, actually. Why? Because all general-purpose computers are 
equivalent. If it is possible to perform this computation within any one 
computational universe, then there are an infinite number of computational 
universes in which this computation is performed. If you were to try to 
follow the chain of causality back past the origin of your physical universe, 
you would find an infinite number of causes.
   
These are all deep, deep questions. We have been thinking about them, and doing 
experiments, for a very long time. Our mathematicians have proven certain 
things... I’m sorry, I have to be very careful about what I say here. There is 
the very real possibility of inducing cardiac arrest in certain people if I say 
too much. So let me say some vague things:
   
There exists an object, a mathematical object, which has certain properties. 
For reasons that should be obvious, there is no general agreement on what the 
best name for this object is, so for the sake of convenience, let’s just call 
it The Object.
   
Your world, that is, the entire universe that you can observe, is an 
infinitesimal part of that Object. And so is mine. And so is every universe 
that can possibly exist. And everything else that can exist, whether or not you 
would call it a universe. All of Mathematics is inside that Object. And the 
various parts of that Object are somehow connected together.
   
We expend a considerable amount of effort attempting to deduce the properties 
of that Object. In a sense, we are Exploring it.
   
As I said before, we are Explorers, and we are exploring Everything. And 
exploring the nature of the connections between the various parts of The Object 
is the most fundamental kind of exploration there is. And some of the most 
interesting kinds of connections are related to Consciousness.
  
The Object is Eternal. It exists outside of time. It has no beginning and no 
end; it simply Is.
   
It contains many universes that have a property called Time, and you live in 
one of them, and so do I. But these universes are Eternal too. The Time within 
them is visible only from a particular point of view.
   
Whenever we speak of creating a computational universe, or of creating a 
physical universe, or of creating anything, we are not really speaking of 
creation; we are really speaking of making a connection. Making a connection 
between different parts of The Object.
   
The parts are already there. They have always been there. And we don’t really 
make the connection; the connection was always there too. We just discover what 
is already there. In other words, we just become aware of it.
   
So whenever we think we’re creating something, this is just a vanity of the 
ego, which exists within Time. Everything is already there, within The Object.
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   

B: What do you mean, the Afterlife? Apparently, each of us gets an infinite 
number of different ones, simultaneously. And this doesn’t just happen when you 
die. It happens to you all the time.
  
In the last five minutes, you have split into an uncountable number of 
different versions of yourself, each one in a different universe. And some of 
those versions of yourself have found themselves in universes that are very 
different from the one you all shared just over five minutes ago. Just because 
you don’t recall ever experiencing a discontinuity that big, doesn’t mean that 
it never happens to you.
   
The Object contains all possible computational universes, with all possible 
initial conditions.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 You need only to agree that you survive (in both place if you want)


That depends entirely on who Mr. You is.  Assuming the variation of the
thought experiment where the Helsinki Man is destroyed after the
duplications then Mr. John Clark will survive, but if The Helsinki Man
means the guy who is presently experiencing Helsinki (and it's hard to
understand what else it could mean) then Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man
will not survive. That may sound ominous but all it really means is that
John Clark is no longer in Helsinki, instead John Clark is in Moscow AND
Washington.


  it is a simple exercise to see that the prediction W  M is made wrong
 in all consistent future (in that precise protocol). W and M leads to
 contradiction [...]  here you is used for the Helsinki guy, trying to
 predict what will happen when he push on the button.


Then the correct prediction would be that in the future Mr. John Clark The
Helsinki Man will see neither Moscow nor Washington nor Helsinki because
Mr. John Clark The Helsinki Man has no future at all; but Mr. John Clark
will see Moscow AND Mr. John Clark will see Washington and both will
remember seeing Helsinki.  It's just a fact that in matters like this one
needs to be very very careful with personal pronouns or the result is
ambiguous crap.

 I don't see what is not clear with that


  The I in the above sentence causes no unambiguity because matter
 copying machines do not yet exist and because there was no prediction about
 what Mr. I will experience in the future;  otherwise it would be so
 ambiguous there would be no way to determine even in theory if the
 prediction turned out to be correct or not; in other words the sentence
 would be meaningless.


  What is wrong with what is above?


Nothing, that's why I said I caused no unambiguity in this case. I'm not
saying never use personal pronouns, but if you're talking about both matter
duplicating machines and subjectivity then you've got to treat them as
carefully as if they were made of nitroglycerin because otherwise they will
detonate an explosion of illogic.

  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: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

On 3/31/2015 10:56 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 9:26 PM
To: EveryThing
Subject: [SPAM]Re: Economic inequality

The SciAm article doesn't even begin to describe how great the inequality is.  
Like most statistical presentations it divides the population into quintiles.  
But that hides the fact that is not the to 20 to 1 percentile that hold the 
wealth, it is the tope 1% and even just the top 0.1%

And that graph describes the source of so many of our social ills; this high 
degree of income distortion -- in terms of the US being an outlier, on the 
global distribution of developed economies -- is the fundamental driver of 
pretty much everything else going wrong with this country; from crumbling 
infrastructure, to crumbling education, to crumbling living standards. 

But the GDP/person is up.  Those things are crumbling because the rich don't 
use them and so are not interested in paying for them and the rich control 
politicians thru campaign contributions.

Precisely; we live in a country with the best government money can buy.

Could this be what life is like in a crumbling empire, far out into imperial 
overreach, stretched thin across the globe, in the vast archipelago of bases – 
including places of true logistical nightmare, like Afghanistan (the logistical 
nightmare of nightmares…there is no feasible way to get the heavy armor out of 
Afghanistan, except through Russia, with Pakistan definitely not wanting mass 
transiting US armor.

The cost of bearing empire is breaking our backs, and with each successive 
cycle of disaster capitalism – creative destruction, right-sizing, out-sourcing 
etc. the empire is in a race to scraping bottom, as all empires do. Inside the 
bubble of power the mantra remains “we make history” (as once boasted by one 
famous neocon), but on the ground it is not all going as planned… though who is 
going to ever bring the emperor the bad news… any volunteers? Naturally we 
don’t have an emperor (yet), but we do have a powerful deeply rooted patrician 
aristocracy that has been ascendant here for the last four decades.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that what has, in the past, leveled the 
wealth is war.  Of course that's because the government raised taxes, regulated 
prices, and invested in research, development, and technology as part of the 
war effort.

The kind of total war efforts, WWII being the preeminent example, that worked 
in the past like gigantic Keynesian money pumps (and all the spin offs form the 
war effort) are not easily reproducible in today’s environment. The world we 
find ourselves living in today has been environmentally and resource 
impoverished – compared with the how the world was in 1939. The common 
denominator of all war is that it is the most horribly expensive activity a 
society can engage in. War made sense when one empire conquered surrounding 
weaker states and transferred their wealth to the imperial center; or even 
perhaps one could argue – as you have – when the resulting martialing of 
resources, required by the war effort, propelled a world stuck in the morass of 
global economic depression (the great depression era of the 1930s) out of that 
state of affairs.

In today’s environment, with the much tighter margins (resulting from needing 
to acquire resources from increasingly marginal sources) I don’t think that the 
outcome would be a post war era of relative global prosperity, rather I think 
it would accelerate a global course down into hard bitten poverty and 
collapsing social fabrics.

One can argue this point, of course, and present an alternate hypothesis, but I 
feel it is a salient and foundational fact of life that needs to be considered 
when assessing the probable outcomes of global war.

After WWII the Americans victors opened up the great oil fields of Saudi Arabia 
and the other gulf states. The EROI of the early wells sunk in the Ghawar super 
giant field were around 100:1… that was a payoff! Now returns on new fields are 
in the order of only 8:1 or so. 

What would the victors of the war win? Tiny disparate challenging pockets of 
resources that would require very significant capital and energetic investment 
in order to extract the increasingly marginal yields.

IMO, the world needs cooperation, if we are going to find a way out of this 
compounded mess we find ourselves in.

Chris

Brent

Will it swing back the other way, as it has in the past – such as with the New 
Deal, or earlier with Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting of Standard Oil; or is 
this just the prelude to… welcome to

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

2015-04-04 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','marc...@ulb.ac.be'); wrote:


 On 04 Apr 2015, at 00:03, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



 On Saturday, April 4, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Imagine the iterated duplication, the average history in the diaries
 obtained contained histories like W (I was unable to

   predit that), W again!


 Bruno Marchal keeps making the exact same error over and over and over
 again. Whatever is in the diary that the Washington Man is carrying is
 totally irrelevant because it was not written by the Washington Man he's
 just carrying it, the diary was written by the Helsinki Man. And Bruno
 Marchal just can't kick that personal pronoun addiction. For the 123rd time
 WHO THE HELL IS I?


 I is a single entity travelling through time in the forward direction.
 If you have duplication you realise this is an illusion. However, brains
 are strongly wired up to persist in this illusion, and the result is that
 if you are teleported to two places it will seem to you that you are
 teleported to just one with probability 1/2. The original and the copy know
 it's not objectively true, but they can't help the feeling.


 Yes, and then, as they assume comp, they have a simple theory explaining
 why it has to be like that: they have been duplicated. ( w v m) has been
 realized in all extensions, and (w  m) is falsified in all extensions.

 Everything here can be made pure third person, so ... even a p-zombie
 grasps this :)

 BTW, I think your argument in your other post might eliminate yes doctor
 from comp. The unprovable part would rely entirely in Church's thesis. That
 would be nice and you make me think so.


Yes, that's what I think. Those who believe (like Searle) that CT is true
and every 3P function of the brain can be replicated but don't believe in
comp are inconsistent.

There is for completeness another possibility, which is that a type
of dualism is true. Your body is a zombie and your mind exists in a
spiritual realm, but the two happily run in parallel. In this case if there
was a partial brain replacement your body would continue saying everything
is normal but your mind might notice a difference and the parallelism would
stop from that point. Cochlear implant patients might be experiencing this
now: their minds are frantically trying to communicate to the world that
they are just as deaf as before, but they have frustratingly lost the
ability to control their bodies, which are telling people that they can
hear.

Brent criticized my habit to consider consciousness as being binary: it
 exists or it does not exist, despite my acknowledgement of ten thousands of
 possibly conscious states, with different intensity. I see that the point
 if well captured by the fact that partial zombie does not make sense.

 And this redeems my initial, pre-stroboscop, argument that if you let a
 movie think, in the real time of an actual physical projection, then you
 will have to attribute all possible experience to the projection of an
 empty movie at anytime.

 The argument follows like the usual functional substitution, piece by
 piece. You will just eliminate the first component, by digging a hole in
 the pellicle, so that during the projection there is a hole in the movie,
 just on a component (some gate), yet, from that hole, you get the right
 outputs for the corresponding inputs, and so it is functionally
 equivalent, and indeed, that hole does not impact on the behavior of any
 other gates.

 If consciousness supervene on the movie, it supervenes on the movie with
 one hole. And the absence of partial zombiness makes both experiences (with
 and without the hole) 100% identical. So, we can extend the hole and get a
 bigger one. But that hole keeps the right relative input/output.
 Non-partial-zombiness makes it allowable to extend the hole to the whole
 brain movie, without touching to the motor output, and the person would
 keep its behavior like if nothing happened, but if we still associate the
 token consciousness, impossible to change continuously in virtue of
 non-partial-zombiness, it leads to attach arbitrary experience to arbitrary
 things. So a movie cannot think (i.e. support the thinking which was
 associated to the filmed boolean graph activity).

 But then consciousness is not in the physical activity of the neurons (a
 bit already Watson intelligence is not in its gate organization and
 activity), but at a higher level, in its goal, memeoris, personality, but
 abstract higher order pattern: the spirit of the hero, something like that.

 This aliments the intuition pump that the physical is not responsible for
 consciousness. The physical should be what is responsible for its stability
 and normality, only (by UDA). Physics is a measure calculus  on the
 computational histories/computational states.

 The theory of everything seems to be Church's

RE: Histones (proteins that form the scaffolding around which DNA wraps itself may also themselves be involved in heredity processes

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

The process of heredity may have more levels of actors in it than just the
DNA itself. An interesting notion that seems logical; a case of living
processes employing various different strategies in parallel, which would
seem a plausible result of a process of random selection based on
environmental fitness.

Chris

 

DNA can't explain all inherited biological traits, research shows

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150402161751.htm

 

Characteristics passed between generations are not decided solely by DNA,
but can be brought about by other material in cells, new research shows.
Scientists studied proteins found in cells, known as histones, which are not
part of the genetic code, but act as spools around which DNA is wound.
Histones are known to control whether or not genes are switched on.

 

Quoting two paragraphs from the article here: 

Researchers found that naturally occurring changes to these proteins, which
affect how they control genes, can be sustained from one generation to the
next and so influence which traits are passed on.

The finding demonstrates for the first time that DNA is not solely
responsible for how characteristics are inherited. It paves the way for
research into how and when this method of inheritance occurs in nature, and
if it is linked to particular traits or health conditions.

It may also inform research into whether changes to the histone proteins
that are caused by environmental conditions -- such as stress or diet -- can
influence the function of genes passed on to offspring.

 

-- 
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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

2015-04-04 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

I have been following the publicly available information on development of the 
various GenIV breeder variants. Am curious as to how much actual progress the 
Russians may have made in pursuing this one particular form – using molten lead 
as the heat transfer fluid (which is why they have such a high thermal 
efficiency at 43%). It may surprise some, but I am not opposed to the idea of 
nuclear power per se; though I do oppose systems that depend on active safety 
features in order to prevent a core meltdown… and I do have reasonable concerns 
about how waste products will be contained in sequestered facilities (or for 
some materials potentially getting re-processed getting burnt up in breeders)

The natural gas uptick in availability is a short duration bubble, resulting 
from highly capital, water and energy intensive production techniques that is 
squeezing out small marginal pockets of available fossil energy from a 
containing oil/gas bearing shale rock formation. I would not count on this long 
term – already there is a massive capital flight from this sector (that 
preceded the recent collapse in the global spot prices). 

Solar PV will continue to grow: For example, GlobalData, a well-known sector 
forecasting company that publishes forecasts on a wide variety of industry 
sectors and trends, published figures that show a trend line indicating that PV 
module capacity will grow from the current base of 135.66 GW installed by 2013 
to 413.98 GW in 2020, based on a number of factors, including volume trends, 
average price, and production share.

In another forecast, by this same information company, they estimate that 
investment in the global wind energy sector will rise to above $100 billion, 
driving up installed wind capacity from the current global figure of 364.9 
Gigawatts (GW) in 2014 to 650.8 GW by 2020. This yields, a cumulative installed 
capacity for solar PV + wind of over a Terawatt by 2020. This does not include 
figures for CSP (concentrated solar thermal power) either, which is significant 
in some areas (California, Nevada, Spain)… and may (or may not) grow.

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 9:55 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

 

I have literally monitored developments for years that would return some form 
of nuclear fission as a safe possibility to be the main power source for the 
human species. It always sounds interestingly, and innovative, but never takes 
off to become a reality. Thorium, Molten Salt, Micro, Betavoltaic, subcritical 
reactors which switch off when a laser or proton beam stop, all the wonderful 
ideas, and more. But these things never leave the laboratory. I will not argue 
why this is true, or that its a total shame that it never takes off. I think at 
this late date, fusion, a different process,  will wait till the 22nd century, 
and for the next 85 years its going to be natural gas (argue about this later) 
or solar and wind. Electric cars power by solar and wind, factories, homes, and 
the rest of the slack taken up by natural gas. Tesla and Prius will eventually 
lead the way in transportation. Yes, this view is disappointing, but true. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 12:26 am
Subject: RE: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia

Has anybody been following this. Looks like the lead cooled fast  breeder 
design is being carried ahead in Russia.

 

An experimental lead-cooled nuclear reactor will be built at the Siberian 
Chemical Combine (SCC). If successful, the small BREST-300 unit could be the 
first of a new wave of Russian fast reactors.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Fast_moves_for_nuclear_development_in_Siberia_0410121.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. 

-- 
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

Re: Life in the Islamic State for women

State capitalism is the economic's of (or was) of communism. State Factor #117 
and all that. I am more concerned about political evils and murders committed 
by the communists. The small scale communism sounds just like the old co-ops of 
the 20th century, US. Nowadays, modern communism is 100% entwined with Crony 
Capitalism. Look at China, billionaires, look at Russia, billionaire oligarchs, 
look at the US, billionaire oligarchs catered to by BHO, and yes, the Koch's 
for the Republicans, George Soros the Democrats. Are all these systems less 
bloodthirsty, now that our systems are mixed economies? I don't now. Whatever 
system we are embedded in, I want it to see to protecting our rights, and our 
survival. Will it? 



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Apr 4, 2015 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: Life in the Islamic State for women


  
On 4/4/2015 6:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:  
  
  
   
Hi John   


 
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, John Mikes  jami...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
   
TELMO:
I did not expect from you to point to the 2 centuries old obsolete and 
theoretical exercise of Marx-Engels (irrespective of Lenin's intermitted LATER 
speculations) as blueprint for a (still?) viable(?)  political system.   
   
  
  
  
  
  
I don't think it was ever viable, and I don't think it's relevant to the 
current times, as it is based on too many assumption from an era that is long 
gone (early Industrialism). 
  
  
  
  
What I mean is, when people use the word communism, there is a document that 
describes precisely what this word is supposed to mean. A blueprint for 
communism. 
  
  
  
  
I do think that Marx-Engels correctly identified social problems that remain 
being problems to this day, namely the self-reinforcing nature of wealth 
inequality. The issue is that their proposed solution seems to equalize society 
by throwing the majority of people into extreme poverty and servitude. 
  
  
  
   

 It never got further than a tyranny of 'leftish-sounding' slogans by 
pretenders. As the original authors dreamed it up, it never (and nowhere) did 
get off from the ground.

I know, I lived in a so called Peoples' Democracy (Called 'commi' system - ha 
ha)  which was neither peoples' nor democracy. Nor Marxist, nor Leninist. 
   

It was a Stalinist tyranny. And Maoist, Pol-Pot, plus a KimIrSen-istic one. 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
I would be very interested in any story you had to share about those times. 
  
  
  
  
I agree that these societies never achieved anything resembling what Marx 
proposed. The remaining communists of today tend to argue that all of past 
communist movements were not sincere in their motivations. That might very well 
be true, but even then it is an important piece of information on human nature. 
If we are trying to get from A - B and we always stumble on the same horrors 
along the way, maybe the plan is just not viable for this world. So far we have 
learned that either communism is a terrible idea or communist revolutions 
always end up being hijacked by sociopaths. To be honest, I think both are 
true. 
 

   
  
  
 Communism is not a terrible idea - it works fine for families.  A lot of 
political problems come from trying to extend ethics that evolved for families 
and small tribes to nation states of millions of unrelated people.  Capitalism 
has problems from the same source.  Owning a flint spearhead you made is 
unproblematic.  If you own it you can prohibit its use, sell it, bequeath it,  
etc.  But when this idea was extended to owning land it created problems.  John 
Locke thought owning land was an oxymoron...you could only own the temporary 
use of land.  Didn't matter for hunter-gatherers, but it was problem that had 
to be solved for agricultural society. 
  
 That now a lot the world's GDP comes from capital has created the same kinds 
of questions about ownership of capital.  Given that rg in Piketty's analysis, 
is it a good idea to allow the Koch brothers to inherit a billion dollar 
business (that their father built by drilling for Stalin). 
  
  
   

 
  
  
  
   






Capitalism - in my view an advanced form of slavery, following feudalism - 
started to destroy the entire human experiment on this Globe - way before the 
warming entered the picture.

It never 'faced' a competition of any 'socialistic' challenger. It succumbbed 
to the authoritarian religious tyrannies (brutal and violent, or just 
retracting and philosophical).
   
  
  
  
  
  
As with communism, there is a big gap between the theory and the 
implementation.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 If you take the MWI seriously, then you are open to the possibility that
 you are constantly being duplicated


If the MWI is true then it's not a possibility it's a certainty


  Assuming you're like me, you perceive yourself as a single entity
 travelling through time in the forward direction.


You?
Mr. John Clark The Moscow Man will perceive a single entity, and Mr. John
Clark the Washington Man will perceive a single entity, and Mr. John Clark
The Helsinki Man will no longer perceive anything at all.

And John Clark is really starting to hate personal pronouns, as a exercise
try writing a paragraph or at least a sentence without using any, it will
do Telmo Menezes good.

  subjectively there is only one Stathis Papaioannou because they are
 identical.


  Subjectively from whose perspective?


From the only one that matters, from Stathis Papaioannou's perspective. Two
identical Stathis Papaioannous running in parallel is subjectively
identical to one.


   After the doors are opened they no longer are identical because they
 see different things; one sees Moscow and becomes Mr. Stathis Papaioannou
 The Moscow Man, and the other sees Washington and becomes Mr. Stathis
 Papaioannou The Washington Man.


  But before the doors are opened and after the duplication, you can ask
 them through the intercom to guess where they are.


The position of their brains is unimportant because until the door is
opened both are still identical to the Helsinki Man. A much better question
is to ask them to guess what will happen when the door opens. Both know
with 100% certainty that photons will impinge on them and will change them,
but they are uncertain if the photons will come from Moscow or from
Washington. But this is just the classical old fashioned sort uncertainty
that is due to simple lack of information, it's not inherent uncertainty of
the Quantum Mechanical sort.

Monty Hall always had the information about which door the car was behind,
and the person on the other end of that intercom knows which parallel copy
of Telmo Menezes will see photons coming from Moscow and turn into the
Moscow Man and which will see photons coming from Washington and turn into
the Moscow Man. But the information on if that atom of Carbon 14 will decay
in the next hour is not just unknown the information does not exist, it's
inherently uncertain.

  John K Clark








 If they are forced to make a bet, you will find that they tend to be right
 1/2 of the time.


But the probability is about if the protons that come through that open
door will come from Moscow, in which Mr. Telmo Menezes

 you will change







 This is all you're being asked to agree with. I can predict with 100%
 certainty that it doesn't matter though, because



 you made your mind before giving the idea a chance.

 Telmo.



   John K Clark


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


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


-- 
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: Fast moves for nuclear development in Siberia