Re: The dovetailer disassembled
Ok, but you could equally say that all the universe does is attain the state of heat death, or that all a person does is end up dead. You are choosing to ignore the intermediate steps as unimportant, because you know the ultimate outcome. My point is that the intermediate steps are just other maps from N to N of the same kind. Considering these intermediate steps adds nothing to the dovetailer, although the intermediate steps in my life between birth and death all take on different characters. I see your problem, but this seems illusory. If you substitute integers and operations over integers with particles and their interactions, you arrive at the same problem. The known laws of physics do not appear to be more rich than what a Turing machine can do. I can see only two ways out of this problem: either consciousness is more fundamental than physics or there is some form of dualism. Even though each day is just a map from rising in the morning to going to bed at night, these maps happen in real physical time, they are not timeless maps in Platonia. Right, but time can be generated by timeless maps in Platonia. Time can be explained by a combination of a narrow (first person) perspective and a certain structure of observer moments. Maybe all observer moments are timeless, but the valid sequence connecting them (these connections being timeless maps in Platonia) creates the perception of a past. Maybe all observer moments are eternal but they all contain the illusion of time passing. And in the case of the dovetailer also the infinite intermediate steps of uncomputable functions that lead to no mapping. The intermediate steps are each a map in their own right. Sure, but again you arrive at the same problem with conventional physics containing human lives. In the end there's only particles and interactions, and each interaction is a map in its own right, not different at all from any other computation. Unless you propose that the medium itself contains some unknown property that changes everything. I believe this leads to dualism. Also, the Mandelbrot set is just a mapping, but it has infinite generative power. You mean that the generated fractal has infinite complexity because it extends to all levels of the real numbers? We are talking functions on integers here. Real numbers can be represented as computations over integers. In fact, this is how any modern digital computer generates some part of the Mandelbrot set. So, rather than requiring all possible computable functions over the natural numbers, you could reduce your set of functions to consist of only *unique* operations. In this way you can show that the only computations required are the results of adding any two integers to give another integer as the result. All functions phi_i(x) can be reduced to this for an appropriate choice of the internal steps. If you define uniqueness as simply the mapping from input to output. Another possibility is that the sequence of intermediate steps is a relevant object, in which case such simplification is invalid. Define for me an intermediate step that is not also a mapping from input to output. I am not arguing against that. The real difficulty, however, arises when you move from calculations on a physical computer into Platonia. In Platonia, all you have are sets of relations between numbers: each map is a relation between two numbers. Any two numbers might have an indefinitely large number of programs mapping from one to the other, but all such programs reduce to simple additions of two numbers. They reduce only if one accepts your criterium, which seems arbitrary to me. Once you have specified the results of adding any two positive integers together, you have completed all possible computations of the dovetailer. This is like saying that performing a computation that solves the traveler salesman problem for a given graph and that finds the minimal number of steps to be 11 is redundant, because the other day come guy already added 5 to 6 to find how many apples he sold that day. Yes, exactly. The travelling salesman problem is difficult only because we wish to solve it on a physical computer in physical time -- in Platonia the solution for the minimum path already exists with the setting of the problem, just like adding apples. My point here is not that the TSP is difficult, just that it is a different computation from adding apples, even though the output may be the same. What is more, these relations of addition are timeless. There was not a time when they were not true in Platonia, and no time at which the related computation was actually performed. So there are no useful computations in Platonia, and certainly nothing rich enough to support a physical world, much less to support consciousness. You are essentially
Re: God
Brent, each person is of course different, but if you want me to be picky picky picky, I can. Dawkins's hates all religious fanaticism, and has spoken out against Islamic fanaticism, so he's kind of a hero. An anti-religious one, but a hero none the less. Hitchens was another hero of mine, trading punches with Islamists, and yes, even the Syrian Nazi party. He was a great guy. Stenger, who knows? He was a crusty, sci dude, who opposed religion, but apparently Christianity. Penn Jillette and Teller were talented illusionists, but caved on Islamic radicalism some years back. No kudos for cowardice--IT Takes Nothing to attack the Christians-NOTHING! Ah, but with the Jihadists, well, see, they're 3rd worlders and... Von Mises, hell no! Ayn Rand, no she hated commies, as do I. Larry Krauss. another clever physicist with a personality like a Gila Monster. Let me ask these rhetorical questions back at you. Why are the so-called liberals so sympathetic to the old soviets, to the new Islamists, to censorship of competing ideas. These are rhetorical questions, because we all know why. We all know who the progressives see as their chief enemy. Ain't Putin, ain't China, ain't Iran, ain't ISIS. It's the middle class of the US, and the world. Thus, the McCarthyite/Alinsky tactic that I use for the Liberals rings true because it's true. Now about the Atheist thing. I am really good with atheism as long as it's not wedded to the progressive (Neocom) ideology. What's neocomm? Glad you asked. It's the marriage of crony capitalists to progressive politicians. Notice how silent the antiwar types are when it comes to what Russia, or China, or Iran does, militarily, but howl like dogs when its US troops? Twas this way during Nam. Do the say, Republicans have this as well? Absolutely. Which is off topic on atheism, but explains why things are so badly screwed up. Witness Baltimore, and Ferguson as Americans future. Check your news today. Cheers -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 8:31 pm Subject: Re: God On 4/28/2015 7:05 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Atheists can do evil, and so can religious capitalists-at least if we look at history over the last 400 years. It's not that people were not like this for thousands of years. It's merely that atheists identified and still identify with Marxist principles, I don't know where you get this stuff. Which of the New Atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Krauss, is a Marxist. Is Penn Jillette a Marxist? Ludwig von Mises? Ayn Rand? You seem to be stuck in the delusion that since all Marxists are atheists, all atheists must be Marxists. 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: God
meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this does not mean that all calculations exist in Platonia. The results of all calculations might exist there, but not the calculations themselves. That's where I think Bruno's idea diverges. Because all computation can be defined by a UD, and every such definition will be extensively equivalent per Church-Turing, it must exist in Platonia. Bruno uses exist as in the logical form There exists an even prime number. I think there might be a distinction being drawn between computation and calculation. I m not quite sure what this distinction might be, but in the sense that a calculation is an operation that can be performed with pencil and paper, and takes physical time in a physical world, I do not see how this can work in Platonia, which is timeless. There is not an ordered sequence of steps there, neither spatial nor temporal ordering make any sense in Platonia. There might be a logical ordering, but all of the steps exist simultaneously. Platonia is the timeless world of forms, so although there exists an indefinite number of relations between any two integers, x and y, none of these paths or relations is ever actually calculated there. In other words, all valid results 'exist' in Platonia, but the equivalent computations do not. Computations (calculations) are left to mere mortals. I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. That seems a likely interpretation. Does the Goedel number give the whole ordered proof? The number encodes the whole proof in order. But it isn't unique; there are infinitely many ways to define a Goedel numbering. So how does my Platonic consciousness know the difference between a different Goedel numbering of the same proof, or the same Goedel numbering of a different proof? Or is there a separate number for each step? One of my problems is that the notion of a 'step' in a computation or proof is not well-defined. That seems to depend on the architecture of your 'computer'. That's where Bruno relies on the equivalence formal digital computation methods, the Church-Turing thesis: Turing, recursive functions, lambda calculus, But that formal equivalence ensures only that for a given algorithm on a given input, the output is the same. It says nothing about the intermediate steps. Unless you break your algorithm down to simple counting or some such. I am an impoverished physicist and the only computer I can afford is the simplest Turing machine that I put together out of a few bits of wood and a couple of pebbles. I have an unlimited supply of paper tape, so I can do any calculation whatsoever -- it might just take me a bit longer than it takes other people! Each step on my Turing machine never gets better than adding a unit to some already calculated number. So the steps are just counting, or else moving the tape about. But I can 'prove' any valid relation between numbers that anyone else can 'prove'. Are my 'steps' rich enough to produce consciousness and a physical world? After all, each 'step' is a proof of a valid arithmetical result. I think it's enough to create a consciousness IN a physical world created for it to be conscious OF. But that's not exactly a reversal of physics and psychology - they are on a par and both derivative from computation. However, I'm not clear on what the Goedel number of an algorithm that doesn't halt would be, since it either doesn't have a result or has an infinite sequence of results, depending on how you look at results. Exactly. The nature of a 'computation' in Platonia needs some clarification. Goedel numbers are, after all, just as timeless and static as any other number in Platonia. And even if it is clear that doesn't mean it exists. The question is whether a value of a variable that satisfies a predicate implies that the value exists. I think there are different kinds of existence and the existence of numbers doesn't entail the existence of electrons. I think we agreed on that a while ago. Bruce -- 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: God
meekerdb wrote: I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. It occurs to me to ask Who does the Goedel numbering of the proof (computation)? The UD evaluates mappings from N to N. These might be considered 'proofs' of arithmetical relationships, but they give an integer as output, not a Goedel number encoding the whole computation. Anyway, if Goedel numbers of proofs were the output, then I could point to any normal number. That contains the Goedel numbers for all possible proofs. In fact, it contains all possible Goedel numberings of all such proofs. It also contains an awful lot of dross, but so what. We trust that that dross is of zero measure. :-) But Bruno denied that anything of this sort was involved when I asked him about this possibility a while ago. He wants to make a fundamental distinction between a computation and the description of a computation. I wonder whether that distinction can be made to stick in Platonia. Bruce -- 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: God
If you think that blacks did ok under slavery, and didn't perish hugely, you must be living in fantasy land. I am about as rightwing as one can get on this mailing list. But I am not fibbing in order to cleanse the facts of human history. While, I am at it, The Spaniards and Portuguese were responsible for millions of deaths in the New World, and they were capitalist and very religious. These were children of the inquisition who were also charmers. The Portuguese were and are very far from capitalism. I suspect the same is true of the Spanish, but I will avoid talking about what I don't know so well. The Portuguese culture is the most collectivist in Europe: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/individualism-map.gif Both in the discovery ages and now, the culture favours centralized, government-led action and profoundly distrusts private initiative. The first time in its history that Portugal started having something resembling a free market was in the 1980's, following adhesion to the EU, and mostly motivated by the desire to take advantage of EU's fat incentives for the economic development of peripheral countries. We are perhaps the only country that successfully combines catholic conservatism with left-wing authoritarianism. We are the most catholic country in Europe and, at the same time, our two-party system alternates power between the Socialist Party and the Social-Democrat Party (which is considered right-wing, and is perhaps similar to the American Democrat party, and is accused of being too capitalist). To give you a quirky detail: my father owned a license to use a lighter. Lighters were taxed because the government owned match factories. -- 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: God
On 4/28/2015 10:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: We're not talking of the existence of statements, but the existence of truths. It's a subtle but necessary distinction. If you can prove that the Nth state of program P with input I is X, then you can also prove that the (N+1)th state of that program P with input I is Y, and by induction the entire execution of the program P given input I is as real as the truth of 2 + 2 = 4. It's so subtle you've overlooked that the inductive proof takes infinitely many steps. Whether truths exist, as contrasted with true statements is the point in question. 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: God
On 4/28/2015 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this does not mean that all calculations exist in Platonia. The results of all calculations might exist there, but not the calculations themselves. That's where I think Bruno's idea diverges. Because all computation can be defined by a UD, and every such definition will be extensively equivalent per Church-Turing, it must exist in Platonia. Bruno uses exist as in the logical form There exists an even prime number. I think there might be a distinction being drawn between computation and calculation. I m not quite sure what this distinction might be, but in the sense that a calculation is an operation that can be performed with pencil and paper, and takes physical time in a physical world, I do not see how this can work in Platonia, which is timeless. There is not an ordered sequence of steps there, neither spatial nor temporal ordering make any sense in Platonia. There might be a logical ordering, but all of the steps exist simultaneously. Platonia is the timeless world of forms, so although there exists an indefinite number of relations between any two integers, x and y, none of these paths or relations is ever actually calculated there. In other words, all valid results 'exist' in Platonia, but the equivalent computations do not. Computations (calculations) are left to mere mortals. I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. That seems a likely interpretation. Does the Goedel number give the whole ordered proof? The number encodes the whole proof in order. But it isn't unique; there are infinitely many ways to define a Goedel numbering. Or is there a separate number for each step? One of my problems is that the notion of a 'step' in a computation or proof is not well-defined. That seems to depend on the architecture of your 'computer'. That's where Bruno relies on the equivalence formal digital computation methods, the Church-Turing thesis: Turing, recursive functions, lambda calculus, I am an impoverished physicist and the only computer I can afford is the simplest Turing machine that I put together out of a few bits of wood and a couple of pebbles. I have an unlimited supply of paper tape, so I can do any calculation whatsoever -- it might just take me a bit longer than it takes other people! Each step on my Turing machine never gets better than adding a unit to some already calculated number. So the steps are just counting, or else moving the tape about. But I can 'prove' any valid relation between numbers that anyone else can 'prove'. Are my 'steps' rich enough to produce consciousness and a physical world? After all, each 'step' is a proof of a valid arithmetical result. I think it's enough to create a consciousness IN a physical world created for it to be conscious OF. But that's not exactly a reversal of physics and psychology - they are on a par and both derivative from computation. However, I'm not clear on what the Goedel number of an algorithm that doesn't halt would be, since it either doesn't have a result or has an infinite sequence of results, depending on how you look at results. Exactly. The nature of a 'computation' in Platonia needs some clarification. Goedel numbers are, after all, just as timeless and static as any other number in Platonia. And even if it is clear that doesn't mean it exists. The question is whether a value of a variable that satisfies a predicate implies that the value exists. I think there are different kinds of existence and the existence of numbers doesn't entail the existence of electrons. 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: God
To divide the world history in capitalism and marxism. That is, to apply the label capitalism to the pre-capitalist societies is a stupid marxist concept only with the purpose of propaganda. Not even the serious marxist used that division. This was only for the consumption of dumbed down leftists and other useful idiots. I don´t want to loose the time with this nonsense. 2015-04-29 1:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You think the Turks were Marxist? The whole Muslim world was mechantilist which included the sale of humans, which the Islamic world excelled in. The did bad things for money. The nazis also did, but they knew if they adopted a socialist economy for the industrial workers, they could keep them quiet with bribes, and it worked! Meanwhile Krupp, and the other industrialists benefited by lucrative gov contracts, as sort of an inner mafia. Sound familiar? Obamaland. That you seem to feel that capitalism brings people to glorious rationality is untrue, and I wager that even Friedman or Hayek would not agree with this position. The disease thing was an issue that the Spaniards kind of knew about, and wanting an easy takeover, selling blankets that the natives seemed to have no resistance to was something that not even the Lord could blame them for. The Renaissance crowd didn't know germ theory, but after centuries of various plagues, they knew that clothing could magically pass on killer diseases. Even the Mongols knew this, in 1346 when they catapulted infected corpses and clothing, at the Siege of Caffa. Also, the death toll of slavery shouldn't be underestimated. Do you think ole' massa' came out and massaged the feet of the slaves at the end of a hard day? The Belgian thing is sadly true. So, are you claiming that capitalism is more ethical then Marxism? I would add yes, today! But not always. In the past there were reasons that the common Joe looked to Marxism as appealing. With the slaughter of 80 million by the Marxists during the 20th century, plus a crappier life style, minus any freedom, I would have opted for people to drop communism like a hot shit sandwich, but they don't. Why? In part its because of the neocommunist elites that buy all politicians. Its Crony Capitalism for them, and more and more socialism for the serfs. (Hayek-style). I did compare Obama's economy with old Adolf's since it seems similar. Look at the Chinese billionaires, look at Russian oligarchs. Remember the ending to Animal Farm, from man to pig, and pig to man.. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 6:04 pm Subject: Re: God It is boring to discuss with nominalist, because you can not discuss anything but facts, Look at the philosophical and theological considerations of my first comment here, that I consider crucial to understand and discuss and look at the boring and uninteresting details that I´m forced to discuss now. And when facts are nothing but manipulated falsehoods. Not by your fault but due to disinformation from third party interests, then it is loss of time. but anyway. I dont care if you are right or left. I care bout the truth. Falsehood is irritating but nonsense is comic. For example: . The Turks were also nominal capitalists and did massacre even when losing Armenian customers. is really really comic , The Spaniards and Portuguese were responsible for millions of deaths in the New World, and they were capitalist and very religious. These were children of the inquisition who were also charmers. The immense majority were due to new diseases. The same diseases that decimated Europe few decades before plus some others that were common in europe but new for the indians, Concerning the Congo, I repeat what I said. Concerning Inquisition, it is a myth. In a single normal day the French revolutionaries killed more than the inquisition in Spain in all his history. See for example this: https://youtu.be/qhlAqklH0do Thus said, to kill and be killed is something that every country has done. Except, of course the archipielago idiot. the nation of progressive good-for-nothings of every nation, whose history start every morning. They live in the supermarket of History, and they bough all the pieces of goodness and brightness of humanity for themselves and for their progressive lego. The rest of us have to share the bad episodes. That the turks that massacred the armenians were capitalists and because that they killed a million armenians is the highest piece of idiocy that I have ever seen (sorry man) They were muslims that wanted to restore the caliphate. They killed armenians because it was the only christian minority without support in the West. The supposed belgian massacres were poscolonial, and the book that denounce the
Re: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe?
There was an article published on Monday over a survey on whether the holographic principle could survive in either flat or curved space. They ran the survey twice and the spirit of the lamp augered, yes. And it kind of fits into digitalist physics, philosophy, plumbing. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe? On 29 April 2015 at 11:05, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You could like include this work by the U of Vienna, to Steinhart's Promotion theory of information transfer. The nice thing is that curved or flat or square, the digitalism still works no matter what the shape of space is. Also holographic theory seems to suggest an underpinning of computation, from 2D to 3D. Which work? -- 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: God
Again, the pre-capitalism is mechantilism. Marxism is merely a grab for centralized control, based on the lies of solving grave economic and social problems. Or as Chi town mayor Rahm said, Never let a good crisis go to waste. Saul Alinsky, Marxist lawyer, was probably the best political mind since Nicolo Machiavelli. His 13 Rules for Radicals is replete with how the marxists view the world. The nice thing is, non-marxists can use his 13 rules against the progressives (so-called). -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 8:21 am Subject: Re: God To divide the world history in capitalism and marxism. That is, to apply the label capitalism to the pre-capitalist societies is a stupid marxist concept only with the purpose of propaganda. Not even the serious marxist used that division. This was only for the consumption of dumbed down leftists and other useful idiots. I don´t want to loose the time with this nonsense. 2015-04-29 1:01 GMT+02:00 spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com: You think the Turks were Marxist? The whole Muslim world was mechantilist which included the sale of humans, which the Islamic world excelled in. The did bad things for money. The nazis also did, but they knew if they adopted a socialist economy for the industrial workers, they could keep them quiet with bribes, and it worked! Meanwhile Krupp, and the other industrialists benefited by lucrative gov contracts, as sort of an inner mafia. Sound familiar? Obamaland. That you seem to feel that capitalism brings people to glorious rationality is untrue, and I wager that even Friedman or Hayek would not agree with this position. The disease thing was an issue that the Spaniards kind of knew about, and wanting an easy takeover, selling blankets that the natives seemed to have no resistance to was something that not even the Lord could blame them for. The Renaissance crowd didn't know germ theory, but after centuries of various plagues, they knew that clothing could magically pass on killer diseases. Even the Mongols knew this, in 1346 when they catapulted infected corpses and clothing, at the Siege of Caffa. Also, the death toll of slavery shouldn't be underestimated. Do you think ole' massa' came out and massaged the feet of the slaves at the end of a hard day? The Belgian thing is sadly true. So, are you claiming that capitalism is more ethical then Marxism? I would add yes, today! But not always. In the past there were reasons that the common Joe looked to Marxism as appealing. With the slaughter of 80 million by the Marxists during the 20th century, plus a crappier life style, minus any freedom, I would have opted for people to drop communism like a hot shit sandwich, but they don't. Why? In part its because of the neocommunist elites that buy all politicians. Its Crony Capitalism for them, and more and more socialism for the serfs. (Hayek-style). I did compare Obama's economy with old Adolf's since it seems similar. Look at the Chinese billionaires, look at Russian oligarchs. Remember the ending to Animal Farm, from man to pig, and pig to man.. -Original Message- From: Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 6:04 pm Subject: Re: God It is boring to discuss with nominalist, because you can not discuss anything but facts, Look at the philosophical and theological considerations of my first comment here, that I consider crucial to understand and discuss and look at the boring and uninteresting details that I´m forced to discuss now. And when facts are nothing but manipulated falsehoods. Not by your fault but due to disinformation from third party interests, then it is loss of time. but anyway. I dont care if you are right or left. I care bout the truth. Falsehood is irritating but nonsense is comic. For example: . The Turks were also nominal capitalists and did massacre even when losing Armenian customers. is really really comic , The Spaniards and Portuguese were responsible for millions of deaths in the New World, and they were capitalist and very religious. These were children of
Re: God
Call it mechantilism then. The bought, they sold, they hoarded, typical stuff. Why quibble? Though technically, I suspect you are correct. -Original Message- From: Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 5:56 am Subject: Re: God If you think that blacks did ok under slavery, and didn't perish hugely, you must be living in fantasy land. I am about as rightwing as one can get on this mailing list. But I am not fibbing in order to cleanse the facts of human history. While, I am at it, The Spaniards and Portuguese were responsible for millions of deaths in the New World, and they were capitalist and very religious. These were children of the inquisition who were also charmers. The Portuguese were and are very far from capitalism. I suspect the same is true of the Spanish, but I will avoid talking about what I don't know so well. The Portuguese culture is the most collectivist in Europe: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/individualism-map.gif Both in the discovery ages and now, the culture favours centralized, government-led action and profoundly distrusts private initiative. The first time in its history that Portugal started having something resembling a free market was in the 1980's, following adhesion to the EU, and mostly motivated by the desire to take advantage of EU's fat incentives for the economic development of peripheral countries. We are perhaps the only country that successfully combines catholic conservatism with left-wing authoritarianism. We are the most catholic country in Europe and, at the same time, our two-party system alternates power between the Socialist Party and the Social-Democrat Party (which is considered right-wing, and is perhaps similar to the American Democrat party, and is accused of being too capitalist). To give you a quirky detail: my father owned a license to use a lighter. Lighters were taxed because the government owned match factories. -- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
Hope it happens, wish it would, doubt it will. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 11:51 am Subject: RE: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:46 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strong-future-forecast-for-renewable-energy As does Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-energy-is-on-the-verge-of-a-global-boom-2015-4?IR=T Of course nothing doesa global boom quite as well as nuclear :-) The essential issue being, of course, which kind of global boom nuclear does nuclear in the end do? Do we slip into an era of out of control proliferation of the availability of the essential materials. I can think of several unfortunate outcomes arising from the proliferation of, especially certain breeder technology, by which I intend the plutonium breeders. In so far as breeder reactors go LFTRs seem the most benign and inherently walk away safe. The scale up and scale out of certain energy harvesting technologies such as for example PV is impressive and soon the price of the cells themselves will come down to levels that make it feasible to incorporate PV materials into all manner of solar facing architectural surfaces; including the road surfaces themselves. The often mentioned storage problem is getting solved. Certain battery types, such as flow battery systems can and are being scaled up to utility scale. These systems can be made to work with relatively easy to obtain and handle materials and since the reagents are stored externally to the *flow* battery, which both extracts power in the oxidation phase and using power reduces the spent reagents, recharging it. The total throughput of the system at any given moment is determined by the size of the battery array, by that cumulative capacity; this flow capacity comprises one dimension of the flow battery systems capacity, and is the measure of what the system can deliver at any given time. The other dimension -- that of the storage capacity e.g. how much energy can the system store – in a flow battery system can scale independently and at industrial scale, extending out in external tanks. Such large scale utility scale battery nodes will naturally become situated both near the producing regions (wind/solar) and within the demand regions (the LA metro area for example). One of the less talked about problems our current electric grid is facing is capacity limits during peak demand. Being able to shunt power into these metro areas during the middle of the night when there is little demand on the grid (and hence it has large free capacity) to charge up large utility scale battery systems (whether flow battery or other also interesting energy storage systems) that can be sited right in the heart of large demand areas and be able to take some load off of key high power lines during peak demand. The evolution of the grid is necessary, not only in order to accommodate the flatter more horizontal network of wind/solar + other, but also critically just in order to continue to be able to meet peak demand load conditions. Having a battery buffer within the urban areas enables time-shifting (at a cost of course) of supply and demand – and also as I mentioned time shifting of transit. The unit price of solar PV is going to continue to go down, soon it will make coal look quaintly expensive. All the metrics point towards solar PV being able to continue its extraordinary scale out both in terms of annual new capacity, but also in unit price. The industry obeys and is driven by many of the same “laws” that drove the semi-conductor sector – and it makes sense considering how similar they are in fundamental ways. The electric grid is increasingly being driven by these other transit related hard and difficult to surmount capacity limits, towards solutions that bring either the collection of energy and/or the forward deployed dispatchable stored capacity into the centers of demand. High temperature (meaning liquid nitrogen) super conducting high capacity conduits (a trunk/backbone network) would be nice J -- a few small scale limited urban loops have actually already been laid down, so this is not a completely outlandish idea. Imagine what a polar high capacity (say 200GW) super conducting very high voltage line connecting the markets from the American eastern seaboard all the way (with perhaps a central line running down through Toronto/Chicago/Dallas/Denver and one down the
Re: God
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a computer without using any matter or energy or momentum or spin or electrical charge or anything else that is physical. Bruno you really need to start your own company, you'll be able to sell Bruno brand computers far cheaper than your competition that still makes them out of old fashioned matter and still make a big profit. Unlike those other companies you don't have to build your computers in China, in fact you don't have to build them at all, so your manufacturing costs would be zero! And think of the convenience of a smartphone that isn't just thin but takes up no space at all in your pocket. I predict that just 6 months after your new company's IPO you'll be the world's first trillionaire. You need the physical to implement the computer in the physical reality. Why? 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: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe?
Fermilab is constructing a device called a Holometer and if we're lucky it may be able to tell us if spacetime is quantized and show us if the Planck Length and the Planck Time really do mean something in physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqEaPKZ7fs 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: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 07:38, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this does not mean that all calculations exist in Platonia. The results of all calculations might exist there, but not the calculations themselves. That's where I think Bruno's idea diverges. Because all computation can be defined by a UD, and every such definition will be extensively equivalent per Church-Turing, it must exist in Platonia. Bruno uses exist as in the logical form There exists an even prime number. I think there might be a distinction being drawn between computation and calculation. I m not quite sure what this distinction might be, but in the sense that a calculation is an operation that can be performed with pencil and paper, and takes physical time in a physical world, I do not see how this can work in Platonia, which is timeless. There is not an ordered sequence of steps there, neither spatial nor temporal ordering make any sense in Platonia. There might be a logical ordering, but all of the steps exist simultaneously. Platonia is the timeless world of forms, so although there exists an indefinite number of relations between any two integers, x and y, none of these paths or relations is ever actually calculated there. In other words, all valid results 'exist' in Platonia, but the equivalent computations do not. Computations (calculations) are left to mere mortals. I think the idea is that computations are proofs, This is a subtle point. It is like, in mathematics, what happens with the notion of function and relation. You can define the notion of function as a particular case of relation (the functional relations), but you can define relations as particular case of function (the characteristic function of the relation). Similarly, you can see a computation as a particular case of proof, basically a proof of a sigma_1 sentence ExP(x). But you can see a proof, at least a formal or formalizable proof, as a particular case of computation, by the semi-computability of Gödel beweisbar. In AUDA, This is reflected by the so called provable sigma_1 completeness of machine believing in enough induction power. Those machine can prove p - []p for p sigma_1. As []A is sigma_1 itself, those machine can prove []A - [][]A, they have an awareness, and they are aware of that awareness, somehow (Smullyan's terminology). (This awareness is still 3p and consciousness independent). The knower will be the one conscious, and it is meta-defined by the []p p local representations. It leads to the soul, obeying the modal logic S4Grz, and S4Grz1 on the p sigma_1. In arithmetic, the UD is mirrored, emulated, by the sigma_1 sentences, and their justification, reduced and equivalent to proof of simpler sigma_1 sentences. They verify that p - []p, true but only half provable (p- []p), as ([]p - p) remains unprovable. I exploit the fact that Turing universality is equivalent with sigma_1 completeness provabilility. Notice that Löbian prover are richer than the average universal number, as it knows that it is universal, and it can deduce all the shit which can be derived from that, like if I am not crashing I might crash. i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. OK. However, I'm not clear on what the Goedel number of an algorithm that doesn't halt would be, since it either doesn't have a result or has an infinite sequence of results, depending on how you look at results. It corresponds to the proof of the false sigma_1 sentence, where the machine is reminded that crashing= perhaps to dream?, in the 1p view. Shakespeare theorem (grin). Non terminating programs can be simple loop or un-boundably complex processes, some might dovetail on the reals. But on the ideally correct or honest machine, the self-referential constraints are strong and they get the semantics required for such a relative measure, at the place needed. With comp, we are not so much interested on results of computations, than on the computations themselves, and their existence. Some programs does not stop, and we can survive only on them. Some false sigma_1 sentence can play some role, like []f (called lies, but it is more general). We are still very ignorant. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: God
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe all true statements exist is some sort of abstract Platonic world, but even if they do I'm not sure that would be very important because all false statements would exist in that very same world, We're not talking of the existence of statements, but the existence of truths. Truths are not the only thing that exists, falsehoods exist too and there are many more falsehoods than truths because there are many ways to be wrong but only one way to be right. And Godel proved that there is no mathematical procedure that can put all the truths in one set and all the falsehoods in another. You can find mathematical procedures that allow you to put some truths in the true set and you can find mathematical procedures that allow you to put some falsehoods in the false set, but Turing proved that in general there is no way to know if any given statement has such a procedure or not, all you can do is keep trying and you might be trying forever. Even mathematics doesn't know if some statements are true or not, so if there is a Platonic world that contains only true statements and no false ones the separation must have been done by something other than mathematics and therefore mathematics can not be fundamental. If program P is a brain emulation of John Clark then you might even say that facts about John's thoughts and (perhaps even conscious perceptions) are mathematical facts, existing as a consequence of self-existant arithmetical truth. Arithmetical truth remains arithmetical truth even when I'm under anesthesia, so why doesn't my consciousness exist when I'm under anesthesia? I agree there is an analogy between discovering and inventing when it comes to computations and mathematical truth. Given Godel, I think the only consistent view is that mathematical truth (which includes computation) is discovered. It could be that parts of the language of mathematics are discovered and other parts are invented, just as a scientific paper can be written in the language of English but so can a Harry Potter novel. I'm not saying that is the case I'm just saying maybe. Physics might be necessary for humans to discover and talk about mathematical concepts, And physics is required to make the concept of explanation be meaningful, and perhaps for meaningful to be meaningful too. but physics can't make the 9th Mersenne Prime 2305843009213693951 and not some other number. Integers involve counting and the 9th Mersenne Prime is an integer, but if physics did not exist and there was nothing to count not even ONE thing, and there was nothing around to do any counting even if there were something to count, would the very idea of number mean anything? computationalism can explain all possible observations since all possible computations exist assuming arithmetical realism. We're far from having solved all the problems in physics so it's very premature to say that mathematics can explain, much less create, all of it. Let me make it clear that I'm playing devil's advocate here, maybe mathematics really is fundamental but what I object to is the dogmatic assertion that we already know for certain that it is. Since you can say 2 + 2 = 4, and always has Actually 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2. :) 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 4/29/2015 4:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What I also believe is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from matter. ?? You don't know about concussions, neurosurgery, brain lesions,... There are LOTS of reasons to believe consciousness depends on matter. 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: God
On 4/29/2015 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and creates entropy) must exist or there will be a logical self contradiction. Or maybe mathematics is saying nothing of the sort and mathematics is just a language for describing that physical process. That's not what you said, you said computation can be made real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words not without turning to a PHYSICAL process Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO need to use energy and create entropy. What I don't know is if mathematics can explain why this fact must exist and it couldn't have been otherwise, or if mathematics is just describing a raw physical fact. Bruno claimed that Computation can be concretized [made real] in any universal number, in arithmetic and I said and will continue to say that nobody knows if that is true or not. All students in logic knows that. I will come back on this later. If people did not get this, I understand that AUDA (the machine interview) seems a bit uneasy. Not sure that even the step 7 and 8 can make sense. OF course UDA does not get that conclusion. It does not say that computation can be emulated by arithmetic: it says that physical computations have to emerge from a sum on all computations in arithmetic, once we assume computationalism. Bruno But that phrase, emerge from a sum on all computations, sounds like and then a miracle happens to me. This means you have forget all about UDA step 1-7, which explains that there is a miracle indeed, but it is the same miracle than in step 0, 1 and 3. You need only faith in comp and trust in the doctor. What does emerge mean? It means obtained from a solution of the measure on computations as seen from the 1p. So the sentence expands to: The UDA says that physical computations are obtained from a solution of the measure on computations as seen from the first person. I don't feel any more enlightened obtained from is as ambiguous as emerege. I can see that there can be measures on computations, e.g. number of steps on some canonical TM. But that doesn't illuminate a solution of the measure or what means to see this from the first person. How do you sum two computations and what is the result? See step 1-7. Steps 1-6 are all about splitting and duplicating consciousness?? Where is the summing? And is all computations a countable set you can sum over? This is an open question. If you assume the rule Y = II, What rule is that? then it can be argued that the computations are not countable, because you have to differentiate them on the 2^aleph_0 oracle. AUDA gives a procedure to extract physics, without deciding such question. But does it extract physics and what is the physics that is extracted? I take it that physics is defined in terms of sharability between streams of consciousness. But how is this sharing effected and why is spacetime 4D? 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: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 08:58, Bruce Kellett wrote: [Brent:]And even if it is clear that doesn't mean it exists. The question is whether a value of a variable that satisfies a predicate implies that the value exists. I think there are different kinds of existence and the existence of numbers doesn't entail the existence of electrons. I think we agreed on that a while ago. I am with you on this. Don't make people believe I could not. Arithmetic explains only the virtual reality, and if correct, the physical reality is an appearance of some normalizing procedure. It is open if that converge to one (class of special) universal number or not. I think quantum computations win, but that remains to be tested, both in comp, and in nature. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 09:29, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. It occurs to me to ask Who does the Goedel numbering of the proof (computation)? The UD evaluates mappings from N to N. These might be considered 'proofs' of arithmetical relationships, but they give an integer as output, not a Goedel number encoding the whole computation. That depend which one. You write program e which compute transformùation on themselves T(e, x, y, ...). The UD does not just compute the functions from N to N, it emulates all the different manner to do those computations. Anyway, if Goedel numbers of proofs were the output, then I could point to any normal number. That contains the Goedel numbers for all possible proofs. In fact, it contains all possible Goedel numberings of all such proofs. It also contains an awful lot of dross, but so what. We trust that that dross is of zero measure. :-) OK, but that is the faith of the gap. Computer science provides the tools to do the calculus. But Bruno denied that anything of this sort was involved when I asked him about this possibility a while ago. What? I just say that this is the problem. I just make it precise, and show it obligatory with computationalism. He wants to make a fundamental distinction between a computation and the description of a computation. Ah! This? Yes, it is the difference between the following truth: 1+1=2 The machine 56 proves 1+1=2 The machine 56 proves that The machine 56 proves 1+1=2 The machine, like the human, can only evoke a computation by bringing either some description of it, or by pointing on some finite piece of it: the work done by this universal number from step 100 to step 1000. Like in most Gödel numbering, the symbol 0 might get the Gödel number 17, and the machine, when she want to refer to the symbol 0, will use the number s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(0), to repersent the symbol representing 0. I wonder whether that distinction can be made to stick in Platonia. Yes, that is mainly what Gödel illustrated. Bruno Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 29 Apr 2015, at 00:32, Jason Resch wrote: Bruno, Speaking of the UD. At one point you mentioned that halting programs have no weight in the UD, Yes, this is because only the non stopping programs can diverge enough to get measure stable enough. but don't those halting programs recur an infinite number of times since the UD contains itself? All computations occurs an infinity of times, but some exploits the infinite to get high relative measure on relatively rare states. Some stopping program can survive, but only because they are often used by more complex programs is realities made stable through a continuum of futures (but I am not sure of that: it is just the most literal way to look at things). I use the formal tools from here, because the intuition is defectuous at this stage. Bruno Jason On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruce seems to ignore the (mind-body) problem, and to miss that the UDA just helps to make that problem more precise, in the frame of computationalism, and to make it more amenable to more rigorous treatments, ... without mentioning that the arithmetical translation of the UDA in arithmetic is a non trivial beginning of solution (and which might motivate people to study a lot of nice and fun results in theoretical computer science, at the least). I think it is appropriate to look more closely at the dovetailer. As I understand it, the dovetailer calculates all computable functions over the natural numbers: phi_i(x) = y where x and y are natural numbers. In other words, phi_i is a map of the set of integers on to itself. It is not a map from N to N. But it is a map from N to N^N, limited to the partial computable part of N^N. Here A^B represents the set of functions from B to A). phi_i is a map from N to the maps of the set of integers on to itself. For example, the function phi(x) = x^2 +7 is one such function: phi(1)=8, phi(2)=11, phi(3)=16, and so on. Yes, that phi is a computable function, thus there is a number k such that phi_k (x) = x^2 + 7. The universal numbers u is such that phi_u(k, x) = phi_k(x), for all x. u emulates k. So all that such a map does is establish a set of relations between natural numbers: 1-7, 2-11, 3-16, and so on. Yes, but don't confuse the extension of the function, and the computation themselves. It is very different. almost not related. On a physical computer we compute such a map by taking the input integer, multiplying it by itself, and then adding 7. What is a step in this computation? It seems to me that this depends on the level at which you look. In outline, step 1: take an integer; step 2: square it; step 3: add 7 to the result of step 2; step 4: store the result of step 3 somewhere. Yes. And it can be proved that the UD will compute that function in all possible ways. Or you could describe this in terms of operations on individual computer registers, or in some other way. It seems to me that whatever you do about defining the steps, each step is nothing more than just another map between integers: just the computation of another function in the infinite set of possible computable functions over the integers. So, rather than requiring all possible computable functions over the natural numbers, you could reduce your set of functions to consist of only *unique* operations. In this way you can show that the only computations required are the results of adding any two integers to give another integer as the result. All functions phi_i(x) can be reduced to this for an appropriate choice of the internal steps. Addition only is not enough. You need predicate logic, + addition, + multiplication. Or the simpler (conceotually) combinators, etc. The real difficulty, however, arises when you move from calculations on a physical computer into Platonia. In Platonia, all you have are sets of relations between numbers: each map is a relation between two numbers. In platonia (that is: in arithmetic), you can also, and must, distinguish the functions, the programs, the computations, etc. Those are represented by different number relations. Any two numbers might have an indefinitely large number of programs mapping from one to the other, but all such programs reduce to simple additions of two numbers. Addition, + multiplication. Even the full predicate logic + the laws of addition, + the usual Peano induction axioms is not yet Turing emulable. If the induction axiom are weakened and limited on the sigma_0 (decidable) formula, you need addition, multiplication and exponentiation. Turing universality is cheap, but not trivial. Once you have specified the results of adding any two positive integers together, you have completed all possible computations of the
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 29 Apr 2015, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruce seems to ignore the (mind-body) problem, and to miss that the UDA just helps to make that problem more precise, in the frame of computationalism, and to make it more amenable to more rigorous treatments, ... without mentioning that the arithmetical translation of the UDA in arithmetic is a non trivial beginning of solution (and which might motivate people to study a lot of nice and fun results in theoretical computer science, at the least). I think it is appropriate to look more closely at the dovetailer. As I understand it, the dovetailer calculates all computable functions over the natural numbers: phi_i(x) = y where x and y are natural numbers. In other words, phi_i is a map of the set of integers on to itself. It is not a map from N to N. But it is a map from N to N^N, limited to the partial computable part of N^N. Here A^B represents the set of functions from B to A). phi_i is a map from N to the maps of the set of integers on to itself. As I understand your texts, the dovetailer itself generates the code for each phi_i, so the dovetailer is a map from N to N^N. N^N is not enumerable/ The computable functions among N^N is not mechanically enumerable, but the part containing all computable functions among N^N + the computable function from subset of N to N is mechanically enumerable. So the phi_i represents the so called partial computable function. The w_i are the domain of the phi_i. We can identify the codes of phi_i, with i and all j such that phi_j = phi_i. But each program is just a map from N to N And from subset of N to N. Some programs do not stop on some argument. And we cannot filter them mechanically from the Phi_i. -- the output of each (halting) program is just an integer. But an integer, when input to a universal number, is a program or a machine. We can work in the structure (N, °), with x ° y = phi_x(y). so a number will be a machine or a data according to its left or right place in the application of x and y. For example, the function phi(x) = x^2 +7 is one such function: phi(1)=8, phi(2)=11, phi(3)=16, and so on. Yes, that phi is a computable function, thus there is a number k such that phi_k (x) = x^2 + 7. The universal numbers u is such that phi_u(k, x) = phi_k(x), for all x. u emulates k. It is hard to see that bringing in u here adds anything. We have defined a set of functions of one argument phi_k(x), the set of functions of two arguments, phi_u(k,x) are actually just the original functions. u is a specific machine, which emulates all machines. it plays the role of the computer, brain (with comp), etc. It can plays the role of local description of environment, etc. So all that such a map does is establish a set of relations between natural numbers: 1-7, 2-11, 3-16, and so on. Yes, but don't confuse the extension of the function, and the computation themselves. It is very different. almost not related. The computations themselves do not happen in Platonia. That is a purely physical concept. explain me how a digital machine can distinguish a computation in Platonia and a physical computation (which you might need to define, in a formal theory as to see what you assume precisely). On a physical computer we compute such a map by taking the input integer, multiplying it by itself, and then adding 7. What is a step in this computation? It seems to me that this depends on the level at which you look. In outline, step 1: take an integer; step 2: square it; step 3: add 7 to the result of step 2; step 4: store the result of step 3 somewhere. Yes. And it can be proved that the UD will compute that function in all possible ways. In fact, all these computations reduce to simple additions -- counting, in fact. Vague. A counting algorith is not Turing universal. You mean counting + comparing with zero, + some control structure, ... Or you could describe this in terms of operations on individual computer registers, or in some other way. It seems to me that whatever you do about defining the steps, each step is nothing more than just another map between integers: just the computation of another function in the infinite set of possible computable functions over the integers. So, rather than requiring all possible computable functions over the natural numbers, you could reduce your set of functions to consist of only *unique* operations. In this way you can show that the only computations required are the results of adding any two integers to give another integer as the result. All functions phi_i(x) can be reduced to this for an appropriate choice of the internal steps. Addition only is not enough. You need predicate logic, + addition, + multiplication. Or the simpler
Re: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 06:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this does not mean that all calculations exist in Platonia. The results of all calculations might exist there, but not the calculations themselves. That's where I think Bruno's idea diverges. Because all computation can be defined by a UD, and every such definition will be extensively equivalent per Church-Turing, it must exist in Platonia. Bruno uses exist as in the logical form There exists an even prime number. I think there might be a distinction being drawn between computation and calculation. I m not quite sure what this distinction might be, but in the sense that a calculation is an operation that can be performed with pencil and paper, and takes physical time in a physical world, That is what Turing wanted to model: a computation made by a human with paper and pencil. But it does not need physical time to be defined. Its digitalness makes it needing only 0, the successor of zero, etc. I do not see how this can work in Platonia, which is timeless. It is like in a block universe or block multiverse. But the mathematical structure is non trvial, as we know since Church-Post- Markov-Turing's discovery of the universal numbers/machine. There is not an ordered sequence of steps there, neither spatial nor temporal ordering make any sense in Platonia. This is simply false, as the computation are defined in the arithmetical Platonia. It is the only place where we can be sure they are. There might be a logical ordering, but all of the steps exist simultaneously. You don't need to equate the logic of the structure seen or conceive from outside: the 3p standard model of arithmetic, with the logic lived by the creatures inside, whose 1p are distributed on infinitely many sigma_1 proofs. The math shows them different. Platonia is the timeless world of forms, so although there exists an indefinite number of relations between any two integers, x and y, none of these paths or relations is ever actually calculated there. False. Calculated, or Computed is a relative notion, definable in arithmetic. It is relative to a universal number. We can fix any one of them, and that gives the phi_i, the W_i, the Blum complexity, and the modal logic for self-referential entities. People should buy the Bible: the original paper by Turing Others edited by Martin Davis, The undecidable (which now exists in Dover cheap books). Proof and computations admit mathematical definitions, but only computations got a universal one, and this makes the notion of computations as transparent as the notion of integer. In other words, all valid results 'exist' in Platonia, but the equivalent computations do not. Yes, they do. You are just wrong on this. Platonia contains the truth, but the truth concerns also the reality of the poor finite machine trying to approach the truth. Computations (calculations) are left to mere mortals. That's what happens in Platonia. Platonia after Gödel is sensibly different than the Platonia of Plato. It is full of life, chaos and catastrophes, but we can develop partial control. Bruno Bruce -- 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On 30 April 2015 at 03:51, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizROf course nothing does a global boom quite as well as nuclear :-) The essential issue being, of course, which kind of global boom nuclear does nuclear in the end do? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Sellafield, Hiroshima, Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands etc. (OK, maybe I shouldn't have been making jokes about this...) -- 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: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe?
On 29 April 2015 at 13:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/28/2015 3:02 PM, LizR wrote: Thanks. I'd be interested to know if this continues to pan out for other phenomena apart from the entropy of entanglement. I believe the original version (with anti-deSitter space) allows quite a lot of phenomena that are intractable in one formulation to be worked out in the complementary one, so I hope this result will eventually lead to the solution of problems that are currently intractable in flat spacetime, preferably solutions to questions posed by quantum gravity about black holes etc. And a related paper: *Universality of Gravity from Entanglement* *Brian Swingle, Mark Van Raamsdonk* *(Submitted on 12 May 2014)* *The entanglement first law in conformal field theories relates the entanglement entropy for a ball-shaped region to an integral over the same region involving the expectation value of the CFT stress-energy tensor, for infinitesimal perturbations to the CFT vacuum state. In recent work, this was exploited at leading order in N in the context of large N holographic CFTs to show that any geometry dual to a perturbed CFT state must satisfy Einstein's equations linearized about pure AdS. In this note, we investigate the implications of the leading 1/N correction to the exact CFT result. We show that these corrections give rise to the source term for the gravitational equations: for semiclassical bulk states, the expectation value of the bulk stress-energy tensor appears as a source in the linearized equations. In particular, the CFT first law leads to Newton's Law of gravitation and the fact that all sources of stress-energy source the gravitational field. In our derivation, this universality of gravity comes directly from the universality of entanglement (the fact that all degrees of freedom in a subsystem contribute to entanglement entropy). * As a bear of little brain, I may have to wait for the popular science book. (Unless someone can summarise the result for dummies?) -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 29 April 2015 at 23:20, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Right, but time can be generated by timeless maps in Platonia. Time can be explained by a combination of a narrow (first person) perspective and a certain structure of observer moments. Maybe all observer moments are timeless, but the valid sequence connecting them (these connections being timeless maps in Platonia) creates the perception of a past. Maybe all observer moments are eternal but they all contain the illusion of time passing. A very helpful book to read on this is Fred Hoyle's October the first is too late. Or mainly just the introduction. (It's also handy for people who don't get block universes, should there be any out there...) -- 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: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe?
Do you have a link? On 30 April 2015 at 00:20, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: There was an article published on Monday over a survey on whether the holographic principle could survive in either flat or curved space. They ran the survey twice and the spirit of the lamp augered, yes. And it kind of fits into digitalist physics, philosophy, plumbing. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 9:08 pm Subject: Re: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe? On 29 April 2015 at 11:05, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You could like include this work by the U of Vienna, to Steinhart's Promotion theory of information transfer. The nice thing is that curved or flat or square, the digitalism still works no matter what the shape of space is. Also holographic theory seems to suggest an underpinning of computation, from 2D to 3D. Which work? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 April 2015 at 07:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2015 4:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What I also believe is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from matter. ?? You don't know about concussions, neurosurgery, brain lesions,... There are LOTS of reasons to believe consciousness depends on matter. Stop being a politician, Brent, that isn't what Telmo said. -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 4/29/2015 3:26 PM, LizR wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 07:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 4/29/2015 4:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: What I also believe is that there is no reason to assume that consciousness emerges from matter. ?? You don't know about concussions, neurosurgery, brain lesions,... There are LOTS of reasons to believe consciousness depends on matter. Stop being a politician, Brent, that isn't what Telmo said. ?? Are you saying the line I quoted wasn't Telmo's. If so I apologize for mistaking it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 April 2015 at 05:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Apr 2015, at 00:32, Jason Resch wrote: Speaking of the UD. At one point you mentioned that halting programs have no weight in the UD, Yes, this is because only the non stopping programs can diverge enough to get measure stable enough. Doesn't this run into Brent's objection that the measure should be dominated by short loops (of the sort kids used to write on home computers on sale in shops when that was still possible, back in the 80s - like 10 PRINT Kevin is god 20 GOTO 10 ?) -- 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: Could the Holographic principle apply to our ever so slightly positively curved universe?
On 30 April 2015 at 04:52, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: Fermilab is constructing a device called a Holometer and if we're lucky it may be able to tell us if spacetime is quantized and show us if the Planck Length and the Planck Time really do mean something in physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqEaPKZ7fs I can't watch that right now but it sounds interesting. Is this an attempt to measure the granularity of space-time, or something similar? If I understand correctly, the holographic principle implies that the resulting hologram should have a pixel size (which I imagine may depend on the distance to the boundary ... which may mean everything slowly fuzzes out as the universe expands???) -- 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: God
On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:06, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and creates entropy) must exist or there will be a logical self contradiction. Or maybe mathematics is saying nothing of the sort and mathematics is just a language for describing that physical process. That's not what you said, you said computation can be made real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words not without turning to a PHYSICAL process Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO need to use energy and create entropy. What I don't know is if mathematics can explain why this fact must exist and it couldn't have been otherwise, or if mathematics is just describing a raw physical fact. Bruno claimed that Computation can be concretized [made real] in any universal number, in arithmetic and I said and will continue to say that nobody knows if that is true or not. All students in logic knows that. I will come back on this later. If people did not get this, I understand that AUDA (the machine interview) seems a bit uneasy. Not sure that even the step 7 and 8 can make sense. OF course UDA does not get that conclusion. It does not say that computation can be emulated by arithmetic: it says that physical computations have to emerge from a sum on all computations in arithmetic, once we assume computationalism. Bruno But that phrase, emerge from a sum on all computations, sounds like and then a miracle happens to me. This means you have forget all about UDA step 1-7, which explains that there is a miracle indeed, but it is the same miracle than in step 0, 1 and 3. You need only faith in comp and trust in the doctor. What does emerge mean? It means obtained from a solution of the measure on computations as seen from the 1p. How do you sum two computations and what is the result? See step 1-7. And is all computations a countable set you can sum over? This is an open question. If you assume the rule Y = II, then it can be argued that the computations are not countable, because you have to differentiate them on the 2^aleph_0 oracle. AUDA gives a procedure to extract physics, without deciding such question. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: God
What if it's true, or trivially, true, as some physicists sat when dealing with cosmological phenomena? I would suggest that the notion of simulation and creation or program, might me nothing in reality. The Matrix was to trick the minds of humans raised in flushable bath tubs, so the body heat could power the Machine civilization. I am describing reality in a different way, saying that the computations yield the universe we see, and the computations, and the system behind it are more real than our Hubble Volume. One can fairly, ask: Why not believe in unicorns and pixies? Well, because the more physicists and astronomers view data about the detectable universe (so far) the more it seems computational, or even digital. in essence. Could I be completely wrong? Yes. Don't confuse computationalism, which is an hypothesis in the cognitive science (or theology) with the hypothesis (Digiotal-physics) that there is a physical universe, and that it is the result of a specific program. They opposed each other. A point not seen by Tegmark, Schmidhuber, etc. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 29, 2015 10:39 am Subject: Re: God On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Can a mind arise out of functioning computations? Not sure, but I am guessing its possible given enough time, data, and functioning computation. Some philosophers would call It a naturalistic god in the phraseology of philosophy. From all this craziness, I surmise sets of universes arising from this mind, or these minds, or sets of minds arising from a high amount of universes. Now, I ask, is a universe merely a Hubble Volume?? I am guessing that our Hubble Volume is at its core, a computation. My guesses here, right of wrong are informed by big brains like Von Newmann, Seth Lloyd, Zuse, Schmidhuber, Tegmark, and so many others I am too lazy to include in this post. And, it could easily be centuries before any of this can be demonstrated. Don't confuse computationalism, which is an hypothesis in the cognitive science (or theology) with the hypothesis (Digiotal-physics) that there is a physical universe, and that it is the result of a specific program. They opposed each other. A point not seen by Tegmark, Schmidhuber, etc. Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm Subject: Re: God On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and creates entropy) must exist or there will be a logical self contradiction. Or maybe mathematics is saying nothing of the sort and mathematics is just a language for describing that physical process. That's not what you said, you said computation can be made real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words not without turning to a PHYSICAL process Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO need to use energy and create entropy. What I don't know is if mathematics can explain why this fact must exist and it couldn't have been otherwise, or if mathematics is just describing a raw physical fact. Bruno claimed thatComputation can be concretized [made real] in any universal number, in arithmetic and I said and will continue to say that nobody knows if that is true or not. All students in logic knows that. I will come back on this later.
Re: God
On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:16, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 12:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 21:05, meekerdb wrote: On 4/27/2015 6:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Monday, April 27, 2015, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.com wrote: I tend to agree that the word God has way too much baggage. I feel like it's used to induce a fictitious sense of agreement. If you said you believed in God, no one would think you were referring to the material universe or arithmetic. You would be performing an act of deception on them. It would be good to clarify, but arithmetical truth is infinite, incomprehensible, Wrong, it's comprehensible within bigger systems. uncreated, Maybe. Maybe not. immutable, Meaningless. That's like saying red is immutable because it always means red. omnipresent, Or it's only present when you think of it. transcendent, Mystification. the source of reality and consciousness, That's what YOU say. etc. If you ask a Christian, Sikh, Hindu and Platonist if they believe in God and they all say yes, is the Platonist being any more deceptive than any other, when they each hold different ideas in their head? No, which exactly why no serious person should apply the term God to anything - unless of course they want to stir up religious fervor and create a pogrom, crusade, holocaust, jihad, or theocracy. This is not valid. The greeks have used the term God for 700 years, without it leading to crusade or holocaust. It led to the execution of Socrates. And it was Gods, plural...not The One. It has led to mathematics and physics. Democritus and Epicurus and Arastothenes started physics by applying mathematics to observation. Plato and Aristotle (inadvertently) stymied their development for 900yrs. I am not sure of those statements. May be with arguments or references. I can understand that Aristotle stymied then (it makes sense to say that), and may be Xeusippes was right: Aristotle should not have saty in the academy. But even this is not sure: there are other factors, and the followers of Aristotle will very often been anti-platonists. Indeed, the greeks did already understood that the concept (in fact all concepts) can be misused by political powers. Using God for Matter makes sense, as it helps to distinguish the matter of the physicist and the matter of the physicalist. God, by definition is the cause/creator/reason/whatever of everything. For a materialist: matter and the physical do play that role. Can you quote and physicist who has written, Elementary particles cause everything. Electrons create everything. These verbs cause, create, reason are all anthropomorphism...suitable for a God who is just a tyrant writ large. My point was exactly that. Physicists usually does not address that question. Only physicalists do. Only them makes primitive matter into a god (with the general sense I have given). Only pseudo-religious ban the use of words. John Clark and I don't ban the use of any word (except John doesn't like free will). We just know what God means to people and expect it to be used for communication not obfuscation. But in science, we redefine the words, to allow reasoning. And here, I use god in the very general sense of all comparative theologians and philosophers. Only strong atheists insist using the christian definition. Doing this is the same as defending the misuse of it made by the institutionalized religion. Like Clark, you are de facto an ally of those who misuse the greek concept to do jihad, crusades, holocaust ... Only coming bak to the original greek concept can help to fight against the misuse of the god notion. To fight this is a defense of Aristotle and Christian *dogma*. Only realizing that the reason for everything is not a person, tyrant, which is commonly called God will dissuade people from foolish faith. You are aiding the jihadists by telling them there is a God. This is ridiculous, given that you are the one seeming to believe in their theory of God. You are the one helping them, by crediting their theory, and not allowing the scientific method that such people fight all the time. On the contrary, comp illustrates that the use of God by the greeks (parmenides, Plato, the neoplatonists is made consistent by modeling God by arithmetical truth. Science use axiomatic or semi-axiomatic definition, not fairy tales, nor even single reports of experience (but a statistics on many of them makes sense). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: God
On 28 Apr 2015, at 19:35, John Clark wrote: On 28 Apr 2015, , Bruce Kellett wrote: I must admit that I do not know what a computation that does not utilize a computing machine (physical) is. Show me one, and indicate how it works. On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: This is explained in all textbook in computability theory. Hmm, I don't totally understand how this works but apparently there are so many examples of ways computations can be performed without using physical processes that Bruno is unable to give even one of those examples. A reduction is combinators: K(SKK)(SKK) = SKK (is an example). A verification by some universal numbers that some numbers verify a universal diophantine equation, is another examples. A proof of a sigma_1 sentence is another example. Not made by a physical human, but agian by a universal numbers. To give a detailed example would need to introduce some technicalities. See my technical posts on this, but I don't intent to explain this again. You will not find any physical assumption, nor metaphysical, in the definition of computations in the the original paper by Turing, Church, Curry, Markov. Or buy any good book on computability. I have given many references. If you are unaware of such stuff, I understand better you have no clue what I am talking about. Only physicists like Deutch have attempted (without success) to get a physical definition of computation, but all attempts use the Church Turing thesis implicitly or explicitly. Computations in our setting are sequences of step of the UD, and that is entirely defined in arithmetic. It is the kind of well known fact that I have been asked to not explain in my thesis, as it is known by undergraduate student I confess I did not know that well known fact and neither did anybody in Silicon Valley. I doubt this, but yes, some people do computer science without knowing this. But even Babbage realized this at the end of his life (according to Jacques Lafitte). What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a computer without using any matter or energy or momentum or spin or electrical charge or anything else that is physical. You need the physical to implement the computer in the physical reality. This has never been criticized. You mock an idea which has only existed in your imagination. The point is just that if computationalism is correct, such physical reality emerge from the non-physical computations which provably exists in arithmetic. Bruno Bruno you really need to start your own company, you'll be able to sell Bruno brand computers far cheaper than your competition that still makes them out of old fashioned matter and still make a big profit. Unlike those other companies you don't have to build your computers in China, in fact you don't have to build them at all, so your manufacturing costs would be zero! And think of the convenience of a smartphone that isn't just thin but takes up no space at all in your pocket. I predict that just 6 months after your new company's IPO you'll be the world's first trillionaire. John K Clark (I was told). Since then, I have discovered that this is known only by expert in computability theory. Anyway, in genuine interdisciplinary science, we must never assume the basics, and I might re-explain this, as different people seems to not yet really grasped this. Church's thesis is not needed to prove that, as all physical computers are provably not more than a physical implementation of a mathematical machine (arithmetical machine). Digitalness makes those computation exactly emulated by the number relation (the sigma_1 sentences and/or their formal proofs). I will have to go soon, but can explain this asap. Or just read some book in the domain. It is a standard uncontroversial fact. Bruno You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: God
On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Can a mind arise out of functioning computations? Not sure, but I am guessing its possible given enough time, data, and functioning computation. Some philosophers would call It a naturalistic god in the phraseology of philosophy. From all this craziness, I surmise sets of universes arising from this mind, or these minds, or sets of minds arising from a high amount of universes. Now, I ask, is a universe merely a Hubble Volume?? I am guessing that our Hubble Volume is at its core, a computation. My guesses here, right of wrong are informed by big brains like Von Newmann, Seth Lloyd, Zuse, Schmidhuber, Tegmark, and so many others I am too lazy to include in this post. And, it could easily be centuries before any of this can be demonstrated. Don't confuse computationalism, which is an hypothesis in the cognitive science (or theology) with the hypothesis (Digiotal-physics) that there is a physical universe, and that it is the result of a specific program. They opposed each other. A point not seen by Tegmark, Schmidhuber, etc. Bruno -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 12:06 pm Subject: Re: God On 4/28/2015 12:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Apr 2015, at 19:41, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: Because although we haven't discovered it yet maybe mathematics is saying that particular physical process (computation that uses energy and creates entropy) must exist or there will be a logical self contradiction. Or maybe mathematics is saying nothing of the sort and mathematics is just a language for describing that physical process. That's not what you said, you said computation can be made real, but not without using energy and increasing entropy, in other words not without turning to a PHYSICAL process Yes I said that, and it's a fact that to make computations real you DO need to use energy and create entropy. What I don't know is if mathematics can explain why this fact must exist and it couldn't have been otherwise, or if mathematics is just describing a raw physical fact. Bruno claimed that Computation can be concretized [made real] in any universal number, in arithmetic and I said and will continue to say that nobody knows if that is true or not. All students in logic knows that. I will come back on this later. If people did not get this, I understand that AUDA (the machine interview) seems a bit uneasy. Not sure that even the step 7 and 8 can make sense. OF course UDA does not get that conclusion. It does not say that computation can be emulated by arithmetic: it says that physical computations have to emerge from a sum on all computations in arithmetic, once we assume computationalism. Bruno But that phrase, emerge from a sum on all computations, sounds like and then a miracle happens to me. What does emerge mean? How do you sum two computations and what is the result? And is all computations a countable set you can sum over? 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. Kim -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 30 April 2015 at 14:40, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say *nothing ever happens*. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. The use of ever is a little bit misleading. Another way to put it is that time is an emergent phenomenon. (It's all explained in October the first is too late... :) -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2015, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: Given Platonia, they always exist timelessly, they never have to be calculated because the are timelessly true. But the view from the inside points of view is different. You appeal sometimes to the block universe view of relativity theory -- the block is static, but observers inside experience time. In general relativity there are difficulties with the definition of a time variable, but in special relativity, time can be defined as a direction in the block. Then slices through the block orthogonal to this direction give the experienced moments of time. I do not think that you can do anything similar with Platonia because it is not a well-defined four dimensional object with a defined Minkowskian structure. If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce -- 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: God
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: What a shame companies like INTEL IBM and Apple have wasted trillions of dollars in building hardware when if they had just asked any undergraduate student they could have told them how to make a computer without using any matter or energy or momentum or spin or electrical charge or anything else that is physical. Bruno you really need to start your own company, you'll be able to sell Bruno brand computers far cheaper than your competition that still makes them out of old fashioned matter and still make a big profit. Unlike those other companies you don't have to build your computers in China, in fact you don't have to build them at all, so your manufacturing costs would be zero! And think of the convenience of a smartphone that isn't just thin but takes up no space at all in your pocket. I predict that just 6 months after your new company's IPO you'll be the world's first trillionaire. You need the physical to implement the computer in the physical reality. If additional steps, steps that you has conspicuously not specified, are required to turn mathematical truth into physical truth then clearly physical reality is more than mathematical reality, it has everything mathematical reality has plus something extra. 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Sellafield, Hiroshima, Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands etc. (OK, maybe I shouldn't have been making jokes about this...) That's fine I like jokes, but lets see how many people die to produce a trillion kilowatt hours of electricity for various energy sources: For coal 170.000 people die. For oil 36,000 people die For biofuel 24,000 people die For natural gas 4000 people die For hydroelectric 1400 people die For solar 440 people die For wind 140 people die For nuclear 90 people die. 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: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:46 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strong-future-forecast-for-renewable-energy As does Business Insider http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-energy-is-on-the-verge-of-a-global-boom-2015-4?IR=T Of course nothing doesa global boom quite as well as nuclear :-) The essential issue being, of course, which kind of global boom nuclear does nuclear in the end do? Do we slip into an era of out of control proliferation of the availability of the essential materials. I can think of several unfortunate outcomes arising from the proliferation of, especially certain breeder technology, by which I intend the plutonium breeders. In so far as breeder reactors go LFTRs seem the most benign and inherently walk away safe. The scale up and scale out of certain energy harvesting technologies such as for example PV is impressive and soon the price of the cells themselves will come down to levels that make it feasible to incorporate PV materials into all manner of solar facing architectural surfaces; including the road surfaces themselves. The often mentioned storage problem is getting solved. Certain battery types, such as flow battery systems can and are being scaled up to utility scale. These systems can be made to work with relatively easy to obtain and handle materials and since the reagents are stored externally to the *flow* battery, which both extracts power in the oxidation phase and using power reduces the spent reagents, recharging it. The total throughput of the system at any given moment is determined by the size of the battery array, by that cumulative capacity; this flow capacity comprises one dimension of the flow battery systems capacity, and is the measure of what the system can deliver at any given time. The other dimension -- that of the storage capacity e.g. how much energy can the system store – in a flow battery system can scale independently and at industrial scale, extending out in external tanks. Such large scale utility scale battery nodes will naturally become situated both near the producing regions (wind/solar) and within the demand regions (the LA metro area for example). One of the less talked about problems our current electric grid is facing is capacity limits during peak demand. Being able to shunt power into these metro areas during the middle of the night when there is little demand on the grid (and hence it has large free capacity) to charge up large utility scale battery systems (whether flow battery or other also interesting energy storage systems) that can be sited right in the heart of large demand areas and be able to take some load off of key high power lines during peak demand. The evolution of the grid is necessary, not only in order to accommodate the flatter more horizontal network of wind/solar + other, but also critically just in order to continue to be able to meet peak demand load conditions. Having a battery buffer within the urban areas enables time-shifting (at a cost of course) of supply and demand – and also as I mentioned time shifting of transit. The unit price of solar PV is going to continue to go down, soon it will make coal look quaintly expensive. All the metrics point towards solar PV being able to continue its extraordinary scale out both in terms of annual new capacity, but also in unit price. The industry obeys and is driven by many of the same “laws” that drove the semi-conductor sector – and it makes sense considering how similar they are in fundamental ways. The electric grid is increasingly being driven by these other transit related hard and difficult to surmount capacity limits, towards solutions that bring either the collection of energy and/or the forward deployed dispatchable stored capacity into the centers of demand. High temperature (meaning liquid nitrogen) super conducting high capacity conduits (a trunk/backbone network) would be nice J -- a few small scale limited urban loops have actually already been laid down, so this is not a completely outlandish idea. Imagine what a polar high capacity (say 200GW) super conducting very high voltage line connecting the markets from the American eastern seaboard all the way (with perhaps a central line running down through Toronto/Chicago/Dallas/Denver and one down the west coast) across Alaska; the Bearing straights and connecting into the massive Chinese grid – down from Siberia – and also into Japan and ASEAN… across Russia (down to South Asia (India/Pakistan/Iran); and then onto the European grid. Almost the entire length of this network could be built on land – no oceans to cross. It would require a fair amount of infrastructure, upkeep and maintenance (such as keeping the supply
Re: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 08:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 10:59 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:18 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 4/28/2015 7:27 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: But you fall foul of the essential slippage here. Arithmetic certainly supports all calculations -- as I point out elsewhere, all calculations ultimately reduce to counting. But this does not mean that all calculations exist in Platonia. The results of all calculations might exist there, but not the calculations themselves. That's where I think Bruno's idea diverges. Because all computation can be defined by a UD, and every such definition will be extensively equivalent per Church-Turing, it must exist in Platonia. Bruno uses exist as in the logical form There exists an even prime number. I think there might be a distinction being drawn between computation and calculation. I m not quite sure what this distinction might be, but in the sense that a calculation is an operation that can be performed with pencil and paper, and takes physical time in a physical world, I do not see how this can work in Platonia, which is timeless. There is not an ordered sequence of steps there, neither spatial nor temporal ordering make any sense in Platonia. There might be a logical ordering, but all of the steps exist simultaneously. Platonia is the timeless world of forms, so although there exists an indefinite number of relations between any two integers, x and y, none of these paths or relations is ever actually calculated there. In other words, all valid results 'exist' in Platonia, but the equivalent computations do not. Computations (calculations) are left to mere mortals. I think the idea is that computations are proofs, i.e. proof that this algorithm with this input produces this output. So they have Goedel numbers which specify the steps of the proof and so exist in Platonia. That seems a likely interpretation. Does the Goedel number give the whole ordered proof? The number encodes the whole proof in order. But it isn't unique; there are infinitely many ways to define a Goedel numbering. Or is there a separate number for each step? One of my problems is that the notion of a 'step' in a computation or proof is not well- defined. That seems to depend on the architecture of your 'computer'. That's where Bruno relies on the equivalence formal digital computation methods, the Church-Turing thesis: Turing, recursive functions, lambda calculus, I am an impoverished physicist and the only computer I can afford is the simplest Turing machine that I put together out of a few bits of wood and a couple of pebbles. I have an unlimited supply of paper tape, so I can do any calculation whatsoever -- it might just take me a bit longer than it takes other people! Each step on my Turing machine never gets better than adding a unit to some already calculated number. So the steps are just counting, or else moving the tape about. But I can 'prove' any valid relation between numbers that anyone else can 'prove'. Are my 'steps' rich enough to produce consciousness and a physical world? After all, each 'step' is a proof of a valid arithmetical result. I think it's enough to create a consciousness IN a physical world created for it to be conscious OF. But that's not exactly a reversal of physics and psychology - they are on a par and both derivative from computation. However, I'm not clear on what the Goedel number of an algorithm that doesn't halt would be, since it either doesn't have a result or has an infinite sequence of results, depending on how you look at results. Exactly. The nature of a 'computation' in Platonia needs some clarification. Goedel numbers are, after all, just as timeless and static as any other number in Platonia. And even if it is clear that doesn't mean it exists. The question is whether a value of a variable that satisfies a predicate implies that the value exists. I think there are different kinds of existence and the existence of numbers doesn't entail the existence of electrons. In arithmetic we just accept that P(43) entails EnP(n). This of course cannot entail the existence of electrons. But assuming computationalism, it does entails the existence of the hallucination of electrons, and nothing prevents the possibility of explaining why some hallucinations are more persistent than others. Computer's hallucination obeys a science: computer science (reductible to sigma_1 arithmetic from outside and non reducible at all from inside). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
Kim Jones wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. So explain the hallucination. Why does that 'happen'. Note that 'happen' is a temporal term. Bruce -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2015, at 02:12, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Any two numbers might have an indefinitely large number of programs mapping from one to the other, but all such programs reduce to simple additions of two numbers. Addition, + multiplication. multiplication = addition. That is wrong. It depends on how you define a 'step' in the algorithm. It depends on the substitution level. If a step is taken as each arithmetical operation, then addition is all you need. Multiplication is then just repeated addition, and exponentiation is just repeated multiplication, hence even more repeated additions. Sure, you need some control logic to tell you how many repeats of each step you need at any stage. But that is little more than the logic required to step through the basic program. At a lower substitution level, the steps become smaller, and you then have to specify accessing memory to get the numbers to add, incrementing program counters, decrementing loop registers, comparing registers to zero or anything else required. But then the steps become many, and one is in danger of losing the forest among the trees. I agree that all these things are necessary for programming and running a real program on a real computer, but if one's purpose is merely to give a schematic outline of the essential computational steps, then we do not need a description at the CPU register level. There are no 'real' computers in Platonia. So what substitution level is required for consciousness/physics to emerge? What does happen at each step? Bruce -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 30 Apr 2015, at 1:20 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Kim Jones wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. So explain the hallucination. Why does that 'happen'. Note that 'happen' is a temporal term. Bruce Sure - no argument. I don't think we can explain this using language. We need math for that. Enter Bruno; even you, Bruce. Your maths ability is right up there. Language is predicated on the assumption that things exist and happen. What is the mathematical equivalent of nouns and verbs? I was told at school that 'a sentence which does not contain a verb is not a sentence' which I gather was meant to imply 'you have not managed to say anything if you don't use a verb' which is bollocks, of course. Assuming Bruno's comp, numbers are the only things which (necessarily) exist. Number is the primitive we are striving to identify. We cannot say what number 'is' because that is like saying what ( ) is and as you can see there is nothing inside those brackets. You can only describe what you can perceive. Nobody perceives nothing. So, we are forever describing our (shared) hallucination about 'existing' and 'happening'. This appears to be the meaning of life. To experience a hallucination whose origin and persistence cannot be explained. Hence the need for some kind of understanding of the necessary (Gödelian) restriction on what can be known and/or explained (Incompleteness). It's incredibly annoying, isn't it K -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
On 30 April 2015 at 15:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Kim Jones wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. So explain the hallucination. Why does that 'happen'. Note that 'happen' is a temporal term. You could forget temporal terms while explaining this. Classical physics, for example, describes a block universe (as does relativity) and hence give good analogous situations. The behaviour of systems is described by equations, at least in principle, in which time denotes a dimension in an analogous manner to space. Hence things can happen in that they vary along the time dimension (or the space dimension, for that matter). (As I already mentioned, this is similar to Fred Hoyle's pigeonhole theory of consciousness in OTFITL) -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
LizR wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 15:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Kim Jones wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 12:34 pm, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. Bruce The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to say nothing ever happens. The real question is why we think stuff is 'happening'. Well, OK - the hallucination that stuff is happening is what is happening. So explain the hallucination. Why does that 'happen'. Note that 'happen' is a temporal term. You could forget temporal terms while explaining this. Classical physics, for example, describes a block universe Newton assumed an absolute time. (as does relativity) and hence give good analogous situations. The behaviour of systems is described by equations, at least in principle, in which time denotes a dimension in an analogous manner to space. Hence things can happen in that they vary along the time dimension (or the space dimension, for that matter). So where are the space and time dimensions of Platonia? Not to mention the necessity of a Minkoskian metric. (Space and time are interchangeable only within the limits of the light cone.) There are no analogies here. Bruce -- 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 dovetailer disassembled
I was told at school that 'a sentence which does not contain a verb is not a sentence' which I gather was meant to imply 'you have not managed to say anything if you don't use a verb' which is bollocks, of course. This sentence no verb. Without a verb you have a hard time indicating how the object(s) in the sentence relate to each other. (Apart from interjective sentences like Hello!, at least.) But generally it's hard to construct meaningful sentences without verbs. This doesn't mean they all have to contain references to time, of course. Roses are red or two plus two equals four can be either statements that are currently true - hence in the present tense - or timeless statements of fact. (Bruce and I are agreed that the latter statement is in the latter category.) -- 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.
