Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 Apr 2015, at 06:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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. But in math, we make precise the little more. It is an important theorem that Presburger Arithmetic (PA withiout the multiplication axioms) is decidable and not Turing universal. In our TOE context such math must be precise. A counting and adding algorith can just not emulate any Universal numbers. 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. That is why comp, as I present it, makes explicit the use of the substitution level. 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. Platonia runs all possible CPU, and it is a certainty that all those computer and execution of computers exists in Platonia (which is a very little platonia compared to the one used in physics and analysis). On the contrary, some people might argue that a physical computation is only an approximation of those in Platonia, and that there are no computers in the physical reality. So what substitution level is required for consciousness/physics to emerge? What does happen at each step? That is provably impossible to know for sure, for any machine. That is why we must bet on the substitution level. No machine can know for sure which machine she is. But we don't need that to make the UDA reasoning, nor do we need to that in the math part, as we start from simple machine for which *we* know the susbtitution level, because we build or defined them in arithmetic. All we need to get the reversal is that such a level exists. 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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. I have the feeling that I have been alive for years, but I would still have this feeling if I had only been alive for seconds. There does not have to be a physical, causal connection between the observer moments of my life for them to form a subjective temporal sequence. The sequence is implied by their content. The brain in the vat is always possible. We cannot rule out solipsism either. Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time capsules' present in every point of phase space. It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It has not attracted a great following. But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have to be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a different story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism. I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a 'many minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. 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 April 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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. I have the feeling that I have been alive for years, but I would still have this feeling if I had only been alive for seconds. There does not have to be a physical, causal connection between the observer moments of my life for them to form a subjective temporal sequence. The sequence is implied by their content. The brain in the vat is always possible. We cannot rule out solipsism either. Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time capsules' present in every point of phase space. It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It has not attracted a great following. But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have to be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a different story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism. I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a 'many minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bruce The time capsule idea and Last Tuesdayism may not be how the world actually is, but they do demonstrate that it is possible to have the hallucination that stuff is happening in the absence of a separate time dimension, which was your question. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 00:28, LizR wrote: 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 ?) Would you say yes to a doctor which replace your brain by a machine which run that little program? The measure is relative, conditioned by the existence (in arithmetic) of your current state. It is not the measure of the likelihood of the subroutines or programs in the UD*. The probability bears on your relative (and indexical) continuations. Cf the RSSA/ASSA debate. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
http://www.mprinstitute.org/vaclav/Hoyle.htm This seems to be what Liz was referencing. It looks like what inspired Kolak's Consciousness and the Cosmic Towers from his book I am You. On Wednesday, April 29, 2015, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au javascript:; wrote: 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. I have the feeling that I have been alive for years, but I would still have this feeling if I had only been alive for seconds. There does not have to be a physical, causal connection between the observer moments of my life for them to form a subjective temporal sequence. The sequence is implied by their content. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/Lp5_VIb6ddY/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com javascript:;. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com javascript:;. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -- 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 30 Apr 2015, at 03:00, John Clark wrote: 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, You told us that you stop at step 2. The steps that you need are just steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. are required to turn mathematical truth into physical truth This is vague, and literally impossible. We don't turn mathematical truth into physical truth. We explain the appearance of physical truth by the first person invariance for digital replacement in the arithmetical structure. then clearly physical reality is more than mathematical reality, It is explained why arithmetic seen from inside (by the creatures emulated by the sigma_1 sentences) is bigger than arithmetic. In the long version in french, I explain more on this by using model theory and the Skolem paradox/phenomenon. it has everything mathematical reality has plus something extra. It is an internal aspect of mathematics, well, of arithmetic. UDA explains that the difference of physics and math is a matter of pronouns or first/third person points of view, and the many different possible use of pronouns (first person, first person plural, third person, etc.) is explained by the difference of logics between p, []p, []p p, []p t, []p t p, with p sigma_1. UDA explains why, and AUDA (Arithmetical translation of UDA) explains that incompleteness justifies entirely the nuances between those views, once we use the standard definitions---already brought by the (greek) philosophers. Some ancient and modern argument against such definition are refuted by incompleteness (cf what I said about Gerson, if you have read those posts). It is incompleteness which makes the logic of []p quite different from the logic of []p p, for example. We don't have for all p []p - p in the logic G1 ([]p), and but we have it for the logic of []p p (S4Grz1). Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 Apr 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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. The point is that Platonia is structured by the view from inside, and []p t should give the quantum Minkowskian structure (if that is correct physics). And this works. We got a quantization, and some Minkowski structure already appear (thanks to some other result by Goldblatt). Anyway, I just give a way to refute comp: prove that we don't get that structure in any of S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*. If everything is to 'happen' in Platonia, you need to specify a temporal variable. Time is handled by the p intensional variants. S4Grz is already a logic of time. In fact it is a logic of evolving knowledge. This is not trivial, and I have not seen any convincing explanation of how you intend to do this. The UD-theorem (UDA) is only that we *have to* do this, if we want to understand what matter can consist in once we assume computationalism (or if we want to solve the mind-body problem in the comp frame). In the math part, I *illustrate* how we *have to* proceed (and keep the distinction between qualia and quanta) and where the quantization are needed, they are offered on a plateau. You need to study computer self-reference theory before (good book: Boolos 79, Boolos 93, Smorinsky 85, etc.). 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 30 Apr 2015, at 06:16, Kim Jones wrote: 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. Bruno's comp implies all the comp in the literature. It is a very weak hypothesis. I guess you meant: according to Bruno's reasoning. Bruce has just to find a flaw if he disagrees with the conclusion. That only numbers exists is not part of comp at all. It is part of the consequences. I know you know that, but with people cutting air, it is important to be as precise as possible. Number is the primitive we are striving to identify. Or combinators, or lambda-expression. Any first order logical specification of any Turing universal system would do. better to not use a physical one, as the derivation of physics would be confusing. I use numbers only because people are familiar with them. 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. We can intuit the numbers. Gödel saw this as a kind of perception, but I don't follow him on this. The point is that we don't need to know what are numbers (that is philosophy of math). We need only to agree on some axioms, like x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. 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 It is the bad news indeed. Very often, people like philosophy and theology because they think it is a place where we can say what we want, but with comp, the reality kicks back there too, and we have to come back on math, and, well yes, some amount of seriousness. But dreams, drugs, meditation, brain perturbation, plausibly death, can provide shortcuts. So here is the choice: 30 years of math study, or 4m of a salvia experience ;) Bruno 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. 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 2:29 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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.) The still night. The watery abyss. The pale moonlight. The Madness of King George. So, without a verb you can still indicate and describe something as long as there is no change taking place. Existence, in these instances, is not invoked but assumed. You can imply a verb's existence without actually using it: Me hungry. System shutdown in 60 seconds. It was sci-fi man Robert Anton Wilson (friend of Bob Heinlein) who tried to get rid of the is in his writing and public speaking. Invoking QM, he argued you cannot know what anything is anyway, so give up the pretense and bite the bullet. You have to lose the is in your communicating. You may have heard of E-Prime or English without the verb to be. Worth the Wiki article if not. Bob tried valiantly to use E-Prime in his later philosophical books. But generally it's hard to construct meaningful sentences without verbs. That's right. Just ask old Bob. 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.) Yes. How about Two plus two IS four. Is that a meaningful clone? Most say this because equals is maths nerd-speak. Is it even grammatically correct? Should we not say two plus two are four. By now it sounds like double-dutch. If something equals something else via addition/multiplication, have we not emulated or simulated something (in the mathematical sense?) 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: God
On 29 Apr 2015, at 21:45, meekerdb wrote: 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 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. More or less. I don't refer to physical computations. I refer only to physical appearance (from a first person points of view). You might keep in mind all the time the WM-duplication. The physical appearance is what has measure one in the UD* self-multiplication. I don't feel any more enlightened obtained from is as ambiguous as emerege. I think that if you follow UDA 1-7, you can have some intuition. Physical reality has to appear from the UD like white noise emerge from the iterated WM-self-duplication. 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. That is enough to define observable with probability one, by []p t, with p sigma_1 (DU-accessible). This gives a quantum logic, exactly where UDA imposes it, assuming QM basic formalism is correct. That is the first explanation of QM, which does not assume anything physical (nor the reals, nor time, nor anything other than measure one on a statistic on (finite piece of) computation. 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? ? On the disjoint events in the algebra of the continuation. The sum is an allusion of the P(A U B) = P(A) + P(B) with A and B disjoint events. In step 7 it is more complex as the domain is infinite, and we can't use the uniform probability, but we can still use the Gaussian approximation, and its deformation by the UD. 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? The rule Y = II means that if you are duplicated in some future, that augment the weight of the branch you are in, in the past. It is a way to eliminate the bifurcations, and make them into differentiation. In QM you have this by the linearity assumption. 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? The sharing is effected by allowing universal numbers to entangle other universal numbers, and
Re: The dovetailer disassembled
On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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. I have the feeling that I have been alive for years, but I would still have this feeling if I had only been alive for seconds. There does not have to be a physical, causal connection between the observer moments of my life for them to form a subjective temporal sequence. The sequence is implied by their content. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Platonia runs all possible CPU, and it is a certainty that all those computer and execution of computers exists in Platonia (which is a very little platonia compared to the one used in physics and analysis). On the contrary, some people might argue that a physical computation is only an approximation of those in Platonia, and that there are no computers in the physical reality. I'm happy to offer myself as a candidate for some people in this regard. It's all too easy to overlook the fact that, *on strictly materialist assumptions*, there is no independent justification for regarding physical activity as 'performing a computation', or some approximation thereof, other than as a convention. On the assumption that everything reduces hierarchically to some canonically primitive level, all action must proceed relentlessly from the bottom up and with complete indifference to our perceptual or conceptual convenience. Of course, the standard riposte here is that this is all very well but such things as the 'software' level of explanation remain as a requirement for *human* understanding. But in the context of the mind-body problem (and particularly on the assumption of physical primitiveness) that would be to immediately beg all the questions that want an answer. I should have thought that this would be particularly obvious to anyone favouring the view that mathematics, and hence the notion of computation itself, is nothing more than a free invention of the (presumably all-too-physical) human mind. David -- 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
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time capsules' present in every point of phase space. It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It has not attracted a great following. But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have to be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a different story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism. I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a 'many minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The time capsule idea and Last Tuesdayism may not be how the world actually is, but they do demonstrate that it is possible to have the hallucination that stuff is happening in the absence of a separate time dimension, which was your question. I don't think the time capsule idea would work with comp. It works for Barbour because he can use known physical laws to ensure that the time capsules are consistent from point to point along the trajectory in configuration space. You do not have that luxury in the dovetailer because you do not have independent physical laws. You can say that the sequence of conscious moments that we experience can only be those that are consistent. But that is just assuming what you need to prove, and is no explanation at all. 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 30 Apr 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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. The point is that Platonia is structured by the view from inside, and []p t should give the quantum Minkowskian structure (if that is correct physics). And this works. We got a quantization, and some Minkowski structure already appear (thanks to some other result by Goldblatt). Anyway, I just give a way to refute comp: prove that we don't get that structure in any of S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*. The preferable view would be that if you don't get even the basic physics out in a comparatively straightforward manner, then your program is not of great interest. This is the criticism that has long been leveled against string theory in physics -- it makes no independently testable predictions. A lot of promise perhaps, but no pay off. 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 April 2015 at 17:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Here we are in a place where I think you type of argument can still be used to criticize comp itself. Comp explains matter, but someone can reason along your line and pretend that it still fail to explain entirely consciousness. It just push the bottom on an arbitrary Turing universalm level, and makes everything into dreams, some cohere enough to give matter and consciousness, but consciousness looks like it is still explained in term of (infinities) of 3p relations, as the view from inside can be invoked by the materialist (forgetting that by using comp, he must explain matter too). But I believe this move against comp can be resisted, as I've previously remarked, by the indefeasible self-justification, or 'redemption', accorded by the view from inside. Provided it is not effectively denied (eliminativism) the 1p view can simultaneously justify both itself and its explicit 3p epistemology in the computationalist frame. But, lacking any such explicit epistemology in the materialist frame, there is no such analogous move available to the materialist. So either he tries to invoke the inside view by brute association with physical action (a la Brent, at least some of the time) or, as you say above, he makes an explicit or implicit appeal to comp. But then he finds himself in the same boat with you, whether he realises it or (more usually) not. David -- 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 Friday, May 1, 2015, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time capsules' present in every point of phase space. It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It has not attracted a great following. But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have to be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a different story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism. I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a 'many minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The time capsule idea and Last Tuesdayism may not be how the world actually is, but they do demonstrate that it is possible to have the hallucination that stuff is happening in the absence of a separate time dimension, which was your question. I don't think the time capsule idea would work with comp. It works for Barbour because he can use known physical laws to ensure that the time capsules are consistent from point to point along the trajectory in configuration space. You do not have that luxury in the dovetailer because you do not have independent physical laws. You can say that the sequence of conscious moments that we experience can only be those that are consistent. But that is just assuming what you need to prove, and is no explanation at all. I haven't read Barbour's book but my understanding is that the time capsules are ordered by their content, not by any time dimension or causal connection between them. I don't see why they could not exist in a multiverse with variable (perhaps all possible) physical laws. If there are inconsistencies due to white rabbit events then there is the question of why we don't see these, but that is separate from the question of how we can experience the illusion of time. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 16:20, Bruce Kellett wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 17:19, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: Julian Barbour, in his book 'The End of Time' tried to abolish time altogether because of the difficulties of defining time in general relativity. He replaced time as a parameter with the notion of 'time capsules' present in every point of phase space. It is not really clear whether this idea was successful or not. It has not attracted a great following. But if any such idea is to make sense, the observer moments do have to be connected by quite strong causal laws so that the sequence of moments tells a coherent story. Or else each moment tells a different story, and we are back with 'Last Tuesdayism' or solipsism. I don't think Fred Hoyle's account works either. It feels like a 'many minds' collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics. The time capsule idea and Last Tuesdayism may not be how the world actually is, but they do demonstrate that it is possible to have the hallucination that stuff is happening in the absence of a separate time dimension, which was your question. I don't think the time capsule idea would work with comp. It works for Barbour because he can use known physical laws to ensure that the time capsules are consistent from point to point along the trajectory in configuration space. You do not have that luxury in the dovetailer because you do not have independent physical laws. You don't know that. And we have arithmetical laws, biological laws (see my paper on amoeba and planaria), psychological laws, and, amazingly enough perhaps, theological laws (one halve on it are secret, we cannot consistently assert them, but we can bet on them. For the physical laws, indeed that is the problem. But it is an interesting problem, and the propositional logics of the physical observable have been derived, so we can test them empirically. thanks to the quantum, it fits, formally and informally (MWI). You can say that the sequence of conscious moments that we experience can only be those that are consistent. But that is just assuming what you need to prove, and is no explanation at all. Ah! You are clever when you want. That is basically the deep idea to exploit. For going from proVability to proBability, add the consistency requirements: []p t. Then the diamond []f V p handles the logic of the relative consistency. I am a scientist, Bruce. I formulate and solve a problem which is already there. The solution is not original, and has been developed, with diverse level of rigor and inspiration from Pythagorus to Damascius on a millenium, and elsewhere. UDA formulates the problem. have you still a problem with that? AUDA describes the only way I know to circumscribe mathematically the problem, and if it does not provides the complete solution (which does not exist), it gives the general shape. In particular it refutes Aristotle theology. I am not sure if you have already grasped that (weak) mechanism and (weak) materialism are incompatible (unless you add ad hoc magic). You have to understand how computations are emulated in the arithmetical reality, that in virtue of the truth of some collection of sentences. 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 30 Apr 2015, at 16:26, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 04:34, Bruce Kellett wrote: 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. The point is that Platonia is structured by the view from inside, and []p t should give the quantum Minkowskian structure (if that is correct physics). And this works. We got a quantization, and some Minkowski structure already appear (thanks to some other result by Goldblatt). Anyway, I just give a way to refute comp: prove that we don't get that structure in any of S4Grz1, X1*, Z1*. The preferable view would be that if you don't get even the basic physics out in a comparatively straightforward manner, then your program is not of great interest. This is the criticism that has long been leveled against string theory in physics -- it makes no independently testable predictions. A lot of promise perhaps, but no pay off. I formulate the computationalist mind-body problem. I show it to be hard. Then, it is amazing what the Lôbian number can already tell us when thinking about that question. I am not proposing a theory. I study the theological consequences on taking rationalism or mechanism seriously enough. I am still not sure if you are really interested in the mind-body problem. Unless you believe that consciousness reduces the wave packet, and this by using special oracle (different from the FPI), you don't even seemed to suggest a reason why computationalism is incorrect, or a reason to not admit its consequences. It is not a question of believing or defending any proposition. it is only a question of understanding a problem, reasoning validly. UDA1-7 is purely deductive. Step-8 touch reality and just diminish the need of Occam razor (as we cannot *prove* anything about reality, not even that it exists). No pay of? Have you a simpler explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why it can hurt, and this without invoking an ontological commitment? My feeling is that you ignore the mind-body problem, and have some lack in recursion theory or theoretical computer science (a branch of math). That would not be a problem if you were not talking negatively like if I was presenting something new and original when I just benefit from Church, Turing and Gödel +Löb, etc. to remind that even by assuming comp the mind-body problem is NOT solved, and that it is two times more complex than the materialist usually believes, given that we *have to* justify the beliefs in matter without invoking the existence of matter. 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 Thu, Apr 30, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If additional steps, steps that you has conspicuously not specified, are required to turn mathematical truth into physical truth This is vague, and literally impossible. We don't turn mathematical truth into physical truth. Then please explain what computer hardware does. There are trillions of dollars worth of the stuff on this planet, there must have been some point in building it. UDA explains that the difference of physics and math is a matter of pronouns or first/third person points of view, So I guess you're saying that the first person (me) doesn't know what 10^100^100 digit of pi is but the third person does, but who is this third person? I don't believe in God so I guess you mean mathematics, but If the resources of the observable universe are insufficient to calculate the 10^100^100 digit of pi as seems likely then where does knowledge of what this digit is exist? You claim it exists in Plato's world but provide no evidence that such a world exists. And Godel tells us that there are a infinite number of statements that even mathematics doesn't know if they are true or not, and Turing tells us that in general there is no way to know which statements mathematics is knowledgeable about and which ones it is not, that is to say no way to separate statements into these 3 categories and no way for mathematics to do it either. 1) The statement is true and a proof of it exists although humans may not have found it yet. 2) The statement is false although humans may not have found a counterexample yet. 3) The statement is true but no proof of it exists. Thus we can say that mathematics might know if the Goldbach Conjecture is true or not, but then again mathematics might be as ignorant about that as we are. The answer doesn't exist even in Platonia. In the long version in french, I explain more on this On this list you have shown yourself to be unable to coherently explain even very simple questions about your ideas so I am very skeptical that you have done better elsewhere. 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
How many people die for the conventional energy production? I would not believe the statistical figments. Are e.g. all those people included who died from diseases upon pollution from burning? Can anybody predict what kind of (Fukushima-type) disasters may occur in the foreseeable future and their toll? The environmental toll of hydroelectric construction and propagation? Who knows the radiation-induced toll if Solar energy steps up with all the new metallic products for the cells? The 'serving' industries must be accountable in a statistical toll of the product industry! Did the statistics include the preparatory processes for the proper energy production, e.g. transportation, drilling/mining/fracking, metallurgy and the extensive plastis production(s) needed for the energy plant operations? (Usually the electric car propaganda articles omit the environmental toll of the electricity-production, only the reduced 'oil' need is harangued). JM On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:13 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:55 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* 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: I like jokes as well… we have something in common. I also like honesty. The 90 figure you claim for nuclear is willfully ignoring the full scope of the long term impact of that accident. Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “*5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -* A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.” The Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian Academies of science have all published mortality figures are by the far higher than the figure of 4000 that the WHO has settled on. For example: data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. Chris 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. -- 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
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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? Your consciousness always exists in all the places it exists. In past and future points in time, in other branches of the wave function, etc. Just because the you-here-now isn't aware of them in the you-elsewhere doesn't mean the you-elsewhere's consciousness has stopped or is not existing. 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. I said it can explain all possible observations, since all possible computations exist in arithmetic, and by computationalism, all possible observations (conscious states) can be produced by the appropriate computation. Jason 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. -- 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 1 May 2015 at 12:34, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: LizR wrote: On 30 April 2015 at 16:32, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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.) Dimensions are (represented by) coordinate systems. Minkowski spacetime is (represented by) a 4D manifold. My point was that this has to emerge from the Platonia envisaged by Bruno -- it can't simply be imposed by fiat. I was simply answering what you asked - if there was an original point to do with comp it had either been truncated, or I missed it. I agree that there is a requriement for Bruno (or his successors) to explain how time and dimensions emerge from comp. (They do of course exist in Platonia as mathematical objects - assuming, as you and I both do, that maths exists tautologically). I have been looking again at Julian Barbour's book. His Platonia is essentially the configurations space of quantum mechanics: three spatial coordinates for every particle in the universe. In this Platonia all possible configurations of the universe are realized. This has a vast number of dimensions, but still some structure is imposed by knowing that space is three dimensional and that there was a big bang (at some point, not an imposed /beginning/). Yes, I read that some time ago (or however he would put that ... in a distant capsule / pigeon hole?) I can't remember now if he uses the Wheeler-DeWitt equation as a basis for his views - could you remind me? Computationalism does not have this head start -- it has to get it all from nothing. It does indeed. -- 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 18:47, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 30 Apr 2015, at 2:29 pm, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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.) The still night. This (and the other examples you mentioned) aren't sentences, but only phrases. It would appear that our language is constructed on the assumption that sentences - with a few exceptions - have to have a verb, namely some relation has to be described (often, but not necessarily, temporal). So, without a verb you can still indicate and describe something as long as there is no change taking place. Existence, in these instances, is not invoked but assumed. So long as there are no *relations* involved. These may or may not involve change (within the sentence). I gave the spoon to mother implies change, namely the spoon changed hands. She is my mother doesn't imply change. Although it does imply a relation (well two, if you'll pardon the pun) You can imply a verb's existence without actually using it: Me hungry. System shutdown in 60 seconds. Well as you say, these have only moved the verb to being implicit. (I am hungry and The system will shut down in 60 seconds). That doesn't make a case for actual verbless sentences. It was sci-fi man Robert Anton Wilson (friend of Bob Heinlein) who tried to get rid of the is in his writing and public speaking. Invoking QM, he argued you cannot know what anything is anyway, so give up the pretense and bite the bullet. You have to lose the is in your communicating. You may have heard of E-Prime or English without the verb to be. Worth the Wiki article if not. Bob tried valiantly to use E-Prime in his later philosophical books. Yes, I like RAW, at least his earlier works. (He seemed to get a bit too envangelistic later, along the lines of can't these stupid people see that they can metaprogramme their brains?) I quoted part of his Ten reasons to get up in the morning the other day on another forum. It's rather moving. Mind you I wouldn't disrespect him by saying he was a sci-fi man - he definitely wrote science fiction, not skiffy - amongst lots of other things, of course. -- 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: Yes, I read that some time ago (or however he would put that ... in a distant capsule / pigeon hole?) I can't remember now if he uses the Wheeler-DeWitt equation as a basis for his views - could you remind me? Yes, the WDW equation features prominently in Barbour's thinking. The fact that this result of a canonical quantization of gravity leads to an equation without a time variable is an important motivation for Barbour. He also visualizes the MWI as forming a sort of haze over 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.
Fwd: A Beka Book and the Set Theory of Satan
Surprisingly there's already a textbook teaching Bruno's ideas. :-) Brent Forwarded Message https://www.abeka.com/AbekaDifference.aspx Mathematics The study of logic and order to apply to science and daily life Unlike the modern math theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, _A Beka Book_ teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute. Man's task is to search out and make use of the laws of the universe, both scientific and mathematical. _A Beka Book_ provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are NOT BURDENED WITH MODERN THEORIES SUCH AS SET THEORY. These books have been field-tested, revised, and used successfully for many years, making them classics with up-to-date appeal. Besides training students in the basic skills needed for life, A Beka Book traditional mathematics books teach students to believe in absolutes, to work diligently for right answers, and to see mathematical facts as part of the truth and order built into the real universe. As noted on http://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/what-do-christian-fundamentali.html - End forwarded message - -- 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 16:32, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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.) Dimensions are (represented by) coordinate systems. Minkowski spacetime is (represented by) a 4D manifold. My point was that this has to emerge from the Platonia envisaged by Bruno -- it can't simply be imposed by fiat. I have been looking again at Julian Barbour's book. His Platonia is essentially the configurations space of quantum mechanics: three spatial coordinates for every particle in the universe. In this Platonia all possible configurations of the universe are realized. This has a vast number of dimensions, but still some structure is imposed by knowing that space is three dimensional and that there was a big bang (at some point, not an imposed /beginning/). Computationalism does not have this head start -- it has to get it all from nothing. 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 April 2015 at 16:32, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: 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. It was still a block universe, as Laplace realised. (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.) Dimensions are (represented by) coordinate systems. Minkowski spacetime is (represented by) a 4D manifold. -- 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: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:27 PM Subject: Re: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy How many people die for the conventional energy production? I would not believe the statistical figments. Are e.g. all those people included who died from diseases upon pollution from burning? Can anybody predict what kind of (Fukushima-type) disasters may occur in the foreseeable future and their toll? The environmental toll of hydroelectric construction and propagation? Who knows the radiation-induced toll if Solar energy steps up with all the new metallic products for the cells? The 'serving' industries must be accountable in a statistical toll of the product industry! Did the statistics include the preparatory processes for the proper energy production, e.g. transportation, drilling/mining/fracking, metallurgy and the extensive plastis production(s) needed for the energy plant operations? (Usually the electric car propaganda articles omit the environmental toll of the electricity-production, only the reduced 'oil' need is harangued). I find the term electric car propaganda articles rather curious. Do you mean to imply, by framing it in this manner, that promotion of the use of electric cars, or extolling their benefits is propaganda? Can you provide any actual substantive evidence that supports this position of yours?Chris JM On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:13 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: 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: I like jokes as well… we have something in common. I also like honesty. The 90 figure you claim for nuclear is willfully ignoring the full scope of the long term impact of that accident. Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.” The Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian Academies of science have all published mortality figures are by the far higher than the figure of 4000 that the WHO has settled on. For example: data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl.Chris 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.-- 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 Apr 2015, at 13:42, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 April 2015 at 09:10, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Platonia runs all possible CPU, and it is a certainty that all those
computer and execution of computers exists in Platonia (which is a
very little platonia compared to the one used in physics and
analysis).
On the contrary, some people might argue that a physical computation
is only an approximation of those in Platonia, and that there are no
computers in the physical reality.
I'm happy to offer myself as a candidate for some people in this
regard. It's all too easy to overlook the fact that, *on strictly
materialist assumptions*, there is no independent justification for
regarding physical activity as 'performing a computation', or some
approximation thereof, other than as a convention. On the assumption
that everything reduces hierarchically to some canonically primitive
level, all action must proceed relentlessly from the bottom up and
with complete indifference to our perceptual or conceptual
convenience.
I agree, but this is not entirely obvious. You can get this by UDA-
MGA, but without this or similar, a materialist could remain non-
eliminativist, and say that very plausibly his brain is doing the
right informatoion treatment as he considered that his headache
(which he assures you is not there by convention) does result from its
brain doing the right computational information treatment, and that
this is possible to explain (for example with G/G*, etc.). Of course
we know that this works only if the physical reality is itself
emergent, and that is why comp makes the mind-body problem two times
more difficult than for a materialist, as we have to justify
consciousness but also matter.
Here we are in a place where I think you type of argument can still be
used to criticize comp itself. Comp explains matter, but someone can
reason along your line and pretend that it still fail to explain
entirely consciousness. It just push the bottom on an arbitrary Turing
universalm level, and makes everything into dreams, some cohere enough
to give matter and consciousness, but consciousness looks like it is
still explained in term of (infinities) of 3p relations, as the view
from inside can be invoked by the materialist (forgetting that by
using comp, he must explain matter too).
Of course, the standard riposte here is that this is all very well
but such things as the 'software' level of explanation remain as a
requirement for *human* understanding. But in the context of the
mind-body problem (and particularly on the assumption of physical
primitiveness) that would be to immediately beg all the questions
that want an answer.
OK.
I should have thought that this would be particularly obvious to
anyone favouring the view that mathematics, and hence the notion of
computation itself, is nothing more than a free invention of the
(presumably all-too-physical) human mind.
Yes. But this can't work, of course. That is why we have to postulate
a Turing universal reality independent of the human mind. Luckily we
have a lot of them, like arithmetic (assumed by everyone) or
combinators, etc. Note that once we have one of them, the independent
reality of all the others is acquired. You can defined 0, 1, 2, ...
with the combinators and prove that 2+2=4, and similarly, you can
defined the combinators in arithmetic, and show that they do what they
have to to do.
But then the rest is still related to a multilevel graded and layered
sotware theory. The only thing very new here, is that incompleteness
forces the machine do introduce the distinction between justfiable,
relatively justifiable; knowable, probable, true, dreamed, consistent,
etc.
It is an arithmetical fact that the logic ofprovable('2+3=5') 2
+ 2 = 5-is different from the logic of ---provable('2+2=5')---.
mathematicians and even many logicians does not like so much the
intensional part of computer science and logic, and modal logic where
decried for a long time. Quine said that they were born in sin, and he
raises some difficulties. But today, we know that incompleteness
reintroduce two mathematical modal logic having a clear extensional
meaning, yet being intensional in meaning, and worst, (but this is
ignored except from a minority like Goldbaltt, Boolos, Artemov, ...),
that incompleteness forces the machine to recognize the Theaetetus
distinctions between []p and []p p. Not only does they have
different modal, intensional, logics (G and S4Grz) but they have quite
distinct features: G models the 3-I (the 3p thing that you let the
doctor re-implement it in the artificial brain). S4Grz models the
knowledge of a non nameable 1-I, like it is normal for the 1-notion to
be. The knower as no name, no 3p description *from* its first person
point of view. (we know better, but only for mich simpler
RE: SciAm predicts strong future for renewable energy
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: 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: I like jokes as well… we have something in common. I also like honesty. The 90 figure you claim for nuclear is willfully ignoring the full scope of the long term impact of that accident. Quoting directly from the 2005 WHO report on Chernobyl accident “5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.” The Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian Academies of science have all published mortality figures are by the far higher than the figure of 4000 that the WHO has settled on. For example: data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. Chris 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. -- 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.
