Re: Well Stone The Crows
And, Brand supports them if they are Labor, dangerous or not. Wisdom, from another champagne socialist ;-) -Original Message- From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 5:09 am Subject: Well Stone The Crows http://www.adguk.co.uk/scitech/nasa-discovers-thc-on-meteorite-fragment/ Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile:0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web:http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com “I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government - Russell Brand -- 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: Well Stone The Crows
Spaced out! On 15 June 2015 at 22:34, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: And, Brand supports them if they are Labor, dangerous or not. Wisdom, from another champagne socialist ;-) -Original Message- From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 5:09 am Subject: Well Stone The Crows http://www.adguk.co.uk/scitech/nasa-discovers-thc-on-meteorite-fragment/ Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile:0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web:http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com “I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government - Russell Brand -- 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.
Well Stone The Crows
http://www.adguk.co.uk/scitech/nasa-discovers-thc-on-meteorite-fragment/ http://www.adguk.co.uk/scitech/nasa-discovers-thc-on-meteorite-fragment/ Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile:0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web:http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com “I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of dangerous people out there. I am saying a lot of them are in government - Russell Brand -- 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: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 20:50, Terren Suydam wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote: OK, so given a certain interpretation, some scholars added two hypostases to the original three. It is very natural to do. The ennead VI.1 describes the three initial hypostases, and the subject of what is matter, notably the intelligible matter and the sensible matter, is the subject of the ennead II.4. It is a simplification of vocabulary, more than another interpretation. Then, it appears that you make a third interpretation by splitting the intellect, and the two matters. What justifies these splits? I am not sure I understand? Plotinus splits them too, as they are different subject matter. The intellect is the nous, the worlds of idea, and here the world of what the machine can prove (seen by her, and by God: G and G*). But matter is what you can predict with the FPI, and so it is a different notion, and likewise, in Plotinus, matter is given by a platonist rereading of Aristotle theory of indetermination. This is done in the ennead II-4. Why should we not split intellect and matter, which in appearance are very different, and the problem is more in consistently relating them. If we don't distinguish them, we cannot explain the problem of relating them. Sorry, my question was ambiguous. What I mean is that after adding the two hypostases for the two matters, you have five hypostases, the initial three plus the two for matter. Then, you arrive at 8 hypostases by splitting the intellect into two, and you do the same for each of the matter hyspostases. My question is what plain-language rationale justifies creating these three extra hypostases? And can we really say we're still talking about Plotinus's hypostases at this point? We can, as nobody could pretend to have the right intepretation of Plotinus. In fact that very question has been addressed to Plotinus's interpretation of Plato. Now, it would be necessary to quote large passage of Plotinus to explain why indeed, even without comp, the two matters (the intelligible et the sensible one) are arguably sort of hypostases, even in the mind of Plotionus, but as a platonist, he is forced to consider them degenerate and belonging to the realm where God loses control, making matter a quasi synonym of evil (!). The primary hypostase are the three one on the top right of this diagram (T, for truth, G* and S4Grz) T G G* S4Grz Z Z* X X* Making Z, Z*, X, X* into hypostases homogenizes nicely Plotinus presentation, and put a lot of pieces of the platonist puzzle into place. It makes other passage of Plotinus completely natural. Note that for getting the material aspect of the (degenerate, secondary) hypostases, we still need to make comp explicit, by restricting the arithmetical intepretation of the modal logics on the sigma- (UD-accessible) propositions (leading to the logic (below G1 and G1*) S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*, where the quantum quantization appears. The plain language rational is that both in Plotinus, (according to some passagethis is accepted by many scholars too) and in the universal machine mind, UDA show that psychology, theology, even biology, are obtained by intensional (modal) variant of the intellect and the ONE. By incompleteness, provability is of the type belief. We lost knowledge here, we don't have []p - p in G. This makes knowledge emulable, and meta-definable, in the language of the machine, by the Theaetetus method: [1]p = []p p. UDA justifies for matter: []p t (cf the coffee modification of the step 3: a physical certainty remains true in all consistent continuations ([]p), and such continuation exist (t). It is the Timaeus bastard calculus, referred to by Plotinus in his two-matters chapter (ennead II-6). Sensible matter is just a reapplication of the theaetetus, on intelligible matter. I hope this helps, ask anything. Bruno I'm not conversant in modal logic, so a lot of that went over my head. Thus my request for plain language justifications. In spite of that language barrier I'd like to understand what I can about this model because it is the basis for your formal argument AUDA and much of what you've created seems to depend on it. I still am not clear on why you invent three new hypostases, granting the five from Plotinus (by creating G/G*, X/X*, and Z/Z* instead of just G, X, and Z), except that you say [it] homogenizes nicely Plotinus presentation, and put a lot of pieces of the platonist
Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
I had forgotten I wrote this a while back, from my FB feed on this day. Seems relevant. Can truth ever be proven? Here's something I wrote in a discussion I'm having. Structure does not cause something to be non-fictional, nor does lack of structure cause something to be fictional. A theorem in one formal system might be false in another, a lot like how different video games have different rules. Even if you prove something about all formal systems, that proof has been carried out in a larger formal system; so there is an inherent circularity, or more accurately, an inherent interdependency. It's like being in a video game trying to prove that something is true of all video games but that meta-game proof is being conducted in one of the video games the proof is about. Thus, the concept of proof needs to be anchored to something true but by this rationale, proof is merely anchored to itself. Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. If I were to say that both confirming and denying the statement there is no such thing as truth implies that there is truth, I am still formulating that theorem there is truth within yet another formal system which, on the surface of things, gets us nowhere. It is like inventing a two-player game with, from an outside point of view, a bizarre set of rules, and claiming that checkmating someone in that game amounts to producing not just truth but proof of truth. The people outside our fishbowl looking in on us must be very amused, just as are the people outside their fishbowl looking in on them. Formal systems show us that our usual formal systems (the ones we use to communicate, inform, and persuade in English for instance) have the same relationship to truth that Earth does to the center of the universe. No formal system is provably true and correct, though there are formal systems that might conform to what we perceive. Formal systems can only be proved relatively true compared to other formal systems. At least until that anchor is found. That reduces math to a grand symphony. Grand symphonies aren't inherently true or false and there is no hope in my mind of proving the grand symphony that is math to be true. Another way to look at is is a grand poem that makes up its own rules and even explicitly acknowledges that fact. The question of whether concepts referenced by the poem actually exist is to open the door to many formal systems we might walk into in order to answer the question. Moreover, it will be true in some but not others that that concept exists. A really broad interpretation of existence would be that something exists if it is referenced by a grammatically-correct statement made in at least one formal system. -- 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 15 Jun 2015, at 05:08, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it another way, regions in which maths doesn't work. This seems to be out-Tegmarking Tegmark, who assumes that at least maths is (meta-) universal. At this stage, it's no worse than assuming meaning generation is a necessary feature of existence, and that this can only take place by compression of regularities, which is the Solomonoff type answer... That would require a source of such regularities, surely? But that would seem to lead straight back to requiring that maths works. However, neither does Bruno's theory does not offer any explanation for the 'uniformity of nature'. I do much worst. I show that if we assume the brain to be Turing emulable forces us to derive the uniformity of nature from the uniformity of arithmetic, in some limiting sense (by the FPI, that is the ignorance on which infinities of Universal numbers support us). I explain the problem. I agree that the proble is so huge that it can look like a refuctation of comp, and that is why I translate the problem in the lnguage of a machine, and study what is the machine's answer, and it shows that the technical constraints of incompleteness solve the problem at the propositional level, so well, physics does not disappear, and comp is still consistent. But the problem remains of course, and it is not a problem, it is a sequence of problems for all computationalist theologians of the future. He has to appeal to religion to magic away the 'white rabbits'. Of course not. That is very unfair, as the very idea is to not use magic at any point, just elementary arithmetic. remember that there is not one thing I say, which is not provable in RA, PA or ZF. According to Bruno's account, the physical world is not even Turing emulable I did not say that. The physical world can be Turing emulable, and that would be the case if my generalized brain is the entire physical universe. But this is an extreme case, and a priori, the physical world is not entirely Turing emulable. -- which one would think would be a requirement for regularities that could be described by physical laws. (If the physical laws are not computable, in what sense could one describe them as laws?) I will have to go, but computable = sigma_1. many lawful relation in arithmetic are not computable, they are just more complex. I can give examples later, but, well, You need to study what is computable (in the mathematical Church Turing sense. mathematics, even just arithmetic, is mostly inhabited by non computable relations. Intuitionist throw them away, but never completely, because they don't want loosing completely the Turing completeness of their theories. The universal numbers are the main roots of all the non computability occurring in arithmetic. Recursion theory, computability theory, is notably the study of the degree of non-computability, or unsolvability. It is not just chaos, the complex non computable things have a lot of order too. Then you have the statistics, which can also manage some non computable predictions in highly structured way, and QM illustrates this (with or without collapse). 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 15 Jun 2015, at 02:40, John Clark wrote: On 6/13/2015 LizR wrote: None of this explain why it works so well Mathematics is a language that can always describe regularities and it can do so more tersely than any other language; and if the laws of physics didn't have regularities they wouldn't be laws. But a language does not create the thing it describes. Mathematics use a mathematical language, but add assumptions, which are about structure that mathematicians believes in, independently that logicians makes the theories formal or not. The idea that the mathematical reality is only language looks like the conventionalist position, which does not work. We study structures, and through the theorizing, they kick back, and indeed most of the time we are surprised by what is found. The debate persists above arithmetic, but as far as the arithmetical truth is concerned, most mathematician agree it constitute a well defined reality. The real (non semantic) trouble begins in analysis and set theories. Nobody would say that a fact like all non negative integers can be equal to the sum of four squared integers has been decided by convention. The same with Riemann hypothesis: either all interesting zero are on the critical line, or not. We just don't know the answer today, although many would say that we do know the answer, but are just unable to find a sharable communicable justification of it. Mathematician succeed in finding proof a long time after their intuit its existence. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 20:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. By what standard can you judge that an animal putatively more intelligent than you has acted stupidly? Where did I do that? A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. I am not sure of this, but if true that makes my point even more obvious. (I might be blasphemous, with respect to the machine theology, so add IF comp is true, and keep in mind I use the terms in larger sense than usual). 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 10 Jun 2015, at 16:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 09:51, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Jun 2015, at 01:40, LizR wrote: On 10 June 2015 at 11:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/9/2015 2:25 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:15 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Super-intelligence is more resilient than human intelligence, so it is likely to last longer Maybe, but I note that smarter than average humans seem to have higher than average rates of suicide too. I wonder if this is because intelligence leads to depression or because it makes one more likely to research and correctly execute a viable method of suicide. Do you know if the rates are also higher on failed attempts? According to most people on this list, they are ALL failed attempts. Heehee. (Or at least most people are willnig to entertain the possibility.) Which is enough to doubt such kind of self-sampling assumption, which are based on ASSA (absolute self-sampling), which I thought was shown non valid (cf our old discussion on the doomsday argument). Then what is super-intelligence? I doubt this make sense, or at the least should be made more precise. For the purpose of this discussion, I would say that you would only have to grant that there is some utility function that captures chances of survival. Then, super-intelligence is something that can optimize this function beyond what human intelligence is capable. Then amoeba and bacteria are more clever than dinosaurs and humans. OK, but again, I would say that it is a particular competence. It might be that intelligence per se is not necessarily useful for surviving, as it makes you more sensible to events. It is suggested by some studies that very gifted people dies more quickly than others. I know it is counter-intuitive, or that I use perhaps a non standard notion of intelligence(*), but I think that intelligence is maximal with the virgin universal machine, or perhaps Löbian machine (but I am not sure), and then can only decrease. The singularity is when the machine will supersede the human' stupidity. I believe I understand what you mean, but perhaps we are talking about different things. I define intelligence in a very general sense by the negation of stupidity, and I define stupidity by either the assertion of I am intelligent, or of I am stupid. It makes pebble intelligent, but this is not a problem. I distinguish this from competence, and from consciousness. I might think that animals are more intelligent than humans. May be plants are more intelligent than animals. But I guess people talk here about competence. This can grow, but is often used for stupid behavior. A human is an ape which torture other apes. Perhaps they merge in the end. For example, the super-intelligence according to my definition eventually develops a TOE that makes it believe that the well-being of others is the same as its own. I am OK with this. Bruno PS Sorry for the delays (exam period) Best Telmo Bruno (*) a machine is intelligent if it is not stupid, and a machine is stupid if she asserts that she is intelligent, or that she is stupid. (it makes pebble infinitely intelligent, I agree). -- 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- l...@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
Re: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. To win you need to master the art of losing. The future belongs to the good losers :) 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 14 Jun 2015, at 21:48, meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2015 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Arithmetic is full of life, ... and taxes and death. But it needs interpretation to be full of death and taxes. Otherwise it is just abstract relations. Yes. But the one doing the interpretation are the universal (Löbian) entity. They build model satisfying their beliefs. Now, with computationalism, there indeed a truncation made for our own self-description (if not, the doctor can't do its job), and that entails that many notions cannot be entirely translated into text, except if based on some intuition that the machine can develop through examples. Numbers are already of that kind. That's exactly why it is so useful; the same relations hold under many different interpretations. In algebra, yes. That is why they got the universal problem (not in the Turing sense), and the adjointness which occurs everywhere in math. But in arithmetic and computer science, we have also sort of token- like ultra-concrete objects, like we thought of the (standard) natural numbers, and machines. I recently asked on a mathematicians forum for a definition of mathematics. The common ones were the study of relations and the study of patterns. No problem with this. Except that this is very general, and even without comp, might still encompass human and alien psychology, biology, conditional theologies, etc. The term mathematics has no mathematical definition, and what it encompass will depend on the philosophical, metaphysical or theological hypotheses. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? Neither, you're the one who said the things quoted above, which certainly look like you're in favour of genocide when directed against the Neanderthals. Making spiteful comments doesn't change that, and is actually quite hurtful. How about manning up and explaining yourself properly, instead of retreating behind being flip, snide and childish? -- 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: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia
On 15 Jun 2015, at 15:32, Terren Suydam wrote: On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 20:50, Terren Suydam wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Terren Suydam wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Terren Suydam wrote: OK, so given a certain interpretation, some scholars added two hypostases to the original three. It is very natural to do. The ennead VI.1 describes the three initial hypostases, and the subject of what is matter, notably the intelligible matter and the sensible matter, is the subject of the ennead II.4. It is a simplification of vocabulary, more than another interpretation. Then, it appears that you make a third interpretation by splitting the intellect, and the two matters. What justifies these splits? I am not sure I understand? Plotinus splits them too, as they are different subject matter. The intellect is the nous, the worlds of idea, and here the world of what the machine can prove (seen by her, and by God: G and G*). But matter is what you can predict with the FPI, and so it is a different notion, and likewise, in Plotinus, matter is given by a platonist rereading of Aristotle theory of indetermination. This is done in the ennead II-4. Why should we not split intellect and matter, which in appearance are very different, and the problem is more in consistently relating them. If we don't distinguish them, we cannot explain the problem of relating them. Sorry, my question was ambiguous. What I mean is that after adding the two hypostases for the two matters, you have five hypostases, the initial three plus the two for matter. Then, you arrive at 8 hypostases by splitting the intellect into two, and you do the same for each of the matter hyspostases. My question is what plain-language rationale justifies creating these three extra hypostases? And can we really say we're still talking about Plotinus's hypostases at this point? We can, as nobody could pretend to have the right intepretation of Plotinus. In fact that very question has been addressed to Plotinus's interpretation of Plato. Now, it would be necessary to quote large passage of Plotinus to explain why indeed, even without comp, the two matters (the intelligible et the sensible one) are arguably sort of hypostases, even in the mind of Plotionus, but as a platonist, he is forced to consider them degenerate and belonging to the realm where God loses control, making matter a quasi synonym of evil (!). The primary hypostase are the three one on the top right of this diagram (T, for truth, G* and S4Grz) T G G* S4Grz Z Z* X X* Making Z, Z*, X, X* into hypostases homogenizes nicely Plotinus presentation, and put a lot of pieces of the platonist puzzle into place. It makes other passage of Plotinus completely natural. Note that for getting the material aspect of the (degenerate, secondary) hypostases, we still need to make comp explicit, by restricting the arithmetical intepretation of the modal logics on the sigma- (UD-accessible) propositions (leading to the logic (below G1 and G1*) S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*, where the quantum quantization appears. The plain language rational is that both in Plotinus, (according to some passagethis is accepted by many scholars too) and in the universal machine mind, UDA show that psychology, theology, even biology, are obtained by intensional (modal) variant of the intellect and the ONE. By incompleteness, provability is of the type belief. We lost knowledge here, we don't have []p - p in G. This makes knowledge emulable, and meta-definable, in the language of the machine, by the Theaetetus method: [1]p = []p p. UDA justifies for matter: []p t (cf the coffee modification of the step 3: a physical certainty remains true in all consistent continuations ([]p), and such continuation exist (t). It is the Timaeus bastard calculus, referred to by Plotinus in his two- matters chapter (ennead II-6). Sensible matter is just a reapplication of the theaetetus, on intelligible matter. I hope this helps, ask anything. Bruno I'm not conversant in modal logic, so a lot of that went over my head. Maybe the problem is here. Modal logic, or even just modal notation are supposed to make things more easy. For example, I am used to explain the difference between agnosticism and beliefs, by using the modality []p, that you can in this context read as I believe p. If ~ represents the negation, the old definition of atheism was []~g (the belief that God does not exist), and agnosticism is ~[]g (and
Re: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
Brent concluded ingeniously: *They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is. You just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of miracles the mathematics is obeyed!Brent* May I step a bit further: by careful observations humanity (or some 'higher' cooperating intellect maybe?) derived the connotions we call 'theories', math, even axioms to make them fit. Then we fall on our backside by admiration that they fit. Don't forget the historic buildup of our 'science' etc, stepwise, as we increased the observational treasure-chest of Nature. So Nature does not obey mathematics, mathematics has been derived in ways to follow the observed regularities of Nature. JM On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/14/2015 2:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's effective. Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well onto some parts of maths, I think that's an illusion of selective attention. Remember how Kepler thought the size of the planetary orbits were determined by nesting the five Platonic solids. An impressive example of the effective of mathematics - except it turned out there weren't just five planets. Now we regard the orbits as historical accidents and predicted by any mathematics. Instead we point to fact that they obey Newton's law of universal gravitation to great accuracy. Another impressive example of the effectiveness of mathematics...except it's slight wrong and Einstein's spacetime model works better. and may even map exactly (we have no reason to think not - every improvement in measurement so far indicates this, Except when they don't. but there will always of course be room for doubt - just room that's been getting steadily smaller over the last few centuries). But you haven't said why it does so. I may not agree with Bruno or Max Tegmark, but at least they have a theory for why this They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is. You just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of miracles the mathematics is obeyed! Brent *might* be so, and I haven't seen any definitive demonstration of mistakes in their theories as yet (there are lots of suggestions that may become definitive with more work, of course). So far, your answer to the question of the unreasonable effectiveness of maths is basically It works that way because it works that way, I can't explain it - but trust me, it isn't worth explaining. -- 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: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:15, Brian Tenneson wrote: I had forgotten I wrote this a while back, from my FB feed on this day. Seems relevant. Can truth ever be proven? That has no meaning. Truth about what? Here's something I wrote in a discussion I'm having. Structure does not cause something to be non-fictional, nor does lack of structure cause something to be fictional. A theorem in one formal system might be false in another, Formal system = machine = 3p-person. yes, they have all theior on opinion, but this does not mean that some are not true or false. a lot like how different video games have different rules. Even if you prove something about all formal systems, that proof has been carried out in a larger formal system; Not necessarily. Formal systems can prove a lot about themselves, including their own incompleteness conditionalised on their consistency. so there is an inherent circularity, I think the one you allude to is the one solved by the diagonals of Kleene. Not the time to say much more, but I have explained this. or more accurately, an inherent interdependency. It's like being in a video game trying to prove that something is true of all video games but that meta-game proof is being conducted in one of the video games the proof is about. Thus, the concept of proof needs to be anchored to something true but by this rationale, proof is merely anchored to itself. Anchoring proof on truth leads to the first person. Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Proof of which truth. In logic, truth is defined by a model. A is true if it is the case that A in the intended model. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. ? Well, proof of Truth, with a big T is like the proof of the existence of God: that does not exist, we have to start from something. But since Gödel we know that proof means belief, and that it can't be taken for granted. If I were to say that both confirming and denying the statement there is no such thing as truth implies that there is truth, I am still formulating that theorem there is truth within yet another formal system which, on the surface of things, gets us nowhere. It is like inventing a two-player game with, from an outside point of view, a bizarre set of rules, and claiming that checkmating someone in that game amounts to producing not just truth but proof of truth. The people outside our fishbowl looking in on us must be very amused, just as are the people outside their fishbowl looking in on them. Ok, that is Truth with a big T, and so it needs faith. It is religion. OK. Formal systems show us that our usual formal systems (the ones we use to communicate, inform, and persuade in English for instance) have the same relationship to truth that Earth does to the center of the universe. No formal system is provably true and correct, though there are formal systems that might conform to what we perceive. Formal systems can only be proved relatively true compared to other formal systems. No, you can compared them to mathematical structure. That is why we have a model theory. The situation is not that bad. We can use our intuition of the finite to get the models. That is what we do when we talk about limit, models, analysis, complex numbers, etc. At least until that anchor is found. That reduces math to a grand symphony. Grand symphonies aren't inherently true or false and there is no hope in my mind of proving the grand symphony that is math to be true. Another way to look at is is a grand poem that makes up its own rules and even explicitly acknowledges that fact. The question of whether concepts referenced by the poem actually exist is to open the door to many formal systems we might walk into in order to answer the question. Moreover, it will be true in some but not others that that concept exists. A really broad interpretation of existence would be that something exists if it is referenced by a grammatically-correct statement made in at least one formal system. I think that we can agree on elementary arithmetic, then we can agree on the fact that almost all universal numbers will disagree on what extends arithmetic. 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,
Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
Thanks, Brian, that was beautiful. (especially that little 2-liner: * Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere.* ...considering an infinite complexity - Nature (mostly still unknown to us) with ingredients unrestricted as pros and cons...) JM On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote: I had forgotten I wrote this a while back, from my FB feed on this day. Seems relevant. Can truth ever be proven? Here's something I wrote in a discussion I'm having. Structure does not cause something to be non-fictional, nor does lack of structure cause something to be fictional. A theorem in one formal system might be false in another, a lot like how different video games have different rules. Even if you prove something about all formal systems, that proof has been carried out in a larger formal system; so there is an inherent circularity, or more accurately, an inherent interdependency. It's like being in a video game trying to prove that something is true of all video games but that meta-game proof is being conducted in one of the video games the proof is about. Thus, the concept of proof needs to be anchored to something true but by this rationale, proof is merely anchored to itself. Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. If I were to say that both confirming and denying the statement there is no such thing as truth implies that there is truth, I am still formulating that theorem there is truth within yet another formal system which, on the surface of things, gets us nowhere. It is like inventing a two-player game with, from an outside point of view, a bizarre set of rules, and claiming that checkmating someone in that game amounts to producing not just truth but proof of truth. The people outside our fishbowl looking in on us must be very amused, just as are the people outside their fishbowl looking in on them. Formal systems show us that our usual formal systems (the ones we use to communicate, inform, and persuade in English for instance) have the same relationship to truth that Earth does to the center of the universe. No formal system is provably true and correct, though there are formal systems that might conform to what we perceive. Formal systems can only be proved relatively true compared to other formal systems. At least until that anchor is found. That reduces math to a grand symphony. Grand symphonies aren't inherently true or false and there is no hope in my mind of proving the grand symphony that is math to be true. Another way to look at is is a grand poem that makes up its own rules and even explicitly acknowledges that fact. The question of whether concepts referenced by the poem actually exist is to open the door to many formal systems we might walk into in order to answer the question. Moreover, it will be true in some but not others that that concept exists. A really broad interpretation of existence would be that something exists if it is referenced by a grammatically-correct statement made in at least one formal system. -- 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote: The Schroedinger equation is perfectly computable. Yes but that fact does us no good because Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't describe anything observable, to get that you must square the amplitude of the equation at a point and even then it will only give you the probability you will observe the particle at that point. The many worlds of MWI are computable I'm not sure what you mean by that. Schrodinger's Wave Equation has i (the square root of -1) in it and i does strange things, like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. So that means you can't compute which one unique branch of the multiverse that our universe will change with time into because there is no such one unique branch. And for the same reason you can't compute the one unique branch of the multiverse that our universe has changes with time from. we have 1p inderminacy, To be deterministic things would need to evolve into one and only one thing, but Schrodinger says that's not what happens. And a person is no different from a non-person in that respect and consciousness has nothing to do with it, NOTHING evolves into one and only one thing. So forget 1p , things are just indeterminate period. 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: FYI If you use Lastpass to remember your passwords you need to change them -- it was hacked
I don't use it -- nor would I, but passing this warning along in case anyone thought the convenience was worth the risk. Lastpass, the site that remembers your passwords for you,was hacked. Sauce: http://gizmodo.com/lastpass-defender-of-our-passwords-just-got-hacked-1711475964 If you use it, you should update it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: A mathematical description of the level IV Multiverse
On 6/15/2015 8:15 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: Therefore, perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal in math. Perhaps proof of truth is an unattainable goal anywhere. Math isn't concerned with true, it's only concerned with what theorems follow from given axioms. Traditionally the axioms are assumed to be true, but this concept of true is no more than a marker like #t which marks a property preserved under logical inference rules. The other kind of true, as when we say It's true that the Earth is round. is a rough or approximate relation between a statement, The Earth is round. and some facts in the world which can in principle be tested empirically. It's like truth in jury trials, we may believe it beyond reasonable doubt, but we're never sure. So when you say truth is unattainable you need to distinguish the different uses of the concept. I think it is possible to determine that some things are true beyond a reasonable doubt. 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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/15/2015 1:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 16:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 6:36 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 11:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. But your original statement didn't talk about winners and losers, it talked about elimination, specifically it sounded as though you were in favour of one ape eliminating another one (on a species basis, going by your mention of neanderthals). So, are you actually in favour of genocide, or were you just shooting your mouth off? Are you a Neanderthal or are you just trolling? Neither, you're the one who said the things quoted above, which certainly look like you're in favour of genocide when directed against the Neanderthals. Making spiteful comments doesn't change that, and is actually quite hurtful. How about manning up and explaining yourself properly, instead of retreating behind being flip, snide and childish? How about not imputing opinions not in evidence and trolling with have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife questions. 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it another way, regions in which maths doesn't work. This seems to be out-Tegmarking Tegmark, who assumes that at least maths is (meta-) universal. At this stage, it's no worse than assuming meaning generation is a necessary feature of existence, and that this can only take place by compression of regularities, which is the Solomonoff type answer... That would require a source of such regularities, surely? But that would seem to lead straight back to requiring that maths works. However, neither does Bruno's theory does not offer any explanation for the 'uniformity of nature'. He has to appeal to religion to magic away the 'white rabbits'. According to Bruno's account, the physical world is not even Turing emulable -- which one would think would be a requirement for regularities that could be described by physical laws. (If the physical laws are not computable, in what sense could one describe them as laws?) The randomness of QM is not computable. Bruno's idea is like MIW, indefinitely many worlds are computed/emulated in parallel and in the Born rule proportion. 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it another way, regions in which maths doesn't work. This seems to be out-Tegmarking Tegmark, who assumes that at least maths is (meta-) universal. At this stage, it's no worse than assuming meaning generation is a necessary feature of existence, and that this can only take place by compression of regularities, which is the Solomonoff type answer... That would require a source of such regularities, surely? But that would seem to lead straight back to requiring that maths works. However, neither does Bruno's theory does not offer any explanation for the 'uniformity of nature'. He has to appeal to religion to magic away the 'white rabbits'. According to Bruno's account, the physical world is not even Turing emulable -- which one would think would be a requirement for regularities that could be described by physical laws. (If the physical laws are not computable, in what sense could one describe them as laws?) The randomness of QM is not computable. Bruno's idea is like MIW, indefinitely many worlds are computed/emulated in parallel and in the Born rule proportion. The Schroedinger equation is perfectly computable. The many worlds of MWI are computable -- we have 1p inderminacy, but we have been assured that that is all part of the dovetailer -- totally computable. 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 6/15/2015 12:40 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2015 8:08 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 14:19, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: It is plausible that regularities are a required feature of conscious existence This seems very likely, but it does assume something like a string landscape in which some regions don't contain regularities. Or to put it another way, regions in which maths doesn't work. This seems to be out-Tegmarking Tegmark, who assumes that at least maths is (meta-) universal. At this stage, it's no worse than assuming meaning generation is a necessary feature of existence, and that this can only take place by compression of regularities, which is the Solomonoff type answer... That would require a source of such regularities, surely? But that would seem to lead straight back to requiring that maths works. However, neither does Bruno's theory does not offer any explanation for the 'uniformity of nature'. He has to appeal to religion to magic away the 'white rabbits'. According to Bruno's account, the physical world is not even Turing emulable -- which one would think would be a requirement for regularities that could be described by physical laws. (If the physical laws are not computable, in what sense could one describe them as laws?) The randomness of QM is not computable. Bruno's idea is like MIW, indefinitely many worlds are computed/emulated in parallel and in the Born rule proportion. The Schroedinger equation is perfectly computable. The many worlds of MWI are computable -- we have 1p inderminacy, but we have been assured that that is all part of the dovetailer -- totally computable. If you have a countable infinity of worlds, then they, as a totality they are not computable. That's what the UDA does. It never stops so it produces an countable infinity of worlds - at least that's how I understand Bruno's idea. So it fits with the Multiple Independent Worlds model. 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: A (somewhat) different angle on the reversal
On 6/14/2015 2:49 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2015 at 08:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not saying it's ineffective. I'm saying it's not a mystery why it's effective. Because the universe appears to operate on principles that map very well onto some parts of maths, I think that's an illusion of selective attention. Remember how Kepler thought the size of the planetary orbits were determined by nesting the five Platonic solids. An impressive example of the effective of mathematics - except it turned out there weren't just five planets. Now we regard the orbits as historical accidents and predicted by any mathematics. Instead we point to fact that they obey Newton's law of universal gravitation to great accuracy. Another impressive example of the effectiveness of mathematics...except it's slight wrong and Einstein's spacetime model works better. and may even map exactly (we have no reason to think not - every improvement in measurement so far indicates this, Except when they don't. but there will always of course be room for doubt - just room that's been getting steadily smaller over the last few centuries). But you haven't said why it does so. I may not agree with Bruno or Max Tegmark, but at least they have a theory for why this They have a theory for why THIS might be so no matter what THIS is. You just have to find the right mathematics to describe it and miracle of miracles the mathematics is obeyed! Brent /might/ be so, and I haven't seen any definitive demonstration of mistakes in their theories as yet (there are lots of suggestions that may become definitive with more work, of course). So far, your answer to the question of the unreasonable effectiveness of maths is basically It works that way because it works that way, I can't explain it - but trust me, it isn't worth explaining. -- 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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: super intelligence and self-sampling
On 6/15/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Jun 2015, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote: On 6/10/2015 4:06 PM, LizR wrote: On 11 June 2015 at 06:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: A human is an ape which torture other apes. Not just torture but also eliminate, e.g. homo erectus, homo neaderthalis,... It's called evolution. You sound like you're in favour. When they're winners and losers I'm in favor of being a winner. To win you need to master the art of losing. The future belongs to the good losers :) Is that an extrapolation from the past? 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.
