RE: Idiot Test
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying colours. lol. I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs then you all just failed to do that. A monumental fail to Kim and Bruno, particularly. There's absolutely bugger-all metaphysically that people who have taken these drugs can agree on. Sod Salvia, even DMT and the mighty 5meo-DMT fail to deliver a consistent metaphysical message to those who take it, and 'psycho-nauts' effectively fall into two camps with Strassman-ites on the one hand claiming these drugs open the mind to real alien hyper-spaces (roll eyes), and the Sand-ites on the other believing they are just tools to explore one's own mind. But there's no consensus. If there is any general consensus about psychedelics it is a psychological/moral one. That we should have a healthy sense of self-doubt about our own convictions. You guys are half way there with a healthy sense of doubt about everyone elses convictions but none for your own. Are you sure you weren't just chewing mint? From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:21:19 +0200 On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:06, Kim Jones wrote: On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:No doubt that it would be interesting to look at. Salvia has been called a cure of ... atheism (the non agnostic one 'course). Not that it makes you believe in anything new, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature incapable of changing or modifying his stated beliefs. A hallmark of idiocy is absolute certainty. In this light, Richard Dawkins for example, qualifies pretty much as a TPI. Absolute public certainties is madness. The other thing about this possible theological definition of ‘idiocy’ is: you will never meet an idiot who thinks the test was run fairly. This person has to accept that there is now an institution-backed sanction against them due to someone ticking a box marked ‘idiot’ next to their name. Still, they can justify themselves by saying how ‘in the past’ they changed their mind over certain matters when people whose opinions they could respect convinced them otherwise. You might like to check this assertion by interviewing his mother or sister instead. Idiocy is only an unfortunate self-destructive type of mentality. Most idiot are actually just wounded people, but in this case, knowing that thus not necessarily help. (Keep in mind that I distinguish intelligent from competent, and thus idiot from incompetent. Competence is domain dependent and can be evaluated by test or exams. Idiocy and Intelligence does not admit definition, and we can agree, or not, on some axiomatics. And I like to interpret Dt, that is ~Bf, by intelligent and Bf by idiot. You can read Bf by I assert stupiditiesGödel's second theorem becomes: If I don't assert stupidities then I don't assert that I don't assert stupidities. Intelligence is the mother of all protagorean virtues, which cannot be tought by words but only with example, and typically when you assert them about yourself you kill them, and when you assert the negation, you aggravate your case.Modesty, or humity of scientific-mindness are important virtue which are not protogorean, although they can have protagorean interpretation. You will never, therefore, catch a certified public idiot in the act of changing his beliefs. I am not sure that there exists something or someone like a certified public idiot. This is because he has never changed his beliefs in the past and will never in the future - not because you are unlucky in the matter of catching him at it. The ticking of the box marked ‘idiot’ is a truly serious business. True (ie incorrigible) Public Idiots are actually quite rare. I don't believe that exist, but emotions can make people behaving like idiot and indeed it typically last. It is the problem of the lies. The longer time a person lie, the harder it is to admit it, and the graver the consequence *can* be. Even David Icke had to kind of admit that he probably wasn’t the reincarnation of JC…proving therefore that he was capable of recognising the lie he was telling himself. I don't know David Icke. This leads to further refinements of the concept: 1. An idiot is one who lies about core matters - but only to himself. I will think about that. It is complex, and dangerous because it is both counter-intuitive, and probably in the G* minus G part. Others long since realised he enjoys playing this game with himself and that any other setup would entail
Re: Idiot Test
On the drug thing, especially with DMT, users were supposed to communicate with
bouncing balls, giant mantises, metallic robots, and humanoid ambulatory trees.
Well, Terrence Mckenna told some interesting tales about his dmt visions, but
after years of people doodling with their brains, using dmt, ayahuasca,
mescalin, and lsd, no such repeat visions, by other users were achieved.
Non-repeatability, for me, is a tip-off that this was one man's clever
writings, and not a true transcendental phenomena (if such really exists). On
the other hand, being an evil, old, fart, I still admit to liking the ancient
acid rock tune, In-a-gadda-davida, by the Iron Butterfly 1967. Be warned, this
tune was initiated by california red wine and not psilocybin! The songwriter
was attempting to sing, In the garden of eden, but was phonetically, impaired
because of the california red. News you can't use!!!
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
-Original Message-
From: chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2015 07:06 PM
Subject: RE: Idiot Test
div id=AOLMsgPart_2_5295ac28-3689-4288-b9f4-76631c0cb089
style scoped=#AOLMsgPart_2_5295ac28-3689-4288-b9f4-76631c0cb089 td{color:
black;} .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px }
.aolReplacedBody body.aolmail_hmmessage { font-size: 12pt; font-family:Calibri
}/style
div class=aolReplacedBody
div dir=ltr
Here's a thread with all the list's alpha-male geniuses mocking someone. Here's
me, the village idiot, convinced they all pass their own idiot test with flying
colours. lol.
I mean if the test involves understanding the implications of psychedelic drugs
then you all just failed to do that. A monumental fail to Kim and Bruno,
particularly. There's absolutely bugger-all metaphysically that people who have
taken these drugs can agree on. Sod Salvia, even DMT and the mighty 5meo-DMT
fail to deliver a consistent metaphysical message to those who take it, and
'psycho-nauts' effectively fall into two camps with Strassman-ites on the one
hand claiming these drugs open the mind to real alien hyper-spaces (roll eyes),
and the Sand-ites on the other believing they are just tools to explore one's
own mind. But there's no consensus.
If there is any general consensus about psychedelics it is a
psychological/moral one. That we should have a healthy sense of self-doubt
about our own convictions.
You guys are half way there with a healthy sense of doubt about everyone elses
convictions but none for your own.
Are you sure you weren't just chewing mint?
hr id=aolmail_stopSpellingFrom: a
href=mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be;marc...@ulb.ac.be/a
To: a
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a
Subject: Re: Idiot Test
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:21:19 +0200
div
div
On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:06, Kim Jones wrote:
br class=aolmail_ecxApple-interchange-newline
blockquote
div style=word-wrap:break-word;
blockquote
div
On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal
a target=_blank
href=mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be;marc...@ulb.ac.be/a wrote:
br class=aolmail_ecxApple-interchange-newline
div
style=font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:24px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;
No doubt that it would be interesting to look at. Salvia has been called a cure
of ... atheism (the non agnostic one 'course). Not that it makes you believe in
anything new, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more
ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before.
div
style=font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:24px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;
/div
div
style=font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:24px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;
Bruno
/div
/div
/blockquote
/div
div style=text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word;
div
style=orphans:2;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;widows:2;word-wrap:break-word;
div
style=orphans:2;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;widows:2;word-wrap:break-word;
div
style=orphans:2;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;widows:2;word-wrap:break-word;
div
style=orphans:2;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;widows:2;word-wrap:break-word;
div
1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Saturday, August 8, 2015, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','johnkcl...@gmail.com'); wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 smitra smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: You can just define personal identity as a single observer moment, which includes any memories of the outcomes of the duplication experiments, so the string of the W's and M'should be included in the definition of you. OK. But there is not problem here if you just take the formal description of any conscious being as defining its personal identity. But if that definition of you is used then the question What one and only one city did you end up seeing? has no answer because it is not a question at all, it is just a sequence of ASCII characters the last of which happens to be a question mark. You might argue that it is false, but not that it is meaningless. Each observer moment believes they are a unique individual with a unique past and a unique future. They aren't unique because there are many of them, past, present and future. And even if they were unique at each time point they might not be the same persisting individual, since they could as easily be linked by false memories. Nevertheless, the illusion of continuity is both valid and important. It is both valid and important that each observer believes he will see one and only one city, even though it might be false. -- 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: MWI question for the physicists...
On 11 Aug 2015, at 19:56, David Nyman wrote: On 11 August 2015 at 07:09, 'scerir' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: BTW there is an amusing paper by (the manyworlder) Lev Vaidman. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006 Nice paper (from a while back). AFAICT his resolution of the indeterminacy issue in MWI is logically identical to Bruno's FPI in the context of computationalism. In other words, in both cases it is an 'illusion of ignorance' attributable to the limitation on information available to each 'copy' of a deterministically proliferated observer. Each copy will inevitably (and subjectively justifiably) identify itself as a continuation of a common 'ancestor'. Each observer will therefore feel justified in making probabilistic predictions based on its *subjective restriction* to an apparently (but, sub specie aeternitatis, illusorilly) singular personal history. According to Vaidman this is essentially what the paper is about. I'm frankly staggered that this (i.e. the equivalence between the two forms of FPI) can be in the least controversial at this stage. And is it? It is ignored, but if it was controversial, I think I would know it. It is not controversial, it is ignored, and hidden by the usual special interest, like defending personal notoriety etc. John Clark has illustrated perfectly well the panoply of strategies you need to hide the FPI, by making it looking contreversed, but it is not. Just ignored by pseudo-religious people for pseudo-religious or private interests or both. It is a bit like the danger of marijuana. It does not exist for any scientists having work on the subject, so its scientific relative innocuousness is not controversial. It is controversial only in media and politics. The use of the FPI in quantum mechanics will work or not, but to work, what I show is that not only we must get the Born rules, but we must get the waves itself too. If not, QM becomes a religion of the gap, and hides the mind-body problem in the (quite persisting then) Aristotelian theological dogma. Bruno 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. -- 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: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 12 Aug 2015, at 02:46, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Oh no, now we have the two 3-1 p view! We have this since the beginning. That explains your profound confusion. You can say that both copies have the 1-view of the H-guy, Regardless of how many bodies there are after duplication before the door of the duplicating chamber is opened and they start to experience different things there is only one person so naturally there is only one first person view; after the door is opened there are many persons and a corresponding number of views. Yes, but none can be lived simultaneously, so when you do the prediction on your future personal experience you need to replace the (3-1p) AND by a XOR, as you have agreed that the M and W experiences are incompatible from each 1p view available. but none of the copies have the 1-view of the two copies, as you agree they are incompatible. Because after the door is opened there is no such thing as the 1- view. I have explained why this is directly refuted by all copies. It is simpler in the iterated case, as it shows better a natural confusion between 3-1 views and 1-views. See below for more. Read this with the mind state maybe I miss something, and not let me try to find a critics. your peepee notation really sucks.. Ascribed by who? By anyone, By any third party, in other words the third party view. I don't understand the difference between 3p view and 3-1 view. That is why, I usually use only the 3p terminology. I use 3-1 for people like you who insist that they talk about the 1-views of the copies, when saying P(W M) = 1. But to ascribe an 1-view to a number of persons different from oneself-or not, it can only be when we ascribe 1p views to third person object of description, that is, to other than oneself subjectively, as opposed to the 1p person that we can live (and can have direct local access to memory). So 3p is a 3p description of the locus or object to which we can ascribe a first person point of view, intellectually, that means without living them, like both copies can do for their doppelgangers, or like we do more or less for our human fellows. 3-1p belongs to the 3p description. Consciousness, soul, first person does not admit 3p description, but can be ascribed to 3p object, like a body or a machine. 3-1p is just the case where we describe in the 3p way, first person attributed to other people (including oneself). We use I for both in Natural Language, and someone can say before the duplication that: I can predict that tomorrow I will be in Washington and I will be in Moscow but I can predict that tomorrow I will feel being in Washington or I will feel being in Moscow. Of course, you can always step back, and say, no I will feel to be in Washington and I will will to be in Moscow, as you did sometimes agoo, and precisely that is the 3-1 versus 1 confusion. At least you avoided, contrary to my prediction (!), to fall in the trap of the 3-3-1 versus 1 confusion. The complete disambiguition is: Tomorrow 3-1-I will be in the two cities, but 1-I will feel being in only one of them. If it's the by a third person then the 3-1 view is just the 3 view, No, because we cannot see or measure or have any direct access to an 1-view. If we had such access there would be no difference between objective and subjective and it would all just be 1-view, but since we can't a different name is required and it's called, in your homemade terminology, 3p view. And I still don't understand the difference between 3p view and 3-1 view. Do you? So 3-1 means that it is something considered from a non owner of the diary, In other words the 3 view. which nevertheless is interpreted as an 1-view, In other words the 3 view. but not necessarily our own. In other words a non-solipsistic interpretation. And I still don't understand the difference between the 3 view and the 3-1 view. 3-1 is when we talk of the 1-view of someone else. Aka the 3 view. Like when we say that the guy survived in both W and M. That is true That may or may not be true depending on what you mean by the guy, you change it so often it's difficult to keep track. (assuming comp). I do not assume comp. Lie. But they all feel to be different from the others Yes, and that's exactly why there are 7.1 billion 1ps and not just one. Sure, in the 3-1 view. But all those T billions 1p views, can experience only one, like all copies confirmed all the time, in all situation. You just fake to never listen to them. So here, you do confuse the 3-1 views and the 1-views, which is a particular case of 3p/1p confusion. Don't be ridiculous, nobody on planet Earth is confused by the difference
Re: MWI question for the physicists...
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: Consider a set-up in which a photon is polarized in the z direction, so that we know that the particle will, with probability 1, pass through another polarizer also oriented in the z direction. However what of the situation where the second polarizer is oriented at 45 degrees to the first one? In that case, the probability is 0.5 that the photon will pass through. If it does, then obviously the probability is 1 that it will also pass through a third polarizer also oriented at the same angle. There is an interesting variant to that experiment that's easy to perform. Set one polarizer at Z degrees and a second one at Z + 90 degrees and there is a 0% chance that a photon will make it past both, but place a third polarizer between them set at an intermediate angle of Z+45 degrees and there is a 25% chance a photon will make it through all three polarizers. Try it at home, it's really quite counterintuitive, adding a third sheet of dark plastic actually makes things get brighter. So what is going on in the multiverse in this scenario? When a photon hits a polarizer sometimes the universe splits and sometimes it does not, it depends on the angle of the polarizer and perhaps on something else too. We know from experiment that Bell's inequality is violated so we know for sure that in the Many Worlds Interpretation, just like every other quantum interpretation, at least one of the following must be wrong: 1) Realism (things exist in a definite state even if they are not measured) 2) Determinism 3) Locality The Many Worlds Interpretation is realistic so if it's true then nothing determines if the universe splits or not (it's random) and all we can do is assign probabilities based on the angle of the polarizer (cos(Z)^2) . Or it is deterministic after all, something did indeed cause it to split but the cause can not be local, your decision on what angle to place the second polarizer somehow went back in time and changed the photon before it even reached the first polarizer because the future can effect the past. One thing is certain, whatever turns out to be true it's weird. What is going on at the point of the photon's interaction with the polarizer in an MWI account? The universe may or may not split depending on angle Z of the polarizer + X. X could be a random factor, and that's OK, there is no law of logic that says every effect must have a cause. Or X could be a non-local cause. But one thing X can not be is a local cause, we know that from experiment. And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting branches. 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: Idiot Test
On 12 Aug 2015, at 01:06, Kim Jones wrote: On 11 Aug 2015, at 10:26 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: No doubt that it would be interesting to look at. Salvia has been called a cure of ... atheism (the non agnostic one 'course). Not that it makes you believe in anything new, it just shows reasons to doubt more, and to recognize we are more ignorant that we would have been able to conceive before. Bruno Well, that’s it, surely. The Idiot Test administered in this way has as a basic assumption that only what might be called The True Public Idiot is by nature incapable of changing or modifying his stated beliefs. A hallmark of idiocy is absolute certainty. In this light, Richard Dawkins for example, qualifies pretty much as a TPI. Absolute public certainties is madness. The other thing about this possible theological definition of ‘idiocy’ is: you will never meet an idiot who thinks the test was run fairly. This person has to accept that there is now an institution-backed sanction against them due to someone ticking a box marked ‘idiot’ next to their name. Still, they can justify themselves by saying how ‘in the past’ they changed their mind over certain matters when people whose opinions they could respect convinced them otherwise. You might like to check this assertion by interviewing his mother or sister instead. Idiocy is only an unfortunate self-destructive type of mentality. Most idiot are actually just wounded people, but in this case, knowing that thus not necessarily help. (Keep in mind that I distinguish intelligent from competent, and thus idiot from incompetent. Competence is domain dependent and can be evaluated by test or exams. Idiocy and Intelligence does not admit definition, and we can agree, or not, on some axiomatics. And I like to interpret Dt, that is ~Bf, by intelligent and Bf by idiot. You can read Bf by I assert stupidities Gödel's second theorem becomes: If I don't assert stupidities then I don't assert that I don't assert stupidities. Intelligence is the mother of all protagorean virtues, which cannot be tought by words but only with example, and typically when you assert them about yourself you kill them, and when you assert the negation, you aggravate your case. Modesty, or humity of scientific-mindness are important virtue which are not protogorean, although they can have protagorean interpretation. You will never, therefore, catch a certified public idiot in the act of changing his beliefs. I am not sure that there exists something or someone like a certified public idiot. This is because he has never changed his beliefs in the past and will never in the future - not because you are unlucky in the matter of catching him at it. The ticking of the box marked ‘idiot’ is a truly serious business. True (ie incorrigible) Public Idiots are actually quite rare. I don't believe that exist, but emotions can make people behaving like idiot and indeed it typically last. It is the problem of the lies. The longer time a person lie, the harder it is to admit it, and the graver the consequence *can* be. Even David Icke had to kind of admit that he probably wasn’t the reincarnation of JC…proving therefore that he was capable of recognising the lie he was telling himself. I don't know David Icke. This leads to further refinements of the concept: 1. An idiot is one who lies about core matters - but only to himself. I will think about that. It is complex, and dangerous because it is both counter-intuitive, and probably in the G* minus G part. Others long since realised he enjoys playing this game with himself and that any other setup would entail him in ceasing to enjoy the game. If he enjoys himself he might not just be idiot, but dishonest, which is far graver. It is complex. And the machine protagorean theory is much too rough here, and easily misunderstood, indeed morally. Platonist likes to relate truth, goodness, beautifulness, intelligence, ... though. Bruno 2. ?? Please feel free to add your own refinement. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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
