Re: MWI question for the physicists...
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And I have not yet see a proof that the multiverse is non local. That's because there is no such proof, but there is proof that in any physical theory that is consistent with experiment *at least* one of the following must be wrong: 1) Realism 2) Determinism 3) Locality If I had to ditch one (and I do) I'd pick determinism, but I don't know if the universe has the same preference I do. Everett wave evolve deterministically, I've never heard of a Everett wave. Schrödinger's wave is deterministic but that certainly doesn't mean the physical world is. Einstein called insanity the belief in God play dice, Einstein never knew about Bell's inequality, and half a century after Einstein made the above famous statement Stephen Hawkings said God not only plays dice He sometimes throws the dice where they can't be seen. and about non-locality, he said he would prefer to be a plumber than a physicist if that was true. I think Einstein was far more worried about non-locality than the loss of determinism, and the loss of realism would be even worse. You may prefer a universe that has all 3 attributes, me too, but you can't always get what you want; if experiment says we can't have all 3 then we can't have all 3. End of story. 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: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 13 Aug 2015, at 22:28, John Clark wrote: People can believe all sorts of foolish things, but if a person enters a person duplicating machine that person will still have a unique past but will NOT have a unique future. Yes that is odd, but odd things happen when a person is duplicated. Nothing odd happens if we remind ourselves that we assume computationalisme. You have two futures in the 3-1 view, like you have many one in the MWI. But you have only one future in the 1-view, and that if confirmed by the two persons. As long as you dismiss the 1-3 difference, you will see odd things happening, which in fact never happpens. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Idiot Test
Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was right. You need a certain substance in your system to be even able to conceive of thinking without some limiting effect of consensus. The human mind has a 'native' behaviour and we might refer to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better than a silly poster on Facebook. The term 'idiot' is a pejorative, so we do need another word to cover the concept the lack of imagination to envisage alternatives to the one currently held under any scenario which to my mind at least, does sound rather mentally deficient. But I learnt a lot from Bruno's breakdown of it. Idiocy and Intelligence are not polar opposites. They walk hand in hand. Anyway - at a certain point in the presumably not too distant future, somebody WILL decide who all the idiots are - using whatever rationale - and they will all be eliminated. Probably by an AI who worked it out all by itself. So 2. Idiots usually end up designing technology that eventually destroys them and everyone else. So, it may be that such people also receive a Darwin Award for performing the inestimable service to the human race of removing their DNA from the gene pool. K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
Re: MWI question for the physicists...
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Bell's 1964 paper only make quantitative what Einstein saw clearly already Bullshit. Einstein would have been horrified at Bell's paper and the experimental confirmation that Bell's inequality was violated. in 1627 at the Solvay Congress in Brussels Einstein's EPR paper (which is his closest thing to Bell's paper) came out in 1935 not 1627. So I am waiting since long a proof of no-locality As I have said at least twice there is no such proof, but there is proof that if things really are local then things are either non-deterministic or not realistic. Take your pick. I think that Einstein would have eventually opt for Everett's view on the matter, as it keeps determinism, locality, and even contextuality, in the big picture, and explain the appearance of a lack of them by the 1-3 difference. [...] Experiment does not show that reality is not local, indeterminist or acontextual. In another thread somebody said that the definition of an idiot is somebody who can not admit even to himself that he is wrong. Hmm. 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: MWI question for the physicists...
On 14 Aug 2015, at 18:25, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Bell's 1964 paper only make quantitative what Einstein saw clearly already Bullshit. Einstein would have been horrified at Bell's paper and the experimental confirmation that Bell's inequality was violated. I totally agree with you, Einstein would have been horrified, with the one universe he have in mind at that time. This is because in one universe, that would violate contextuality and locality, actually: any reasonable interpretation of relativity. Quite horrified: he said indeed he would have prefered to have been a plumber instead of a physicist. And that is why he would have accepted the many-worlds with both arms, as it restablishes determinacy and, I think, locality as ell, but not in our 1p-plural neighborhoods, only on the sheafs of computations relatively distinguishable, or not. Everett theory is fundamentally a relativity theory, determinist, local, but highly not contextual as it is many contextuals. And computationalism, or classical computationalism to emphazises the importance of the classical Church-Turing thesis, and that it is OK to use the excluded middle principle for the arithmetical propositions. in 1627 at the Solvay Congress in Brussels Einstein's EPR paper (which is his closest thing to Bell's paper) came out in 1935 not 1627. Sorry, I meant 1927. Of course. That is, 8 years before EPR. Einstein explains that if the collapse is physical, it is non local. Many good thought experiences are in the dialogue between Bohr and Einstein. Bohr will also admit that the collapse cannot be physical in his reply to Einstein. But then what is it? With Everett it is a FPI-type of illusion absed on some mechanist hypothesis. What I explain is that if the FPI relies on computationalism it extends in the sigma_1 reality. From inside it can go much farer. So I am waiting since long a proof of no-locality As I have said at least twice there is no such proof, but there is proof that if things really are local then things are either non- deterministic or not realistic. Take your pick. I am OK if you interpret realist by ~Many-world. Then you know my pick, as I explain the many world by the many dreams that even RA can prove their existence already. I think that Einstein would have eventually opt for Everett's view on the matter, as it keeps determinism, locality, and even contextuality, in the big picture, and explain the appearance of a lack of them by the 1-3 difference. [...] Experiment does not show that reality is not local, indeterminist or acontextual. In another thread somebody said that the definition of an idiot is somebody who can not admit even to himself that he is wrong. Hmm. Tell me what you mean by realism. Do you mean independent of us, or one world ? 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: Idiot Test
I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was right. You need a certain substance in your system to be even able to conceive of thinking without some limiting effect of consensus. The human mind has a 'native' behaviour and we might refer to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better than a silly poster on Facebook. The term 'idiot' is a pejorative, so we do need another word to cover the concept the lack of imagination to envisage alternatives to the one currently held under any scenario which to my mind at least, does sound rather mentally deficient. But I learnt a lot from Bruno's breakdown of it. Idiocy and Intelligence are not polar opposites. They walk hand in hand. Anyway - at a certain point in the presumably not too distant future, somebody WILL decide who all the idiots are - using whatever rationale - and they will all be eliminated. Probably by an AI who worked it out all by itself. So 2. Idiots usually end up designing technology that eventually destroys them and everyone else. So, it may be that such people also receive a Darwin Award for performing the inestimable service to the human race of removing their DNA from the gene pool. K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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
Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me'. Alice was no idiot. She had the fundamental human curiosity to suck it and see rather than fall back on some safer, less interactive approach. Perhaps idiots lack the curiosity to undergo some experience that will doubtlesly undermine their chosen weltanshauung. You can call me an idiot if you want but you would be using some other attribution criteria to the ones I am putting forward. Trouble is, if we ever really decided what constituted an idiot, there would soon be no more idiots because then we would have it nailed and could genuinely do something about it. Idiots, however, abound in society. It is more, as Bruno says, some willful act of denying something absurdly; a kind of mendacity. Furthermore, I do not consider someone an idiot who does not agree with me. That's where you have failed to take in the message, Chris. There are always alternatives, and the inability to take stock of them is where idiots reveal themselves. Actually, I don't go in search of agreement or disagreement. I prefer exploration and suspension of judgement. Explorers don't judge the terrain they explore; they create a map. I have changed my views several times over regarding core matters. Actually I find it rather easy to drop one set of ideas for another. For that reason, no one will ever catch me in the act of being certain about anything. Even about who the idiots are. K On 15 Aug 2015, at 5:39 am, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was right. You need a certain substance in your system to be even able to conceive of thinking without some limiting effect of consensus. The human mind has a 'native' behaviour and we might refer to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better than a silly poster on Facebook. The term 'idiot' is a pejorative, so we do need another word to cover the concept the lack of imagination to envisage alternatives to the one currently held under any scenario which to my mind at least, does sound rather mentally deficient. But I learnt a lot from Bruno's breakdown of it. Idiocy and Intelligence are not polar opposites. They walk hand in hand. Anyway - at a certain point in the presumably not too distant future, somebody WILL decide who
Re: Idiot Test
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. My contention is that idiocy is innate within us all and that to claim that one is immune to this mind trap is itself the height of idiocy. He/she who knows that only others can be idiots -- because of whatever -- is even more of an idiot than those who, while they may still be idiots (at times) are aware of this latent potential for idiocy extant within themselves.-Chris -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was right. You need a certain substance in your system to be even able to conceive of thinking without some limiting effect of consensus. The human mind has a 'native' behaviour and we might refer to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better than a silly poster on Facebook. The term 'idiot' is a pejorative, so we do need another word to cover the concept the lack of imagination to envisage alternatives to the one currently held under any scenario which to my mind at least, does sound rather mentally deficient. But I learnt a lot from Bruno's breakdown of it. Idiocy and Intelligence are not polar opposites. They walk hand in hand. Anyway - at a certain point in the presumably not too distant future, somebody WILL decide who all the idiots are - using whatever rationale - and they will all be eliminated. Probably by an AI who worked it out all by itself. So 2. Idiots usually end up designing technology that eventually destroys them and everyone else. So, it may be that such people also receive a Darwin Award for performing the inestimable service to the human race of removing their DNA from the gene pool. K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+ unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: Idiot Test
From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me'. Alice was no idiot. She had the fundamental human curiosity to suck it and see rather than fall back on some safer, less interactive approach. Perhaps idiots lack the curiosity to undergo some experience that will doubtlesly undermine their chosen weltanshauung. You can call me an idiot if you want but you would be using some other attribution criteria to the ones I am putting forward. Trouble is, if we ever really decided what constituted an idiot, there would soon be no more idiots because then we would have it nailed and could genuinely do something about it. Idiots, however, abound in society. It is more, as Bruno says, some willful act of denying something absurdly; a kind of mendacity. Furthermore, I do not consider someone an idiot who does not agree with me. That's where you have failed to take in the message, Chris. There are always alternatives, and the inability to take stock of them is where idiots reveal themselves. Actually, I don't go in search of agreement or disagreement. I prefer exploration and suspension of judgement. Explorers don't judge the terrain they explore; they create a map. I have changed my views several times over regarding core matters. Actually I find it rather easy to drop one set of ideas for another. For that reason, no one will ever catch me in the act of being certain about anything. Even about who the idiots are. Sure... there are always alternatives (or most of the time anyways) and idiocy is the mode of mind that becomes stuck in one explanation excluding all other possibility. My point is that we are all of susceptible to that idiotic mode and that it is vital therefore to always keep this in mind. We ourselves may be idiots at times (even if we think we are being brilliant). I am not saying anything one way or another about you or anybody else in particular, merely cautioning everyone (including most of all myself) that idiocy is an insidious trap, which can creep up from within unnoticed and will often masquerade itself as being something entirely more intelligent.We must remain constantly vigilant about our own innate potential for slipping into idiotic mental frames; and only by recognizing this as a real and ever present potential existing within ourselves can we in fact remain vigilant. -Chris K On 15 Aug 2015, at 5:39 am, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was
Re: Idiot Test
On 8/14/2015 2:11 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Idiocy only ever applies to other people, yes. It's like sexual perversion and corruption; these things are done only by others, never by me! Why I speak of the need for some fabled 'test' - a bit like Alice drinking from the bottle marked 'drink me'. Alice was no idiot. She had the fundamental human curiosity to suck it and see rather than fall back on some safer, less interactive approach. Perhaps idiots lack the curiosity to undergo some experience that will doubtlesly undermine their chosen weltanshauung. You can call me an idiot if you want but you would be using some other attribution criteria to the ones I am putting forward. Trouble is, if we ever really decided what constituted an idiot, there would soon be no more idiots because then we would have it nailed and could genuinely do something about it. Idiots, however, abound in society. It is more, as Bruno says, some willful act of denying something absurdly; a kind of mendacity. Furthermore, I do not consider someone an idiot who does not agree with me. That's where you have failed to take in the message, Chris. There are always alternatives, and the inability to take stock of them is where idiots reveal themselves. Actually, I don't go in search of agreement or disagreement. I prefer exploration and suspension of judgement. So you invented a test for idiocy and posted it online. LOL! Explorers don't judge the terrain they explore; they create a map. I have changed my views several times over regarding core matters. Actually I find it rather easy to drop one set of ideas for another. For that reason, no one will ever catch me in the act of being certain about anything. Even about who the idiots are. Or your own consistency. 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: Idiot Test
I agree with you there…. Idiocy is the quintessential equal opportunity provider – (in a nod to your politically fixated mindset) it thrives exuberant, on both the right and the left. Idiocy is in full reign amongst the elite in their gilded enclaves and in the grimy dirty dangerous graffiti hallways of the project slum. But it does not stop there, nor does it begin from there. Idiocy emerges from within, far, far closer to home.. to the self, the inner voice that asks the question… we are each of us within this home of homes. It is within these bounds that idiocy is hardest to perceive and harder to deal with. Case in point many very intelligent people are (in some dimension) veritable idiots within. A most natural outcome, of our brain/mind sensorial being… for to see within…. Where are the eyes to see within? We are oriented to see without; seeing within is largely an accidental exceptional occurrence and is not something that is easy for most of us to do. As a consequence we are usually most blind within our own selves. Intelligence is no defense against inner idiocy either, for idiocy is adept at burying itself beneath layers upon layers of justification heaped over bullshit. Idiocy tends to also lock in, becoming habitual behavior, existing in the (largely) unseen regions of mind… the crackling vastly parallel network… balanced on the edge of chaos.. this very noisy, reifying inner-verse of the mind, auto-catalyzed self-emergent being… emerging into our consciousness as an inner dialogue of the mind. Idiocy is a slippery eel; it is foolish to underestimate its ability to find a way in to the unseen within… it is difficult to grab hold of. -Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 6:12 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Idiot Test I simply feel it is hard to identify idiocy when it hits closer to home. In fact, as I stated, holding a certain position or opinion may not, in fact be idiotic at all. I sometimes feel, some days, that if idiocy were nirvana, I would be achieving my zen moment with it. On this forum, discussion-wise, yeah, we name call. I shrug this off as human nature, and am more interested in seeing if these conversations yield anything dramatically, interesting for me? -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test _ From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. My contention is that idiocy is innate within us all and that to claim that one is immune to this mind trap is itself the height of idiocy. He/she who knows that only others can be idiots -- because of whatever -- is even more of an idiot than those who, while they may still be idiots (at times) are aware of this latent potential for idiocy extant within themselves. -Chris -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So,
Re: Idiot Test
I simply feel it is hard to identify idiocy when it hits closer to home. In fact, as I stated, holding a certain position or opinion may not, in fact be idiotic at all. I sometimes feel, some days, that if idiocy were nirvana, I would be achieving my zen moment with it. On this forum, discussion-wise, yeah, we name call. I shrug this off as human nature, and am more interested in seeing if these conversations yield anything dramatically, interesting for me? -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 5:17 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:39 PM Subject: Re: Idiot Test Chris, when you can think of politicians and actors of your political preference, who behave idiotically: then you'd really be making a succinct point. The rationale being, if you agree with my position, thus, you are wonderful, but if you disagree, you are a moron. On this mailing list however, it ain't politics that drive the passion, but disagreeing with an equation, a precis,' a hypothesis. It's like on the show Big Bang, where blood in nearly, drawn, over whether String or Loop Quantum Gravity have the best explanation for reality, when as all right thinking people know, it's all explained by Chaotic Inflation. Easy peasy. My contention is that idiocy is innate within us all and that to claim that one is immune to this mind trap is itself the height of idiocy. He/she who knows that only others can be idiots -- because of whatever -- is even more of an idiot than those who, while they may still be idiots (at times) are aware of this latent potential for idiocy extant within themselves. -Chris -Original Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Aug 14, 2015 1:42 pm Subject: Re: Idiot Test I am curious you seem to speak of idiots exclusively in terms of them of some other group of individuals. Do you consider yourself to be potentially an idiot or have you managed to achieve existential certainty that idiocy is something that only ever applies to other people? If you have achieved this certainty -- e.g. that in no possible way could you ever be an idiot; that is an amazing feat or could it be incontrovertible proof of your own idiocy? Any definition of idiocy that does't -- at least potentially -- include the self within the scope of its embrace is idotic - -IMO! P.S. -- I am suspecting that if you respond at all, you'll probably roast me with scorn, for having had the temerity to suggest that idiocy is something we are all capable of achieving; and that no one is immune from idiotic mind modes. -chris On 14 Aug 2015, at 8:21 am, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: So, to cut to the chase, when a thread appears claiming the benefit of a psychedelic is to work out who the idiots are, when it is suggested that the substance be used in such a miserly way, I can't help but feel the people suggesting that are the ones who have missed the message I think Strassman was right. You need a certain substance in your system to be even able to conceive of thinking without some limiting effect of consensus. The human mind has a 'native' behaviour and we might refer to this as 'baseline consciousness'. It is merely a starting point in the enterprise of exploring the terrain of consciousness. The Idiot Test is a cynical exercise, you seemed to have missed that. It's a cartoon in words designed to focus on something sinister; either a lie or a form of stupidity. A thought bubble as we say nowadays. Just one grade better than a silly poster on Facebook. The term 'idiot' is a pejorative, so we do need another word to cover the concept the lack of imagination to envisage alternatives to the one currently held under any scenario which to my mind at least, does sound rather mentally deficient. But I learnt a lot from Bruno's breakdown of it. Idiocy and Intelligence are
Re: MWI question for the physicists...
On 14 Aug 2015, at 08:26, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 , Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: And I have not yet see a proof that the multiverse is non local. That's because there is no such proof, but there is proof that in any physical theory that is consistent with experiment at least one of the following must be wrong: 1) Realism 2) Determinism 3) Locality If I had to ditch one (and I do) I'd pick determinism, but I don't know if the universe has the same preference I do. Everett wave evolve deterministically, I've never heard of a Everett wave. Schrödinger's wave is deterministic but that certainly doesn't mean the physical world is. Einstein called insanity the belief in God play dice, Einstein never knew about Bell's inequality, Bell's 1964 paper only make quantitative what Einstein saw clearly already in 1627 at the Solvay Congress in Brussels, and made clear qualitatively in its EPR paper. Bell's just made it more quantitatively palpable, which helped some scientists to understand that it was not just philosophy. For me, Einstein is the main discoverer of the non locality in the QM +collapse theory, and is the first to say that such a theory is just insane. Then you can interpret Bell as a experimental refutation of the collapse, by using the natural locality axiom. and half a century after Einstein made the above famous statement Stephen Hawkings said God not only plays dice He sometimes throws the dice where they can't be seen. and about non-locality, he said he would prefer to be a plumber than a physicist if that was true. I think Einstein was far more worried about non-locality than the loss of determinism, and the loss of realism would be even worse. realism is ambiguous here. In this context it often means one world or ~MWI. In the metaphysical or theological context it just means independent of us. For example, Arithmetical realism is the belief that 4x^2 - 3y = 0 has a solution (in the integers, or in the natural numbers) or not independently of us. I think that Einstein would have eventually opt for Everett's view on the matter, as it keeps determinism, locality, and even contextuality, in the big picture, and explain the appearance of a lack of them by the 1-3 difference. My point is then that for this to work, the wave equation must also be explained by the 3-1 difference. i did it partially, and get more than the quanta logic, as we get freely a theory of qualia extended it. You may prefer a universe that has all 3 attributes, me too, but you can't always get what you want; if experiment says we can't have all 3 then we can't have all 3. End of story. Experiment does not show that reality is not local, indeterminist or acontextual. Experiment confirms only the MWI, as the MWI theory explains why such weird features are apparent, but would exist physically only if the QM was not linear, or if the MWI were false. Some people argue that there is still no clear re-establishment of locality with Everett, but to say that non-locality exists is the strong startling statement here so that it is up to the believers in that non-locality to prove its existence in the multiverse (not just in our branch, because that follows already from QM). So I am waiting since long a proof of no-locality in the big picture, and there are none, as the QM main equation is just linear and local, as Everett explains already very well. There are not yet such papers I think. All papers proving the existence of non-locality talk only on the branch we keep an access on. It shows that a single branch has non local feature. It does not show that the physical reality as a whole is non local. 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: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 14 Aug 2015, at 07:48, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: 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. So is THE 1-view a view of Moscow or of Washington? a natural confusion between 3-1 views and 1-views. Confusion naturally arises because Bruno Marchal can not explain what the 3-1 views I explained it, so I will look at your critics below. is supposed to mean without lots of personal pronouns that are all rendered meaningless in a world with people duplicating machines. you have failed to show any problem with the name and pronouns. Each time you equivocate the 1p and the 3p, or the 1-1p and the 3-1p, etc. See below for more. Why? There is little of substance below. I hope that this is not the critics. 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 [...] To hell with the but, unless you're a solipsist and believe there are 7.1 billion zombies on the Earth not people then the are 7.1 billion 1ps on this planet, and there are no buts about it. Stathis answered this recently, and others did regularly since, and your critics consists just in avoiding the question by avoiding the 1-3 nuances. Some scientist believe that we cannot talk on the 1p in science, but they do an level confusion error. We cannot use 1p in a proof, but we can use proof about 1p, once we have a good 3p definition of it, which is given in the UD Argument. With the diary (but of course your comment was the hell of the diary ...). Those damn diaries again! The diaries are useless after the duplication unless the person who wrote them could be unambiguously identified and you can't do that; False. (Easy exercise, done many times). Somehow I missed that so please do that exercise one more time and point to THE one and only one person who wrote the diary now that the duplication has been made. Or if you think pointing is impolite just tell me if he lives in Washington or Moscow. I have answered that question many times. In the 3-1 view, you will exist in W and in M. From the 1-1 view, you will feel to be in one city. And the question is on the pure 1-view, like in what do you expect to live as experience. There is no purely logical reason to make coffee or not to make coffee, but people who enjoy being alive and are good at hypothesizing what the future will be like are more likely to pass more of their genes into the next generation than people who don't enjoy life and aren't good at making plans for the future. So you prepared that coffee because you have some of those genes. You make my point, Glad to be of service. and explicitly contradict yours. Where? Show me! Stathis just did that. You say that yhe subjective first person experience that we denote by W and M are incompatibe subjective experience, but you keep talking like if P(W M) ≠ 0.. Search on Searle in the archive for more. Why should I search for more idiocy? Searle is a moron and his Chinese room is imbecilic. Searles argument is invalid to refute comp. We agree on that. What remains un-predicted? The personal experience that the candidate in Helsinki can expect to live. If The Helsinki Man's name is Ed and if Ed is logical and if Ed expects to be duplicated then Ed would expect that there would not be just one answer to that question there would be two because that's what happens when people are duplicated. In the fairy tales. But after a duplication, subjectively, ypu don't feel the split, cannot even be' sure there has been one, except by believing the protocol. 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again and again ... Yes that seems unusual but it's not illogical and it's only unusual because we haven't seen it yet , and we haven't seen it yet for technological reasons and not for scientific, logical or philosophical reasons. A few decades from now this entire debate will seem as quaint as a butterchurn. yes, everyone will asks themselves how you were unable to grasp the FPI, which will be lived by all possible experiencer (or digital mechanism is false). By reasoning, and using comp, I never use comp and never will until I know what it means and I don't and neither do you. See the definition in any of my paper, or in the archive. Comp is the doctrine according to which the brain is turing emulable at some level so that we can accept an artificial brain, or do teleportation as described in our thought experiment, etc. Your unwillingness to accept that definition might say long on your state of mind. You really looks like someone dreaming to refute an
