Re: What day is it?

2015-09-16 Thread Bruno Marchal 


On 15 Sep 2015, at 22:33, smitra wrote:


On 12-09-2015 10:26, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Sep 2015, at 18:17, smitra wrote:
It seems to me that COMP should lead to MWI plus a preferred  
basis  where the latter derives from well defined computational  
states.  Many of the problems with the MWI should not arise here,  
they are an  artifact of the theory never defining what an  
observation is,  appealing to ad hoc intuitive notions that are  
never formulated from  within the theory itself.
The notion that the environment plays a fundamental role should  
be  rejected on physical grounds, it just explains the effective  
physics  we observe just like air resistance explains why Newton's  
laws were  not all that obvious to people who lived many centuries  
ago.
The only way you can explain Newton's law to students is by  
letting  them contemplate a perfect vacuum. It doesn't matter here  
how  physically unrealistic that perfect vacuum is or isn't. The  
same is  true for quantum mechanics. You'll never make process if  
you always  invoke the environment and environment induced  
decoherence to try to  define fundamental concepts, because Nature  
cannot possibly work  that way on the fundamental level.
Instead, within quantum mechanics (i.e. if we forget about the   
desire to derive QM from COMP or some other deeper theory)  
defining  observers as computations,  means that they should be  
represented as  operators of the form:

sum over input of |output>t (& p). The FPI is not algorithmic, even if the  
distribution of probability is algorithmic with the simple protocol,  
but even the simple FPI is no more algorithmic on the universal  
dovetailing (or on the sigma_1 propositions) as we cannot recognize  
them as such algorithmically. This makers very nice that the  
propositional logic of observable is decidable (and close to a Quantum  
Logic).


Note that the quanta appears at the star-level (in X1* minus X1),  
making quanta into special case of qualia, which is coherent with  
Everett's superposition of collection of people (first person plural)  
and with the idea that the "absolute 3p reality is a multi-dreams (and  
note a many-worlds). This shows that even with the Everett "MWI", we  
don't have any world: only sharable first person experiences. If the  
quanta would have appeared in Z1 or X1 (and not in the proper star- 
extension) a notion of apparent global physical reality would have  
made sense, but it looks we lost this.


I recall the 8 povs or "hypostases";

1) p   (truth of p)
2) [0]p = []p = bewesibar('p'), with p a (sigma_1) arithmetical  
sentence.

3) [1]p = []p & p  (the knower, or soul or inner god)
4) [2]p = []p & <>t (the observer, gambler, ...)
5) [3]p = [2]p & p  (the "senser").

which can be put in this diagram:

   1=1*
22*
   3=3*

44*
55*

We have that
   1=1*
22*
   3=3*
is the basic propositional theory of mind/soul  (1= One, 2 =  
Intellect, 3 = Soul)

and
44*
55*
gives the "two sorts of matter": 4 = intelligible matter, 5 = sensible  
matter.


Quantizations appear at 3*, 4*, and 5*. That suggests 3 sorts of  
logics structuring (slightly?) differently the physical reality. I  
guess that 3* is "heaven physics" (the physics of the soul which has  
not yet felt), and 4*, like 5*, are the physics of "earth", when we  
sin in the bet on the non justifiable "Reality" (<>t).


So we can not only test mechanism, but we can test if we are in heaven  
or not :)


 No need to take this too much seriously. A lot of research needs to  
be pursued to clarify all this. At the quantified

Re: What day is it?

2015-09-16 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Jason Resch  wrote:

​>​
> You were told the protocol before you were put to sleep.
>

​Yes.​


> ​> ​
> You know that the answer cannot be Friday.
>

​I know nothing of the sort! If Einstein taught us anything it's that time
is not absolute and so I know ​for a fact that for me it is Friday, what it
may be to other people is a different question entirely. Let's be more
exact: on Friday I am told that whenever I am awakened I must ask the
following  "what day is it?" and the big question is  "what answer will I
receive?".  I will be lacking certain very important information that you
have but I do not (was this the first time I was awakened or the second?)
therefore on Friday I can not devise a strategy that guarantees I will
always be able to correctly predict if you will say Monday or Tuesday, but
there are 2 strategies I can take:

1) Always say Monday.
2) Always say Tuesday.

With both strategies I will be correct exactly 50% of the time and wrong
50% of the time. If the protocol is modified slightly and I am allowed
access to a coin then randomness allows for a third strategy and with it I
would get one correct answer 50% of the time and 2 correct answers 25% of
the time and no correct answers  25% of the time. So which of the 3
strategies should I take, should I play it safe or take a chance? That is a
matter of taste and depends on the reward for being correct and the penalty
for being incorrect.

But I want to say again none of this has anything to do with my
subjectivity and that is the most important thing in the universe, or at
least it is in my opinion. The above thought experiment is about me
predicting if your mouth will make the "Monday" noise or the "Tuesday"
noise, and I already knew that precise answers can not be given if
important information is lacking. So I've learned nothing from it.


> ​> ​
> Note: the experimenters add that if you guess correctly, they will give
> you $100,000. Will you still answer Friday?
>

​"Friday" has no intrinsic properties it is the subjective function of the
observer, and they are NOT asking that question to themselves they are
asking it of me, so yes I will answer in a loud clear voice "*FRIDAY*", and
if I don't receive a check from them for $100,000 they will hear from my
lawyer.

​ John ​K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker 



On 9/16/2015 10:39 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 , spudboy100 via Everything List 
>wrote:


​ > ​
It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is far, far,
away. It could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all that,
but it doesn't feel like there is anything reliable at this point. 



​Yes but exponential ​processes can do funny things, a week before 
uploading becomes possible it will still seem to be a very long way 
away, and the era where it's possible but very difficult and expensive 
will only last for about 15 minutes.  And if Cryonics works (a big if 
I admit) then it doesn't matter if it happens a week after your death 
or a thousand years after, all the time you spent bathing in liquid 
nitrogen will seem instantaneous to you.


"Uploading" isn't some well defined process (except in SciFi).  You 
could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people research your 
appearance, personality, thinking, preferences, speech, etc. and 
incorporating them into a computer program with sensory inputs and some 
Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max Headroom like John Clark who 
would continue to berate Bruno for his use of pronouns and other signs 
of intelligence.  Would it be conscious?...who knows. Would it be 
recognizably John Clark...sure.


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: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread Brent Meeker 



On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker >wrote:


​ > ​
Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become
extremely timid and risk averse.


​ If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you ​be risk averse?


Not having a built in biological life span is very different from being 
immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.  Not having a built-in life 
span means you will eventually die from some accident or illness.   In 
that case the more careful you are the longer you live.


​ And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just 
have to deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time 
we experienced social problems. ​


​ > ​
"The older you get, the less you have to lose."


​ And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. 
Young healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but 
old people are full of aches and pains that constantly remind them 
that they are not immortal and so they become very timid and risk adverse.


Maybe.  I recently took second place in the 2-stroke Production 
motorcycle road racing championship at Willow Springs CA - and I'm 76.


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: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List 
Probably better to ask if immortal uploads would spend their times living in 
underground computer network facilities for ages, or would they roam the 
galaxy, searching for biology?   

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Sep 16, 2015 01:27 PM
Subject: Re: Could we live forever?





 
  
   On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent 
Meeker 
   meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
   

  
  
   


 
 
 
  
​> ​
  Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become extremely 
timid and risk averse.
  

 



 




 
​If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you ​be risk averse?
  
 
​And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just have to deal 
with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time we experienced social 
problems. ​
 



 
 



 

  
​> ​
  "The older you get, the less you have to lose."
  

 



 




 
​And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. Young healthy 
people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but old people are full of 
aches and pains that constantly remind them that they are not immortal and so 
they become very timid and risk adverse.   ​
  



 




 
​  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 
   mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;>everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
   
 To post to this group, send email to 
   mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;>everything-list@googlegroups.com.
   
 Visit this group at 
   http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
   
 For more options, visit 
   https://groups.google.com/d/optout;>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 
 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;>everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 
 To post to this group, send email to 
 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;>everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 
 Visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list;>http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 
 For more options, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/optout;>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: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

​> ​
> Without  a built-in biological life span, people may become extremely
> timid and risk averse.
>

​If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you ​be risk averse?

​And if the death of death causes social problems then we'll just have to
deal with those problems, I mean it wouldn't be the first time we
experienced social problems. ​


> ​> ​
> "The older you get, the less you have to lose."
>

​And yet in practice people behave as if it's just the opposite. Young
healthy people feel immortal and so they take lots of risks, but old people
are full of aches and pains that constantly remind them that they are not
immortal and so they become very timid and risk adverse.   ​


​  John K Clark​









> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Could we live forever?

2015-09-16 Thread John Clark 
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 , spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> ​> ​
> It seems, at this point, that the time for uploading is far, far, away. It
> could emerge out of neuroscience research, and all that, but it doesn't
> feel like there is anything reliable at this point.


​Yes but exponential ​processes can do funny things, a week before
uploading becomes possible it will still seem to be a very long way away,
and the era where it's possible but very difficult and expensive will only
last for about 15 minutes.  And if Cryonics works (a big if I admit) then
it doesn't matter if it happens a week after your death or a thousand years
after, all the time you spent bathing in liquid nitrogen will seem
instantaneous to you.

  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.