Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

We cannot yet leave the Milky Way as yet, Professori! I feel humans and other 
animals need something better to dwell on then, The Big Sleep. Andromeda must 
wait a few billion years, eh. I do not have a good mental grip on non-material 
existence, but neither am I fluent in network engineering yet. It's back to 
casting your fate to the wind as the old folk song went. Pattern Identity, I 
understand I think. 
 
Let us be careful so that humanity stays connected when the Milky Way will meet 
Andromeda. That might be quite a big challenge. It will involve huge amounts of 
computations. Meeting the mini galaxy Magellan, as we do today, will be a good 
preparation, perhaps. 

But we might count on some surprises too, as we know virtually nothing about 
'reality'.


With Digital Mechanism, there is an inflation of type of immortality possible, 
some of which are accessible here and now (the progress here is that we have 
stopped to burn on the stake those who practice them. We send them in jail or 
in asylum).


Bruno

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Jul 8, 2016 11:14 am
Subject: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?




On 08 Jul 2016, at 02:05, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


Well, for psychological reasons, I agree with John Clark's initial response.The 
goal, I am guessing is restoration, in principle, as Brent Meeker's comment, 
earlier. I am guessing that file restoration from the past, if done exact 
enough would render full resurrection or file restoration of us, complete to 
the point of engaging in these emails, and then doubting that a replica would 
really be you? If it is based on quantum information, one physicist writer, 
started off her essay, stating that the information that is us, that is the 
universe is preserved in the quantum. The physicist in question is Sabine 
Hossenfelder, in here article about natural evolving quantum computers, aka 
block holes. 
After you die, your body’s atoms will disperse and find new venues, making 
their way into oceans, trees and other bodies. But according to the laws of 
quantum mechanics, all of the information about your body’s build and function 
will prevail. The relations between the atoms, the uncountable particulars that 
made you you, will remain forever preserved, albeit in unrecognisably scrambled 
form – lost in practice, but immortal in principle.
 
Good enough for me, on this Now the rest is engineering and data 
restoration. Easy, huh?



You are not made of atoms, which mainly change every decades. You are a pattern 
of immaterial information, and you survive in any reasonable sense only if you 
have the environment (aka universal numbers) capable of processing that pattern 
of information. Now that exists in infinitely many occurrence in elementary 
arithmetic. But that is not necessary consoling, as in principle it could mean 
that life is 100 years of bearable life followed by an eternal agony, as from 
your 1p view, you will feel surviving as long as some universal numbers make 
you believe in them, and they are infinitely many competing/collaborating 
universal numbers for that.


Immortality without some quality of life might be worst than mortality.


Let us be careful so that humanity stays connected when the Milky Way will meet 
Andromeda. That might be quite a big challenge. It will involve huge amounts of 
computations. Meeting the mini galaxy Magellan, as we do today, will be a good 
preparation, perhaps. 
But we might count on some surprises too, as we know virtually nothing about 
'reality'.


With Digital Mechanism, there is an inflation of type of immortality possible, 
some of which are accessible here and now (the progress here is that we have 
stopped to burn on the stake those who practice them. We send them in jail or 
in asylum).


Bruno








 

 
 
https://aeon.co/essays/is-the-black-hole-at-our-galaxy-s-centre-a-quantum-computer
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Brent Meeker 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 7:18 pm
 Subject: Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?
 
 
 

Information about the past is available to us (at least according  to our 
present understanding of the laws of physics).  It's the  future that we 
have only limited information about.
 
Brent
 
 
 
On 7/7/2016 3:36 PM, Mindey wrote:
 
 
  
Cryonics can help those who are alive today. Thatis good, but not good 
enough, since I do miss some people whodied when I was 2. Universe can 
think whatever it wants, butjust because the laws of physics had worked 
until now, doesn'tmean that they will work exactly the same in the 
future, or thatthere is future. I'm really dissatisfied that we can't 
changethe laws of 

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/8/2016 10:22 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Brent Meeker >wrote:


​> ​
Information about the past is available to us (at least according
to our present understanding of the laws of physics).

​If Quantum Mechanics is correct (and at the very least we know it's 
incomplete as it does not include gravity) then information is 
conserved, but the process to extract that information takes both time 
and energy, the less time the more energy is needed.


That brings up an interesting point.  What does it mean to "extract" 
information that is already present?  I think it means amplifying it to 
a classical level, i.e. such that it can be cloned and shared. QM 
essentially says you can only extract half the information, in the above 
sense, due to the uncertainty relations.  That doesn't mean you can't 
manipulate and compute with all of the information. Quantum computers 
will theoretically be able to do that and will not dissipate energy, 
thus avoiding Landauer's limit.


Now I don't think human brains operate at the quantum level (they're too 
hot), so I think duplicating a brain is possible at the functional level.


Brent

If your brain is burned up or eaten by worms the information that was 
in it may in some sense still exist but there may not be enough energy 
in the observable universe to extract it and make use of it before 
protons decay in 10^35 years or so destroying the physical universe 
and making all further computations impossible. However if my brain 
has been frozen in liquid Nitrogen it would take astronomically less 
time and energy to extract the information in it than it would with 
your worm food brain or burned up brain.


 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> You repeat your confusion between 3p and 3-1p.
>

​Confusion? We're not talking about Tensor Calculus here! Is there anybody
on the face of this planet that is confused by the difference between "I"
and "you"? ​

​> ​
> We have debunked your strategies,
>

​Bullshit.​


> ​> ​
> showing that the proof was fine
>

​If the proof was fine you could replace all the personal pronouns in it
with proper nouns; you tried to do that a few posts ago but gave up after
my first challenge when it became obvious the "proof" was crumbling apart.
 ​



> ​> ​
> It is plain obvious that WvM is confirmed by all 1p copies,
>

​It most certainly is NOT ​confirmed if you call "
all 1p copies
​" by the name they call themselves, John Clark. ​That's why Bruno Marchal
insists on calling them "you" or "he", personal pronouns are a great place
to hide fuzzy thinking.


> ​> ​
> You deny
> ​t​
> he simplest point of the UDA.
>

​That's because "simple" can have 2 meanings, it can also mean stupid.​


​> ​
> And by the way, you have took some times to criticize the step 7
>

​If you put a gun to my head I couldn't tell you what step 7 is.​


​> ​
> your religious materialist belief
>

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

​ 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

John,
> ​ ​
> Let us be completely honest here. You have more or less destroyed this
> ​ ​
> mailing list.
>  [* long long list of blather followed b*y]​
> Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to win this
> ​ ​
> game is not to play it.


​If true then the only logical conclusion to make is that ​
Telmo Menezes
​ is not sane.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[Brent Meeker]

On 7/8/2016 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Jul 2016, at 23:28, Brent Meeker wrote:


Bacteria solved that problem.   Death only came along with sex.



I agree. Death is not a problem. It is a solution of a problem.

I will take a look at the problems you link too, but my opinion is 
that Riemann hypothesis is one of the most important problem to solve.


Then, progressing a bit in mathematical theology, and getting why 
people get irrational so easily around that field is rather important too.


Technically, it would be nice to decide which of the intensional 
variants of self-reference fit the best nature's quantum logic. That 
would provide actually some light on the 1p-death problem: what can we 
expect to live when dying knowing that our consciousness is not 
attached to a singular body, but to infinities of representations of 
them (in arithmetic, or any Turing complete theory).


The practical problems is: how to stop the religious lies (1500 years 
of lies),


Well one step would be to stop using the language of those lies and 
referring to "God".


and the one simpler (but already difficult): how to stop the lies in 
the health field (75 years of lies). How to stop prohibition of 
medication, and how to restore the free market (that prohibition has 
made disappear).


The free market gave us snake oil and thalidomide.



Aristotle was wrong on this: humans are not rational animals, but they 
are irrational animals. No animal would kill another animals based on 
fairy tales pseudo-theology,


But they would to eat or succeed in breeding.

but humans do that all the times, and it is part of the source of the 
human suffering.


"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can 
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. "

--- David Hume

"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would happen."
 --- Fyodor Dostoevsky



The big general problem is the suffering of people, especially 
children. Buddha made some progress in the right direction, I think, 
but the path is still long before we get rational (like buddha was) on 
this.


The Buddha said life is suffering.  The solution is to avoid 
reincarnation.  He was reacting to the Hindu idea of endless 
reincarnation, which one might easily find dismaying.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> Death is not a problem. It is a solution of a problem.
>

​Yeah yeah, It's not a bug it's a feature. That sounds like whistling past
the graveyard to me. ​


> ​> ​
> my opinion is that Riemann hypothesis is one of the most important problem
> to solve.
>

​If the problem of death were solved today you'd have plenty of time to
work on the Riemann​

​problem, but if the Riemann problem were solved today you still would NOT
have ​plenty of time to solve the death problem; so I'd put solving one
higher on my priority list than the other.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

> ​> ​
> Information about the past is available to us (at least according to our
> present understanding of the laws of physics).
>
> ​If Quantum Mechanics is correct (and at the very least we know it's
incomplete as it does not include gravity) then information is conserved,
but the process to extract that information takes both time and energy, the
less time the more energy is needed. If your brain is burned up or eaten by
worms the information that was in it may in some sense still exist but
there may not be enough energy in the observable universe to extract it and
make use of it before protons decay in 10^35 years or so destroying the
physical universe and making all further computations impossible. However
if my brain has been frozen in liquid Nitrogen it would take astronomically
less time and energy to extract the information in it than it would with
your worm food brain or burned up brain.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[Telmo Menezes]

John,

Let us be completely honest here. You have more or less destroyed this
mailing list.
It is not that you disagree with something, it is that you use
manipulative techniques to score points (the only thing you really
seem to care about):

- You take people's sentences out of context and reply to that;
- You overgeneralize what someone said and use it against the person
until the end of times;
- You insult people who never wrote an unkind word to you;
- You cut an paste jokes that weren't funny the first time around. You
do this again and again and again;
- When you lose and argument you immediately change the subject...
- ... and then months later you "forget" that you already lost the
argument and bring back the same drivel;
- (this happened not one, not two times, not three... you get the idea)
- You play the "no-bullshit scientist" role while constantly resorting
to arguments from authority.

Most sane people sooner or later realize that the only way to win this
game is not to play it. You started debating dozens of people here,
now about three are left. Soon it will be only you, and then you will
be able to fully enjoy your victory, I guess.

Have fun!
Telmo.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 7:05 PM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>> >>
>>> I can stop here.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> That is probably wise.
>
>
> But deep down John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't stop here, John Clark
> knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't be wise.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> but apparently once you get that there is no problem with the pronouns and
>> name,
>
>
> Bullshit.
> When names are substituted for personal pronouns the
> vapidness of the "proof" becomes obvious and the entire argument falls to
> pieces. All Bruno Marchal has done in
> Bruno Marchal's "proof" is to sweep metaphysical puzzles under a rug made of
> nothing but personal pronouns.
>
>>
>> >
>> you just came back to your oldest strategy (faking a confusion between 1p
>> and 3p points of view
>
>
> On the contrary there is no confusion, Bruno Marchal's error is crystal
> clear.
>  Bruno Marchal
> thinks that by defining "1p" as "I" and "I" as "1p", and by defining "3p" as
> "he" and "he" as "3p" great philosophical progress has been made.
>
>>
>> >
>> That strategy has already been debunked more than one times by many people
>> on this list.
>
>
> Bullshit.
>
>>
>> >
>> It would be most boring to make another tour.
>
>
> And yet no doubt you (Mr. 3p) will.
>
>>
>> >
>> Of course if any one else has still a problem with the first person
>> indeterminacy
>> [...]
>>
>
> Nor does Mr. 1p have a problem with it.  I (or Mr. 1p) have no problem
> whatsoever with
> first person indeterminacy
> and never have
> , for as far back as I (or Mr. 1p) can remember I (or Mr. 1p) have been
> unable to always know what would happen next.
>
>>
>> >
>> at this point, without further motivation to do so, I will not add
>> anything
>
>
> You (or Mr. 3p) haven't added anything in a very long time.
>
>
>
>  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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: What are among the world's most important problems to solve, why?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jul 2016, at 23:28, Brent Meeker wrote:


Bacteria solved that problem.   Death only came along with sex.



I agree. Death is not a problem. It is a solution of a problem.

I will take a look at the problems you link too, but my opinion is  
that Riemann hypothesis is one of the most important problem to solve.


Then, progressing a bit in mathematical theology, and getting why  
people get irrational so easily around that field is rather important  
too.


Technically, it would be nice to decide which of the intensional  
variants of self-reference fit the best nature's quantum logic. That  
would provide actually some light on the 1p-death problem: what can we  
expect to live when dying knowing that our consciousness is not  
attached to a singular body, but to infinities of representations of  
them (in arithmetic, or any Turing complete theory).


The practical problems is: how to stop the religious lies (1500 years  
of lies), and the one simpler (but already difficult): how to stop the  
lies in the health field (75 years of lies). How to stop prohibition  
of medication, and how to restore the free market (that prohibition  
has made disappear).


Aristotle was wrong on this: humans are not rational animals, but they  
are irrational animals. No animal would kill another animals based on  
fairy tales pseudo-theology, but humans do that all the times, and it  
is part of the source of the human suffering.


The big general problem is the suffering of people, especially  
children. Buddha made some progress in the right direction, I think,  
but the path is still long before we get rational (like buddha was) on  
this.


Bruno




Brent

On 7/7/2016 1:48 PM, Mindey wrote:
It's funny. If you look at the surface of it, of course you will  
get into such contradictions. The real problem that life is  
solving, is the retention of information under the influence of  
entropy.


Information preservation density and reliability?

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 6:43:23 PM UTC, Brent wrote:


On 7/7/2016 10:10 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Mindey  wrote:

  ​> ​ what is the list of the world's currently most important  
problems?


​One problem towers over all others, death.


I thought that was the solution to over population.

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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: self (was Re: Aristotle the Nitwit

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Jul 2016, at 19:05, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Jul 7, 2016  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​I can stop here.

​> ​That is probably wise.

​But deep down John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't stop here,  
John Clark knew Bruno Marchal wouldn't be wise. ​


> ​but apparently once you get that there is no problem with the  
pronouns and name,


​Bullshit.​ ​When names are substituted for personal pronouns  
the​ ​vapidness of the "proof" becomes obvious and the entire  
argument falls to pieces.


Sure.



All Bruno Marchal has done in​ ​Bruno Marchal's "proof" is to  
sweep metaphysical puzzles under a rug made of nothing but personal  
pronouns.


​> ​you just came back to your oldest strategy (faking a  
confusion between 1p and 3p points of view


​On the contrary there is no confusion, Bruno Marchal's error is  
crystal clear. Bruno Marchal​ thinks that by defining "1p" as "I"  
and "I" as "1p", and by defining "3p" as "he" and "he" as "3p" great  
philosophical progress has been made.​


I never did that. You repeat your confusion between 3p and 3-1p.







​> ​That strategy has already been debunked more than one times  
by many people on this list.


​Bullshit.


Sure.







​> ​It would be most boring to make another tour.

​And yet no doubt you (Mr. 3p) will.​

​> ​Of course if any one else has still a problem with the first  
person indeterminacy​ [...]​


​Nor does Mr. 1p have a problem with it.  I (or Mr. 1p) have no  
problem whatsoever with ​first person indeterminacy​ and never  
have​​, for as far back as I ​(or Mr. 1p) can remember I (or  
Mr. 1p) have been unable to always know what would happen next.


​> ​at this point, without further motivation to do so, I will  
not add anything


​You (or Mr. 3p) haven't added anything in a very long time.​ ​


We have debunked your strategies, showing that the proof was fine  
right, so why would we change it, and indeed, it is very easy. You are  
the only one (except for Delahaye)  having a problem with this... well  
faking having a problem with this.


It is plain obvious that WvM is confirmed by all 1p copies, and all  
other propositions are refuted by at least one copy, so, given the  
definition of 1p, it follows directly. You deny he simplest point of  
the UDA. And by the way, you have took some times to criticize the  
step 7 (without noticing it, and contradicting you fake non  
comprehension, but there you used the usual knock-down argument,  
refuted by the dream phenomenon.


The reason I keep pointing on your strategies is that you are the only  
opponent I can confront on this. The others are literary philosophers  
that have never said more than non-convincing, and never in myb  
presence. It probably reassure me that your strategy is really simple,  
and is not related with anything I could say. This last two post  
illustrates very well. I am also interested in your motivation, which  
is not your religious materialist belief (that I have already figure  
out), so what?




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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.