My model, comp, and the Second Law

[hal Ruhl]

Hi Everyone:

Its been a while since I posted.

I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics
and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my model, or 
comp, or their combination.

As references I will start with use are:

"Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" , 
1992 by Micheal Mackey

"Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"
2001 by Michael Mackey.

my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014.

My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to be 
computable and this
causes computational termination and/or computational precision issues.

This should make the operable phase space grainy.  This ambiguity causes 
entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the same 
at each evolutionary [trajectory] step.

The system should also not be reversible for the same reason. 

If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified?

Hal





 

-- 
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: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Jan 2017, at 21:12, John Clark wrote:




On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>> ​I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of  
physics is able to perform calculations,​ I need only observe that  
is can.


​> ​No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.

​True I can't observe that because I don't know what "​pieces of  
matter are Universal​" means and I doubt you do either, but I know  
what pieces of matter performing calculations means and I can  
observe that.


No, you can't. You can extrapolate from observation that some piece of  
matter are Turing Universal, but you cannot observe primitive  
('course, given the subject we discuss) matter, still less a complex  
relation disposition like being Universal.






​> ​In all case you need a theory. But grandmother physics is  
enough for that task.


 ​What in the world is "g​randmother physics​"​​?​


The physics from grandmother. Like "object falls, water makes wet". It  
is an expression for mundane or high level intuitive physics.









​>​>  you need to explain why​ pure mathematics CAN'T do the  
same thing without the help of physics.


​> T​his is long to explain. That is why it makes 700 pages when  
I explain this in all details in a self-contained way​.


​And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with  
no clear referent;


Where?

I told you that the self, the soul and the observer are well defined  
using Kleene's theorem. Computer science has solved all those  
indexical problems. You do just negative propaganda, without citing  
evidences. Your critics hare has already been refuted many times. Try  
to find something else.




and this is supposed to be a work that proves something about  
personal identity. ​


Not at all. You criticize something which seems to exist in your  
imagination only.





​> ​all you need to understand is the original definition of  
computable function,


​I don't give a damn about your definitions or ​computable  
functions.


This ends the conversation.

Bruno




Enough talk lets see some action, I want you to do something, I want  
you to make a calculation without using matter that obeys the laws  
of physics.  Ask one of your infinite universal numbers to find out  
what the 11th prime number larger than 10^100^100 is and tell us  
what it says in your next post. Do that and you've won the argument,  
but no fair cheating by using one of INTEL's products or anything  
else made of matter.


​> ​as I have told you that no book can calculate 2+2. Books do  
not belong to the type of things which compute. Only universal  
numbers do that,


​Stop telling me that and SHOW ME!  You claim to know all about  
these "​universal numbers​" of yours so use them to make some  
calculations and put INTEL out of business.​


​> ​I have no clue if you are just joking

​I am dead serious. If what you say is true there is absolutely no  
need for a company like INTEL. ​


​Then we agree, if the word "God"​ is redefined to mean​ a​  
invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob​ then "God" exists​,​


It is the creator of reality, in a large sense of creator. It is  
invisible in most theologies, OK.


​Don't you find that rather convenient? ​You'd think God should  
be the most obvious thing there is but instead the one thing  
theologians agree in is God is invisible.



​>​ it is easy to identify God has the one which knows the truth  
of all arithmetical sentence,


And what percentage of  human beings on this planet believe the word  
"God" means "arithmetic? I would ​estimate about ​.01%​. I  
agree that majority vote can't determine the nature of reality, but  
they can and do determine the meanings of words. And there are  only  
2 reasons somebody would use the English word "God" in such a  
grossly non-standard way:


1) They like to make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "I  
believe in God".

2)They wish to deceive.

​> ​"amoral"? open problem.

​> ​"Mindless?" Perhaps?

​> ​but no need to take this as more than a simple metaphor.

​Just as I thought, to you and only to you the English word "God"  
means an invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of  
arithmetic.  ​Bruno, do you really thing hanging the name tag "God"  
on such an amorphous blob helps communicating in your ideas to other  
people without creating massive confusion?


​> ​That is implicit in Platonist like theology,

​Plato was a imbecile and theology has no field of study. ​

​> ​Also, I thought we decided to not use God, but the One  
instead.


​The one what?​

​> ​And it is known by any educated person that mathematics and  
physics came in great part from Plato and Aristotle.


​All we hear from you is Plato and Aristotle​, but you never  
mention the greatest Greek of them all, ​Archimedes​.​


​> ​You say theology is stupid,

​Theology is stupid​ and so are theologians. ​

​> ​but you mock all attempts to be serious with it,

Re: Metastable metallic hydrogen propulsion

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Hmm Professor, I am thinking metallic h2 as a primo fusion fuel. Forget 
magnetic fusion, use inertial confinement fusion against metallic targets. 
Having said this, it's probably an energy sink, with the immense pressures 
needed to form metallic hydrogen. 



-Original Message-
From: Hans Moravec 
To: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 7:23 pm
Subject: Metastable metallic hydrogen propulsion

Something like antimatter propulsion, but much easier?

Metallic hydrogen: The most powerful rocket fuel
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/meta

Hydrogen Squeezed Into a Metal, Possibly Solid, Harvard Physicists Say
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/solid-metallic-hydrogen-harvard-physicists.html


-- 
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: Correction to MWI post

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

What about Boltzmann Brains?
Do you view these as mindful observers?



-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post




On 26 Jan 2017, at 17:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


 
If dreaming is a function of biological things,





It depends on how you define biological. If you define it like me with a 
theorem in arithmetic/computer-science, of intensional numbers (relative codes, 
like DNA, or programs) which can reprodruces themselves with respect to other 
universal numbers, physical or not, then, OK, like Bateson, psychology is a 
cousin of biology, and we use ineddded the same trick (Dx = xx -> DD = DD) both 
in abstract biology and in abstract psychology, ... and in abstract theology.






 where then, might be the brain of the dreamer. 



That does simply not exist. It is all in your brain (grin).


If we except Babbage machine, computability and the notion of computation have 
been discovered by mathematical logicians working in the foundations of 
mathematics. Gödel discovered 95% of it, but missed it. Post, Church and Turing 
got it, and then many others, including Gödel who talk about a miracle (the 
closure of the set of partial computable function from Cantor Diagonalization).


(Very) Elementary Arithmetic is already Turing universal.


Whatever can be done by a universal system can be done by any other universal 
system.


So, if you are willing to admit that 2+2=4 and simlar propositions are 
independent of you, then you are forced to admit that all digital emulation of 
your brain are instantiated in term of some (true) number relation. Actually 
(and that is the (interesting) problem) there are infinitely many of them.








Can we contact the dreamer?





By amnesy and/or dissociation, you can go up to remember which universal person 
you are, perhaps. Sy hello to the *many* dreamers!








 Is there a an analog of the dreamers, neurobiology? Numbers may generate 
reality, or so Tegmark has asserted.



And I have proved it well before. It follows from Church Thesis, and a very 
minimal form of Occam razor for the believers-in-matter.


The numbers, or the combinators, etc. Any Church-Turing Universal 
number/machine/finite-system will do. 








 Wolfram also gets this, and I ask, imbecile that I am, ok, so what can we do 
with this? Can we contact the programmer?





If you want a mythology, one well suited for computationalism is that the Big 
Goddess made a great Garden/Game for her Son which only plays hide-and-seek 
with himself. The garden is very great, and God can lost itself very deeply 
indeed.










 Hey, like Jürgen Schmidhuber has written of, A Great Programmer. 





Yes. The Universal Dovetailer is the (a) great programmer, if you want. It 
generates all programs and it executes them all, dovetailing on the executions 
so as not being trapped by non stopping executions, which exist and are not 
algorithmically recognizable (the price of universality). See my URL for a 
program and one initial execution.


But is a dumb program. It is equivalent to Robinson arithmetic (very elementary 
arithmetic, or PA without the induction axioms). It generate all dreams, with a 
mathematical complex redundancy. But he does not thought about itself, and is 
not aware of its universality. For this, you need to add the beliefs in the 
induction axioms, making them Löbian, dreamers.
The Universal dovetailer executes (without understanding) all Löbian dreamers, 
but is not a Löbian machine itself.








For me, all I can handle is PowerShell...maybe. 



You are without any doubt Universal, so you can emulate all universal system, 
given enough time and space, and/or numbers. And you are Löbian, I am pretty 
sure. You might probably blind yourself with unnecessary prejudices, plausibly 
invented by your local predators, as well as the predators of your ancestors, 
or something.


I mean even if computationalism is false, your Turing universality is a 
provable fact. Then computationalism says that your local body is not more than 
Universal. That leads to testable physical constraints, and indeed we got the 
quantum aspect: statistic on computations + a logic which makes it 
quantum-like. So, the idea is not yet refuted, and is, to my knowledge, the 
only precise theory of quanta (physics) and qualia (psychology, theology).


It is up to the believer in God or Matter to explain how their favorite 
divinity manage to interfere with the computations which are in arithmetic (a 
non controversial facts, both historically and factually). Let us just compute 
and compare, like modest scientists do. An evidence that the observable world 
departs from the physics in the head of the universal numbers *would be* an 
evidence for some God or some Matter, or some "Bostromian" malevolent 
emulations. But there are just none yet.