Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Russell Standish]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 06:39:39PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Now, it
> > could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself
> > argue, we don't know that.
> 
> Isn't this at the crux of the scientific study of the mind?  There seemed to
> be universal agreement on this list that a philosophical zombie is
> impossible.  Of course that doesn't mean it's true.  But it seems as good a
> working hypothesis as "Yes, doctor".  And in fact it's the working
> hypothesis of most studies of neurocognition, intelligence, and mind.  If
> it's true then it provides a link from intelligent behavior to mind.  We
> already have links from from physics to brain to intelligent behavior.  So
> why isn't this the physics based theory of mind that Bruno et al keep saying
> is impossible?
> 

This is an astute comment. The MGA (and Maudlin's argument) supposedly
works by producing a physical philosophical zombie under computationalism.

Cheers

-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/2/2018 8:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Now, it
could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself
argue, we don't know that. 


Isn't this at the crux of the scientific study of the mind?  There 
seemed to be universal agreement on this list that a philosophical 
zombie is impossible.  Of course that doesn't mean it's true.  But it 
seems as good a working hypothesis as "Yes, doctor".  And in fact it's 
the working hypothesis of most studies of neurocognition, intelligence, 
and mind.  If it's true then it provides a link from intelligent 
behavior to mind.  We already have links from from physics to brain to 
intelligent behavior.  So why isn't this the physics based theory of 
mind that Bruno et al keep saying is impossible?


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: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 6:36:56 PM UTC-7, Zachary Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 05:07:54PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > If 15 minutes exceeds your attention span, maybe you should retire 
>>> from 
>>> > your quest for knowledge. AG 
>>>
>>> 15 minutes of undirected "there is something in this 15 minutes of 
>>> video that I *think* will change your mind about..." is not 
>>> exactly encouraging enough for me to spend 15 minutes watching a video, 
>>> the 
>>> contents of which I've mostly seen before. If there was something new, 
>>> I'd probably miss it anyway in the boredom of it all. 
>>>
>>> I _will_ spend 15 minutes thinking about something if you convince me in 
>>> the first 30 seconds that there is some likelihood I'll learn 
>>> something new in the process. That means abstracting out the core 
>>> details in the covering email, and supplying a time code of the 
>>> pertinent bits. There is a reason why most academics read 
>>> articles abstract first, then the conclusion before reading the 
>>> remainder. 
>>>
>>> You have to convince someone it is worth their while. Youtube videos 
>>> are mostly a waste of time in my experience. 
>>>
>>> Cheers 
>>>
>>
>> Once you admit that the witnesses are credible, your view of visitation 
>> issue will
>> radically change. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>
> **EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THERE IS.  
>

Brilliant. Incredibly brilliant. Thank you. AG 

-- 
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: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Zachary Smith]

On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 8:12:51 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 6:38:55 PM UTC-7, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 05:07:54PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> > If 15 minutes exceeds your attention span, maybe you should retire from 
>> > your quest for knowledge. AG 
>>
>> 15 minutes of undirected "there is something in this 15 minutes of 
>> video that I *think* will change your mind about..." is not 
>> exactly encouraging enough for me to spend 15 minutes watching a video, 
>> the 
>> contents of which I've mostly seen before. If there was something new, 
>> I'd probably miss it anyway in the boredom of it all. 
>>
>> I _will_ spend 15 minutes thinking about something if you convince me in 
>> the first 30 seconds that there is some likelihood I'll learn 
>> something new in the process. That means abstracting out the core 
>> details in the covering email, and supplying a time code of the 
>> pertinent bits. There is a reason why most academics read 
>> articles abstract first, then the conclusion before reading the 
>> remainder. 
>>
>> You have to convince someone it is worth their while. Youtube videos 
>> are mostly a waste of time in my experience. 
>>
>> Cheers 
>>
>
> Once you admit that the witnesses are credible, your view of visitation 
> issue will
> radically change. AG 
>
>>
>>
**EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE IS THE LEAST SCIENTIFIC/CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THERE IS.  

-- 
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: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/2/2018 3:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


I think you are assuming the simulation can be
deterministic...which it can't.


I make no assumptions on this.  Watching life on any random planet 
evolve should be as illuminating as wandering the cosmos to happen 
upon a random planet with life on it to watch it evolve.  The problem 
is one of these activities takes billions of years to do.


But watching one randomized evolution will mostly produce lifeless 
planets.  So one would want to do Monte Carlo simulations to get a 
statistically significant range of interesting planets.  Thus increasing 
the size of the problem by a factor of M^N where M is the size of the 
statistical sample you want and N is the number of variables to define a 
"world".






Further, there are no limits to what it could explore. It could,
for example, explore possible planets in universes with different
laws of physics. There is no physical way for the intelligence to
ever visit these places, but they are not out of sight from an
intelligence so vast. And if mathematical realism is true, these
discovered places represent genuine discoveries, rather than
imaginings. There are unlimited riches available in the universe
of possibilities of mathematics. An ultraintelligence could no
doubt spend many eons searching through this space, finding new
connections between things, in its effort to learn everything.


But why is it motivated to learn anything at all?  Are we
supposing that humans programmed this in and the Supeintelligence
can't change it?


Whatever its goals may be, they are not harmed and likely helped by 
increased knowledge, creativity, intelligence, efficiency and 
computational power.


A super intelligence that doesn't have the goal of maximizing it 
knowledge is likely be displaced by the superintelligences which do.


How so?  According to your theory they are just interested in 
mathematical knowledge.  Are you supposing they would compete for 
energy/entropy?  and hence enter into warfare?


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: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/2/2018 9:01 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/1/2018 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
 >
 > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the
 > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the video
 > convinced me otherwise. AG

 What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is immediately aroused
 by humanoid ETIs. There's no good reason why intelligent animals
 should be humanoid. Plus there was that photo of ET that was recently
 discovered to be of a mummified child.

 The point Fermi makes is that any technological civilisation capable
 of interstellar travel will quite rapidly convert the entire galaxy
 into artifical structures, such as dyson spheres. This makes me
 sceptical about ET conspiracy theories. If ET exists, they should be
 damn obvious by rights, just like American tourists in Rome in July.

>>>
>>> I would second this. Fermi's argument would suggest that if ETs were
>>> abundant in the universe and if they persisted they would be very apparent.
>>> The lack of such clear evidence suggests that ETs are not widely abundant
>>> in the universe, they may not last very long (we may be headed down that
>>> path) and if they do exist they are separated by distances far too large
>>> for travel and maybe too distant for even radio communication.
>>>
>>
>> I am partial to the Transcension Hypothesis as an answer to the Fermi
>> Paradox: https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html
>>
>>
>> But wouldn't they explore this universe first?
>>
>
>
> To a Jupiter brain, our most complex physical theories would be as trivial
> as Tic-Tac-Toe. It stands to reason then, that whatever the particularities
> of the starting conditions for the ultraintelligence, they soon become a
> small fraction of what will occupies that mind. Most of what will fill such
> a mind will be information extracted from mathematics, which is equally
> accessible and common to all such minds regardless of the universe they
> start in.
>
> What kinds of things might preoccupy a mind the size of a star? There are
> certainly many things it could do, but what might it choose to do?
> Obviously to get to its point it had to do much learning, discovery and
> exploration, the continuation of such is one possibility. Bordom is another
> great concern for an entity that can think so fast and exist for so long.
>
>
> "Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity that It would do Its
> best to commit suicide by creating an equally adept Opponent.  Half of the
> time the Opponent would succeed and the process would repeat.   It is
> impossible to know whether the current "God" is an even or odd term in the
> series."
> --- Roahn Wynar
>
> Against boredom even the gods themselves struggle in vain.
>   --- Nietzsche, The Antichrist
>

Hence Maya .  The
intentional forgetting that one is immortal and omniscient.


>
> Entertainment is a second possibility activity for such
> ultraintelligences. A third possibility is doing good for other beings.
>
> Humans are far behind the hypothetical intelligence of a planet-sized
> brain, and yet we have largely figured out the laws of physics in our own
> universe. Physics, and chemistry, as a source of new discovery and insight
> might soon dry up under the anylsis of an ultraintelligence. Biology too,
> once the ultraintelligence scanned and analyzed the DNA of every speices on
> Earth and reverse engineered the course of evolution and adapdation going
> back billions of years. Observation of far away planets may be possible
> through the engineering of truly colossal telescopes, but it would likely
> prove frustrating.
>
> An optical telescope with an apeture equal to the diameter of the moon
> could only resolve objects larger than a mile at the distance of one light
> year. To keep the same resolution while looking at something 1,000 light
> years away and the diameter of the telescope's aperture has to increase
> another thousand times. At this point, the telescope would be over 2
> million miles in diameter. Using such a telescope to view an Earth-sized
> planet 1,000 light years away would yield an imagine a few thousand pixels
> by a few thousand pixels. It would be enough to tell whether or not there
> was life on the planet, and perhaps pick out the existence of cities, but
> all told it is still a small amount of information returned for such a
> massive investment of material and 

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/2/2018 9:01 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 1/1/2018 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell
Standish wrote:

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was
convinced that the
> incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul.
But the video
> convinced me otherwise. AG

What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is
immediately aroused
by humanoid ETIs. There's no good reason why intelligent
animals
should be humanoid. Plus there was that photo of ET that
was recently
discovered to be of a mummified child.

The point Fermi makes is that any technological
civilisation capable
of interstellar travel will quite rapidly convert the
entire galaxy
into artifical structures, such as dyson spheres. This
makes me
sceptical about ET conspiracy theories. If ET exists,
they should be
damn obvious by rights, just like American tourists in
Rome in July.


I would second this. Fermi's argument would suggest that if
ETs were abundant in the universe and if they persisted they
would be very apparent. The lack of such clear evidence
suggests that ETs are not widely abundant in the universe,
they may not last very long (we may be headed down that path)
and if they do exist they are separated by distances far too
large for travel and maybe too distant for even radio
communication.


I am partial to the Transcension Hypothesis as an answer to the
Fermi Paradox:
https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html



But wouldn't they explore this universe first?



To a Jupiter brain, our most complex physical theories would be as 
trivial as Tic-Tac-Toe. It stands to reason then, that whatever the 
particularities of the starting conditions for the ultraintelligence, 
they soon become a small fraction of what will occupies that mind. 
Most of what will fill such a mind will be information extracted from 
mathematics, which is equally accessible and common to all such minds 
regardless of the universe they start in.


What kinds of things might preoccupy a mind the size of a star? There 
are certainly many things it could do, but what might it choose to do? 
Obviously to get to its point it had to do much learning, discovery 
and exploration, the continuation of such is one possibility. Bordom 
is another great concern for an entity that can think so fast and 
exist for so long.




"Any eternal God would be so bored after one eternity that It would do 
Its best to commit suicide by creating an equally adept Opponent.  Half 
of the time the Opponent would succeed and the process would repeat.   
It is impossible to know whether the current "God" is an even or odd 
term in the series."

    --- Roahn Wynar

Against boredom even the gods themselves struggle in vain.
  --- Nietzsche, The Antichrist


Entertainment is a second possibility activity for such 
ultraintelligences. A third possibility is doing good for other beings.


Humans are far behind the hypothetical intelligence of a planet-sized 
brain, and yet we have largely figured out the laws of physics in our 
own universe. Physics, and chemistry, as a source of new discovery and 
insight might soon dry up under the anylsis of an ultraintelligence. 
Biology too, once the ultraintelligence scanned and analyzed the DNA 
of every speices on Earth and reverse engineered the course of 
evolution and adapdation going back billions of years. Observation of 
far away planets may be possible through the engineering of truly 
colossal telescopes, but it would likely prove frustrating.


An optical telescope with an apeture equal to the diameter of the moon 
could only resolve objects larger than a mile at the distance of one 
light year. To keep the same resolution while looking at something 
1,000 light years away and the diameter of the telescope's 
aperture has to increase another thousand times. At this point, the 
telescope would be over 2 million miles in diameter. Using such a 
telescope to view an Earth-sized planet 1,000 light years away would 
yield an imagine a few thousand pixels by a few thousand pixels. It 
would be enough to tell whether or not there was life on the planet, 
and perhaps pick out the existence 

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 6:53 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/1/2018 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that the
>>> > incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the video
>>> > convinced me otherwise. AG
>>>
>>> What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is immediately aroused
>>> by humanoid ETIs. There's no good reason why intelligent animals
>>> should be humanoid. Plus there was that photo of ET that was recently
>>> discovered to be of a mummified child.
>>>
>>> The point Fermi makes is that any technological civilisation capable
>>> of interstellar travel will quite rapidly convert the entire galaxy
>>> into artifical structures, such as dyson spheres. This makes me
>>> sceptical about ET conspiracy theories. If ET exists, they should be
>>> damn obvious by rights, just like American tourists in Rome in July.
>>>
>>
>> I would second this. Fermi's argument would suggest that if ETs were
>> abundant in the universe and if they persisted they would be very apparent.
>> The lack of such clear evidence suggests that ETs are not widely abundant
>> in the universe, they may not last very long (we may be headed down that
>> path) and if they do exist they are separated by distances far too large
>> for travel and maybe too distant for even radio communication.
>>
>
> I am partial to the Transcension Hypothesis as an answer to the Fermi
> Paradox: https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html
>
>
> But wouldn't they explore this universe first?
>


To a Jupiter brain, our most complex physical theories would be as trivial
as Tic-Tac-Toe. It stands to reason then, that whatever the particularities
of the starting conditions for the ultraintelligence, they soon become a
small fraction of what will occupies that mind. Most of what will fill such
a mind will be information extracted from mathematics, which is equally
accessible and common to all such minds regardless of the universe they
start in.

What kinds of things might preoccupy a mind the size of a star? There are
certainly many things it could do, but what might it choose to do?
Obviously to get to its point it had to do much learning, discovery and
exploration, the continuation of such is one possibility. Bordom is another
great concern for an entity that can think so fast and exist for so long.
Entertainment is a second possibility activity for such ultraintelligences.
A third possibility is doing good for other beings.

Humans are far behind the hypothetical intelligence of a planet-sized
brain, and yet we have largely figured out the laws of physics in our own
universe. Physics, and chemistry, as a source of new discovery and insight
might soon dry up under the anylsis of an ultraintelligence. Biology too,
once the ultraintelligence scanned and analyzed the DNA of every speices on
Earth and reverse engineered the course of evolution and adapdation going
back billions of years. Observation of far away planets may be possible
through the engineering of truly colossal telescopes, but it would likely
prove frustrating.

An optical telescope with an apeture equal to the diameter of the moon
could only resolve objects larger than a mile at the distance of one light
year. To keep the same resolution while looking at something 1,000 light
years away and the diameter of the telescope's aperture has to increase
another thousand times. At this point, the telescope would be over 2
million miles in diameter. Using such a telescope to view an Earth-sized
planet 1,000 light years away would yield an imagine a few thousand pixels
by a few thousand pixels. It would be enough to tell whether or not there
was life on the planet, and perhaps pick out the existence of cities, but
all told it is still a small amount of information returned for such a
massive investment of material and energy.

This is a problem for ultraintelligences. Even with massive investment in
instruments to collect information from the physical realm, such
information comes in only as a slow drip compared to the
ultraintelligence's capacity to process that information. Fortunately,
there exist alternatives for such a mind to meet its thirst for knowledge.
By using just a fraction of its available computing power, it could
simulate the entire history of life on an Earth-like planet and in the
process learn everything there is to know about it.

All movement and associated computation that occurs on our planet is driven
by energy. Nearly all (99.97%) of the available energy on earth comes from
the sun, with the rest coming from radioactivity and tidal energy. This
amount of energy is almost inconceivable. When quantified, it 

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 9:03:39 AM UTC-6, smitra wrote:
>
> On 02-01-2018 01:20, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
> > On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:30:27 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: 
> > 
> >> On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell 
> >>  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish 
> >> wrote:On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com 
> >> wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>> In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that 
> >> the 
> >>> incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the 
> >> video 
> >>> convinced me otherwise. AG 
> >> 
> >> What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is immediately 
> >> aroused 
> >> by humanoid ETIs. There's no good reason why intelligent animals 
> >> should be humanoid. Plus there was that photo of ET that was 
> >> recently 
> >> discovered to be of a mummified child. 
> >> 
> >> The point Fermi makes is that any technological civilisation capable 
> >> 
> >> of interstellar travel will quite rapidly convert the entire galaxy 
> >> into artifical structures, such as dyson spheres. This makes me 
> >> sceptical about ET conspiracy theories. If ET exists, they should be 
> >> 
> >> damn obvious by rights, just like American tourists in Rome in July. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I would second this. Fermi's argument would suggest that if ETs were 
> >> abundant in the universe and if they persisted they would be very 
> >> apparent. The lack of such clear evidence suggests that ETs are not 
> >> widely abundant in the universe, they may not last very long (we may 
> >> be headed down that path) and if they do exist they are separated by 
> >> distances far too large for travel and maybe too distant for even 
> >> radio communication. 
> > 
> > I am partial to the Transcension Hypothesis as an answer to the Fermi 
> > Paradox: https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html 
> > [1] 
> > 
> > This fictionalized version is a great read: 
> > http://frombob.to/you/index.html [2] 
> > 
> > Jason 
> > 
> > I think Brent has a point. It is similar to saying that we humans are 
> > more likely to colonize Mars before we colonize any extra-solar system 
> > of planets. I think the idea of transcension projects this issue into 
> > far more extreme territory. So I tend to think if alien spacecraft 
> > really did appear here that it would be in some ways fairly ordinary. 
> > Highly extraordinary accounts are less probable. 
> > 
> > Wormholing to other cosmologies or trying to use rotating black holes 
> > to pass into another cosmology or region is fraught with troubles. 
> > Violation of chronology protection and censorship by horizons is 
> > equivalent to violating theorem results in quantum mechanics. These 
> > things may not be physically possible. 
> > 
> > LC 
> > 
> There can also be problems with building structures that can repair 
> themselves and grow faster than the rate at which they degrade. Biology 
> shows that it is possible for such structures to exist, but it's not so 
> easy to get to such structures. 
>
> The more critical parts a system has that all must be copied perfectly 
> for the copy to function, the smaller the error rate per part can be. On 
> average, you need to have more than one working system per doubling for 
> there to be exponential growth. This means that the required fidelity 
> for copying critical parts should be better than 1/N where N is the 
> number of critical parts. 
>
> Saibal 
>

This is in part why biological systems are massively redundant. 

Large megastructures have other problems. Remember Gauss' law that if you 
integrate over a gravitating mass you get that mass or 4πGM. As a result 
integrating a Gaussian surface inside a shell of matter returns zero and 
the net force on any mass inside is zero. Hence the gravitational potential 
of a Dyson sphere interior is constant, which means it is not bound to the 
star. This means the two will drift apart. The same holds for a ring world; 
it can drift relative to the star within the plane of the ring.

We see no evidence of large complex structures, Tabby's star aside I 
suppose. Though that is likely due to something natural and not a Dyson 
sphere. It also is the case these things would be enormously complex.

LC

-- 
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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Telmo,


On 28 Dec 2017, at 15:35, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi John,

If you read your own email, you will see that the definition that you
give is not the same as the ones you quote. You are in fact alluding
to the weak AI thesis, which is about behavior, not mind. Now, it
could be that intelligent behavior implies mind, but as you yourself
argue, we don't know that.

If you are not interested in the first person / third person
distinction, you are wasting your time with computationalism. You will
have more fun reading / discussing neuroscience and AI. Other people
are interested in such things, and perhaps you will agree that there
is nothing wrong with that.



Ah! I should have read this before(*). Thanks for the clarity.

Happy New Year to You and ...

... all Good Willing Persons.

Bruno

(*) I follow now the LILO order for my mails, as the FIFO order made  
me miss some important mails. Apology for delays!





Telmo.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 3:26 AM, John Clark   
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:





Computationalism is the idea that the brain is an
information processing system and that a computer
can
perform all the complex behaviors that would be called  
intelligent if it

were done by a human;






That is not computationalism. That is the weak AI thesis.



From:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind


"A
computational theory of mind names a view that the human mind or  
the human

brain (or both) is an
information processing system and that thinking is a form of  
computing.

"


And from:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/


"
Advances in computing raise the prospect that the mind itself is a
computational system—a position known as the computational theory  
of mind

(CTM). Computationalists are researchers who endorse CTM,
"





computationalism does NOT insist that everything is information
processing







Actually, computationalism  implies it,



The human mind can not perfectly predict what all physical systems  
will do,
but computationalism could still be true and work by information  
processing

even if some some
physical systems

do not.






(but you need to grasp UDA step 3



I've looked at the UDA website:

https://uda.varsity.com/Competitions/National-Dance-Team-Championship



And I can find several references to step 3 as might be expected in a
website about dancing but nothing that seems very relevant to the  
subject at

hand.

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- 
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: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[smitra]

On 02-01-2018 01:20, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 5:30:27 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:


On Mon, Jan 1, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:14:35 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish
wrote:On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 09:41:33PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:


In fact, prior to viewing the video posted, I was convinced that

the

incident at Roswell was a balloon from Project Mogul. But the

video

convinced me otherwise. AG


What did you find so convincing? My scepticism is immediately
aroused
by humanoid ETIs. There's no good reason why intelligent animals
should be humanoid. Plus there was that photo of ET that was
recently
discovered to be of a mummified child.

The point Fermi makes is that any technological civilisation capable

of interstellar travel will quite rapidly convert the entire galaxy
into artifical structures, such as dyson spheres. This makes me
sceptical about ET conspiracy theories. If ET exists, they should be

damn obvious by rights, just like American tourists in Rome in July.


I would second this. Fermi's argument would suggest that if ETs were
abundant in the universe and if they persisted they would be very
apparent. The lack of such clear evidence suggests that ETs are not
widely abundant in the universe, they may not last very long (we may
be headed down that path) and if they do exist they are separated by
distances far too large for travel and maybe too distant for even
radio communication.


I am partial to the Transcension Hypothesis as an answer to the Fermi
Paradox: https://accelerating.org/articles/transcensionhypothesis.html
[1]

This fictionalized version is a great read:
http://frombob.to/you/index.html [2]

Jason

I think Brent has a point. It is similar to saying that we humans are
more likely to colonize Mars before we colonize any extra-solar system
of planets. I think the idea of transcension projects this issue into
far more extreme territory. So I tend to think if alien spacecraft
really did appear here that it would be in some ways fairly ordinary.
Highly extraordinary accounts are less probable.

Wormholing to other cosmologies or trying to use rotating black holes
to pass into another cosmology or region is fraught with troubles.
Violation of chronology protection and censorship by horizons is
equivalent to violating theorem results in quantum mechanics. These
things may not be physically possible.

LC

There can also be problems with building structures that can repair 
themselves and grow faster than the rate at which they degrade. Biology 
shows that it is possible for such structures to exist, but it's not so 
easy to get to such structures.


The more critical parts a system has that all must be copied perfectly 
for the copy to function, the smaller the error rate per part can be. On 
average, you need to have more than one working system per doubling for 
there to be exponential growth. This means that the required fidelity 
for copying critical parts should be better than 1/N where N is the 
number of critical parts.


Saibal

--
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: Dreamless Sleep and the Dream Argument

[Bruno Marchal]

On Jan 1, 2018, at 5:20 PM, David Nyman  wrote:

On 1 January 2018 at 15:02, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 01 Jan 2018, at 13:39, David Nyman wrote:


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01924/full

This link ​could serve as quite​ an illuminating adjunct to the  
dreamless sleep thread. The authors begin by asserting that  
'consciousness' - by which they do ​indeed ​appear to mean  
phenomenal awareness as distinct from any ​of its reductive  
correlates - has no causal powers distinct from those correlates  
or ​any of the ​deeper processes giving rise to ​them​.


I guess that you agree that this is already a sort of mistake; It is  
basically the same mistake that the lawyer who justify its client  
actions by saying that his/her client has no causal power distinct  
from the laws of physics. This eliminates consciousness  and  
responsibility, which is close to non-sense.


​Yes, I agree of course. But this is indeed the state of affairs if  
one follows, without tacit additions, what is *strictly* proposed by  
physics - or rather, by physicalism (i.e. the implicit metaphysics  
of physics).



Yes, although when I was young most theoretical physicists reacted  
rather enthusiastically to mathematicalism. Physicists are more aware  
than philosopher of mind that physics is confronted to conceptual  
difficulties, Mathematicalism explains also directly Wigner’s remark  
of the role in math in physics, and this by suppressing an ontological  
commitment, which is always a good thing,. Of course many just said  
that they are not interested in metaphysics, which is a noble and  
honest reaction. The bad faith is a recent phenomenon, probably a  
reaction against the progress in mathematical logic. In my university,  
the faculty of science has just suppress the course of mathematical  
logic, because too many understood that the critics against  
computationalism, and the use of reason in metaphysics,  is directly  
in violation of very elementary logic!





This then leads directly to the zombie problem. In fact it leads  
even beyond this, because as you go on to say vis-a-vis 'number  
reductionism', strictly speaking there would be no independent  
justification for the zombie as an 'emergent' causal entity, since  
ex hypothesi all 'causality' has already been accounted for at the  
level of elementary particles, fields, strings are what you will.


Or number, yes. If the number theorist extracts the physical laws from  
numbers, that might continue for one of two millennia, but not much  
more, I think. The key advantage of computationalism is that we get  
the modal nuances, and indeed physics is one of those nuances.






Of course, a mechanist knows that at its substitution level, he has  
the same causal power than its components when betting on some  
reality, but we can never know what are those components in a  
rational way, and our causal power (free will, or will) is a higher  
construct, not present in any subpart of any third person  
description of ourself.


​Yes. But the difference between mechanism and physicalism is that  
with the former one can infer a rationale​, via self-reference and  
its consequences,


Yes, and via acomputer science, provably deductible in arithmetic and  
its arithmetical metamathematics.




for the appearance and specific characteristics of these higher  
'emergent' constructs and thereby test to what extent they match the  
phenomena we seek to explain. Physicalism, by contrast, has so far  
discovered no such a priori rationale and so is forced into falling  
back on the (often tacit) assertion of a unique and mysterious  
species of 'non-identical' identity thesis in a purely a posteriori  
attempt to account for 'emergent' phenomena. Alternatively it tries  
to sweep those very phenomena under the rug with terminology such as  
'seemings' and 'illusions'. There's nothing in that move however  
that prevents us from demanding an explication of the how these so- 
called seemings or illusions produce the very particular impressions  
they do (i.e. our entire phenomenal reality) unless we're being  
asked in effect to believe in magic.



OK. But now, the good willing people, knows that it cannot work,  
except *may-be* with some very strong and special use of infinities.  
But only fake institutionalized churches and temples do that (beyond  
big-pharma and the criminals).


But then we can suspect that the humans are the irrational animals,  
contrary to Aristotle's definition ...






 If they did the same error when assuming Mechanism and its  
immaterialist consequence, they would eliminate not only  
consciousness, but the appearance of matter as well.
They would become "number reductionist", which is correct for the  
ontology, but nonsensical for the phenomenology. No consciousness  
and no matter!


​Actually, ​AFAICS, ​this applies to physicalism also,


Yes. My point is that 

Re: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:38, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/1/2018 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Jan 2018, at 00:22, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/31/2017 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hint: "1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + ... = -1/12" can make sense.


Only by redefining summation.


Yes, of course, but not in an arbitrary way: "making sense" means  
we have a "reality", or "model", or "interpretation" which makes  
sense of that sum. In this case the prime number behavior and its  
relation with the Riemann zeta function and its unique analytical  
continuation.





Infinite sums are notoriously order dependent.  It makes sense  
like 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.


No, that is a good pun, but only a pun. When Ramanujan sent his  
letter for a post of mathematics in UK, he wrote that he was a very  
good computer, as he found that 1+2+3+4+.. .= -1/12. That made it  
possible for a serious mathematician to suspect the sender to be a  
talented computer, if not a genius. That will not work for 2+2=5,  
even with the explanation that you compute this only for the  
extremely large values of 2.


I see you come back with your idea that mathematics is concerned  
only with fiction, but that is coherent only if you assume  
something else to be real, like matter, but then you beg the  
question of the mind-body problem again.


No. I do not commit the fallacy of "Your god is false, so my god is  
real".  I'm willing to say I don't know what must be real.



You just did it. You just said in your previews post: " I think  
arithmetic is a human invention...not the basis of reality."






But then, my point is only that mechanism is testable, and it  
provides a "new" interpretation of QM, including a rather simple  
explanation where the wave itself comes from, but that remains to  
be confirmed at infinitum, like any theory in physics.


I do understand that it is counter-intuitive. Doubly so in our  
"aristotelian era".


Mechanism is no threat on the physical science. Mechanism is only a  
threat to the metaphysics forbidding the physical laws to be  
reducible to something non physical.


More than that, I think your theory makes physics necessary.


Yes, indeed.



But it's not clear what physics it requires and whether it is  
necessary only to avoid solipism.  It seems your theory would  
naturally lead to solipism.


It is necessary to stay rational *and* keep computationalism.  
Mechanism cannot be solipsist, because it justifies infinitely many  
different universal machines, with different computations/indexical- 
histories. Now, a form of solipsism could still logically exist, but  
comp predicts that it go away if the number cohere enough to get a  
first plural notion, as defined in the UDA (that we get the "split" on  
collections of machines). This is the quantum solution of avoiding  
solipsism. Up to now we do get QM, so no need to think that mechanism  
has not the intersubjective agreement.











What happen is that with the computationalist theory of mind, it is  
easier to explain the illusion of matter to a relative number:state  
in arithmetic, than consciousness to a piece of primary matter (not  
yet seen by anybody).


A real lover of primary matter should love the theories S4Grz1, Z1*  
and X1*, because they are pointing on experiment capable of  
detecting it.


I only love knowledge.  It is a mistake to fall in love with theories.


We have only experiences, theories, and personal interpretations.

You are bit easy here. I said that the lover of knowledge should be  
very happy with S4Grz1 & Co, because it makes possible to test  
Aristotle primary matter idea, and so, like with all scientific  
theories, helps in the search of truth and knowledge, of course.








Until today, it did not. But tomorrow? Nobody knows.

Bell (and CHSH, and Aspect, ...) illustrated that EPR was not just  
"philosophy/opinion". Similarly,  the mathematical theories S4Grz1,  
Z1* and X1* illustrate that the mind-body problem is not just  
"philosophy/opinion" either.


Bell is (rightly) famous for suggesting an definitive  
experiment...not just an illustration.


Here too. In particular the violation of Bell's inequality itself can  
be tested in the machine's physics. That is detailed in my long thesis  
version.
It leads to complex math, but that is hardly an argument of falsity.  
If the results were not ignored, (for pseudo-philosophical reason  
intolerable in science), we would have already refuted  
computationalism (or that classical indexical weak formulation of it),  
or improved it, notably by noting which of S4Grz1, Z1* and X1* are  
closer to the physicists' quantum logic. Note that if physics is  
entirely explained in S4Grz1, that would be a case for some sort of  
solipsism, but not ecaxtly the common one, and also, there are few  
chance that can happen (because quantum logic obeys the excluded  
middle, and the quantum logic coming from S4Grz1 does not).


Bruno

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 6:46:07 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> Lying is not the only explanation for these witness statements. What 
> these witnesses saw may well have explanations other than ET. One of 
> my favourites, though obviously rather implausible, is that they are 
> time travellers of some future type of human checking us out. More 
> likely it is some form of collective hallucination, though. 
>

The time traveler interpretation is extremely implausible. Time travel 
would force us to revise much of our foundational understanding of physics. 
Again I can't prove this, though I will say I think quantum gravitation 
will remove solutions to the Einstein field equation that involve closed 
timelike curves. Such solutions that permit time travel and travel faster 
than light violate the Hawking-Penrose energy conditions that the stress 
energy tensor obeys T^{00} ≥ 0.How this happens is similar to Dirac's 
relativistic QM solution that filled the negative energy momentum like cone 
with vacuum states. These as occupied states were not directly accessible 
as real particle states. Of course we can't completely rule out some deeper 
foundation of physics that circumvents this. However, if so any applied 
physics or technology that employs this would be enormously more advanced 
than anything we can remotely even imagine. I would argue that makes this 
far more unlikely.

Carl Jung wrote a book on the issue of UFOs. He cited this as an instance 
of how our symbolic representations are shifting. We have symbols that are 
more based on science, and correspondingly this he argues is working it way 
into our mythic narratives. We seem to be seeing something of this sort 
with quasi-religious ideas of ancient alien astronauts, UFO cults and even 
the huge interest in superheros. Superheros are serving a rule similar to 
the pantheon in polytheistic religions of the past. This has a lot to do 
with what is occurring in the inner space of human consciousness far more 
than anything with outerspace.

LC
 

>
> But you haven't really pointed to any particular aspect of the 
> testimonies that convinced you these were the missing ETIs that Fermi 
> was talking about. 
>
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 04:16:50PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com 
>  wrote: 
> > 
> > Lying by human beings is the exception, not the rule. So six witnesses 
> > lying is hugely improbable. But to think about that, to really think 
> about 
> > it, is dangerous to some emotional status quo. I've tried this 
> experiment 
> > before, always with the same result, except for my friend who works for 
> US 
> > military intelligence. AG 
> > 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
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 falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2018, at 23:23, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 1/1/2018 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Dec 2017, at 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 12/31/2017 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Dec 2017, at 23:24, Brent Meeker wrote:


So you think Bruno's theory fails because spacetime is discrete?

However, gamma ray propagation from distant supernova show no  
dispersion, which implies that spacetime is smooth to severl  
orders of magnitude below the Planck scale.


But either way the physics a cannot be compared to Bruno's  
theory because his theory makes not definite prediction even  
about the existence of spacetime.


To criticize metaphysics/theology because it predicts less  
physical things than physics, is like criticizing quantum  
mechanics because it is very hard to use it in making pizza better.


I'm not the one who suggested the comparison.  It was Jason; but  
you didn't take exception to that.


I think I did, but that is besides the point.

If you have a metaphysical theory/belief that the physical reality  
can select the computations in arithmetic, you might to try to  
explain how.


Why would I have such a theory.


It follows from a simple reasoning in the computationalist theory.




I think arithmetic is a human invention...not the basis of reality.


Which reality? Anyway, you can't invoke your favorite deity in a  
scientific discussion.



Bruno





Brent

It is a question of keeping rationalism when studying  
consciousness. UDA shows that you have to invoke a deity for doing  
that, and a quite special one, not just the (seemanyc of) arithmetic.


Bruno




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.


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.


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: What falsifiability tests has computationalism passed?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Jan 2018, at 18:31, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​> ​The strong AI thesis is that such machine would be conscious

​Where is the world did you get that idea? The term "strong AI  
thesis" was invented by working scientists and they have no use for  
the C word because there ​ ​is nothing a scientists can do with  
consciousness, scientists can only work with behavior. The strong AI  
thesis ​says a computer can perceive, learn, ​ do  
mathematics​ ​and behave in a intelligent​ way that is  
(sometimes) consistent just as humans do.


I disagree. And if they use "perceive" it is ambiguous. Either it  
involves the first person perspective, which subsumes the C concepts,  
or it is weak AI.





http://planetmath.org/strongaithesis ​

​>​computationalism is the even stronger assumption that "I am  
machine" and that I would survive​ ​in the clinical usual mundane  
1p sense


​And in their work real AI scientists don't use personal pronouns  
with no clear referent, ​nor silly homemade terminology.



See my papers for the mathematical definitions of all pronouns and the  
corresponding theory of proper name. All third person self-reference  
are handled  by the second recursion theorem, and the first person  
self-reference are handled by fixed point semantics, or Theaetetus  
(translated in arithmetic).


You might need to study "self-reference and modal logic" by Smorynski,  
or his shorter "Fifty years of self-rerefence in arithmetic".  
Reference in my URL. You can see the thought experience that I am  
proposing as a ways to convey this without technical details, and it  
works on everyone, except you and perhaps a minority of dogmatic  
materialists (I am told, as I have never met them).






​> ​no digital machine can ever determine which machines she is,  
nor which computations support her in arithmetic.


​I have no idea what that means and I don't care,



You have already agree on this. You did explicitly agree that if two  
computers, localized in two different places, but numerically  
(digitally) identical, and running the same program, would not, in  
case they emulate a "conscious program", allow to that consciousness  
to be able to localize itself. I am not saying more. You cannot know  
by introspective means if you are run by a program executed on Planet  
Earth, or in some physical Boltzman brain, or in some arithmetical  
computations.
Then it is easy to understand that if you want to predict your first  
person experience, you will need to take into account all possible  
continuations.







I just want to know one thing, can you do better? Do you know "​ 
which machines ​you are​, ​or​ which computations support ​ 
you​ in arithmetic​"?​


Of course not. but we don't need that. That fact is only needed to  
understand how to extract physics from elementary arithmetic.







> I am a machine, in the strong computationalist sense, entails that  
neither the physical reality,nor the bio-psycho-theo-logical ​

​reality can be 100% computable.


Make up your mind! First you say​ ​"​Actually,  
computationalism  implies it" then you say it doesn't.


I only say that if my consciousness can survives with a physical  
digital brain transplant (the computationalist assumption) then  
neither my consciousness nor any piece of matter is Turing emulable.  
You need to take into account the FPI of course(*). You cannot write a  
program which emulates the whole universal dovetailing in a finite  
time, and that would be needed to emulate any piece of matter. To  
understand this requires of course to get the step 3 of the UDA.  It  
looks you have to succeed in explaining what you don't understand in  
step 3, which you have not yet succeed in explaining.


Then you seem to believe in a primary physical universe, but when  
doing science, especially metaphysics/theology, we can't invoke a  
deity to invalidate or validate any argument.


Bruno

(*) FPI is for First personal indeterminacy. UDA is for Universal  
Dovetailer argument.







​ 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 

Re: Fermi Paradox defined and solved (in 15 minutes)

[Telmo Menezes]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 1:16 AM,   wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:29:56 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 3:58:07 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 2:47:40 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:


 I know a good deal about physics and a good deal about people's tendency
 to prevaricate.  I see no reason to set any of that aside.  If I did my 
 bank
 account would be full of Nigerian money.

 Brent
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't expect you to set anything aside. All I asked is for an
>>> open-minded assessment of their credibility, but I see that's too much to
>>> expect. AG
>>
>>
>> I only watched the first few minutes of the video. It became apparent to
>> me where it was going and frankly it seemed like a waste of time. I have no
>> idea why the witnesses, or claimed witnesses?, made these statements. I
>> can't comment on that. All I can say is the evidence for this seems
>> circumstantial, incomplete and not controlled. Oh yeah, I have been to the
>> UFO museum in Roswell; it is a bit of a hoot.
>>
>> LC
>
>
> Lying by human beings is the exception, not the rule. So six witnesses lying
> is hugely improbable. But to think about that, to really think about it, is
> dangerous to some emotional status quo. I've tried this experiment before,
> always with the same result, except for my friend who works for US military
> intelligence. AG

In 13 October 1917, in Fatima, Portugal, 3 to 4 people claim
to have witnessed the sun dancing in the sky, following the reported
apparition of Virgin Mary to three children.
The probability of all these people lying is astronomically low. Does
that lead you to conclude that the sun danced in the sky on that day?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun

Telmo.

> --
> 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.