Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 09:13:34PM -0700, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.
> 
> I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field
> equations.  I know that he insisted on them being tensor equations
> so that they would have the same form in all coordinate systems. 
> That may sound like a mathematical technicality, but it is really
> to ensure that the things in the equation, the tensors, could have
> a physical interpretation.  He also limited himself to second 
> order
> differentials, probably as a matter of simplicity.  And he 
> excluded
> torsion, but I don't know why.  And of course he knew it had to
> reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> Here's a link which might help;
> 
>  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf
> 
> AG
> 
> 
> I'm coming to the view that what I have been seeking these many years -
> namely, a mathematical derivation of Einstein's field equations, somewhat
> like a mathematical theorem -- doesn't exist. It's more a case of a set of
> highly subtle physical intuitions about how the universe functions, which,
> when cobbled together, result in the field equations. For this reason, 
> most
> alleged explanations of GR involve, at some point, essentially pulling the
> field equations out of the proverbial hat.  As with the Principle of
> Relativity and the Least Action Principle, the latter say applied to
> asserting geodesic motion for freely falling bodies, they're not provable
> as "true", but assuming them "false" would be a dead-end for physics and
> would, as well, make our lives miserable. AG
> 
> 
> One possible exception to the above is the Einstein-Hilbert Principle of Least
> Action, from which, it is alleges, Einstein's field equations can be derived.
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action
> 
> But what it is, and how it would work, is above my pay grade. Maybe someone
> here can shed some light on this topic. 
> 
> AG

Roy Frieden has a derivation of Einstein's field equations from his
Fisher information principle - sorry its above my pay grade too, so
don't ask me to explain, but it could be related to you Hilbert action
derivation.


@Book{Frieden98,
  author =   {B. Roy Frieden},
  title ={Physics from Fisher Information: a unification},
  publisher ={Cambridge UP},
  year = 1998,
  address =  {Cambridge}
}

-- 


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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 8:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:




On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:

Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.

I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field
equations.  I know that he insisted on them being tensor
equations so that they would have the same form in all
coordinate systems.  That may sound like a mathematical
technicality, but it is really to ensure that the things in
the equation, the tensors, could have a physical
interpretation.  He also limited himself to second order
differentials, probably as a matter of simplicity.  And he
excluded torsion, but I don't know why.  And of course he knew
it had to reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.

Brent


Here's a link which might help;

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf


AG


I'm coming to the view that what I have been seeking these many years 
- namely, a mathematical derivation of Einstein's field equations, 
somewhat like a mathematical theorem -- doesn't exist. It's more a 
case of a set of highly subtle physical intuitions about how the 
universe functions, which, when cobbled together, result in the field 
equations. For this reason, most alleged explanations of GR involve, 
at some point, essentially pulling the field equations out of the 
proverbial hat.  As with the Principle of Relativity and the Least 
Action Principle, the latter say applied to asserting geodesic motion 
for freely falling bodies, they're not provable as "true", but 
assuming them "false" would be a dead-end for physics and would, as 
well, make our lives miserable. AG


As in all science, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 9:20:36 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.
>>>
>>> I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field equations.  I 
>>> know that he insisted on them being tensor equations so that they would 
>>> have the same form in all coordinate systems.  That may sound like a 
>>> mathematical technicality, but it is really to ensure that the things in 
>>> the equation, the tensors, could have a physical interpretation.  He also 
>>> limited himself to second order differentials, probably as a matter of 
>>> simplicity.  And he excluded torsion, but I don't know why.  And of course 
>>> he knew it had to reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Here's a link which might help;
>>
>>  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf
>>
>> AG
>>
>
> I'm coming to the view that what I have been seeking these many years - 
> namely, a mathematical derivation of Einstein's field equations, somewhat 
> like a mathematical theorem -- doesn't exist. It's more a case of a set of 
> highly subtle physical intuitions about how the universe functions, which, 
> when cobbled together, result in the field equations. For this reason, most 
> alleged explanations of GR involve, at some point, essentially pulling the 
> field equations out of the proverbial hat.  As with the Principle of 
> Relativity and the Least Action Principle, the latter say applied to 
> asserting geodesic motion for freely falling bodies, they're not provable 
> as "true", but assuming them "false" would be a dead-end for physics and 
> would, as well, make our lives miserable. AG
>

One possible exception to the above is the Einstein-Hilbert Principle of 
Least Action, from which, it is alleges, Einstein's field equations can be 
derived.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action

But what it is, and how it would work, is above my pay grade. Maybe someone 
here can shed some light on this topic. 

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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Very interesting.  Thanks.

Brent

On 4/18/2019 7:08 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

Here's a link which might help;

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf

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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 4:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:34:26AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:


On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 For
 instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
 a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.

 Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, 
when nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough 
observation abilities?


What makes the Mars Rover a machine is that it can act and react to its
environment.  If it's an AI Rover it can learn and plan and reflect.  To invoke
an "observer" is just push the problem away to "What is an observer?"

To not recognise the observer is simply to put the problem under a
rug. Without an interpretation that voltages in excess of 3V represent
1, and voltages less than 2V represent 0, the logic circuits are just
analogue electrical circuits. Without such an interpretation (and
ipso facto an observer), the rover is not processing data at all!


No.  That's the point of the environment.  Acting in the environment 
provides purpose and meaning to all that stuff.  Just think of how you, 
if you were an observer, would estimate whether are not the Rover was 
intelligent?  was self-aware?




Note an observer need be nothing more than a mapping of physical space
to semantic space. One possibility is to bootstrap the observer by
self-reflection.


So you think the Rover will interpret data if some other AI consults 
it's dictionary and nominates what it sees as "A Mars Rover"???


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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:08:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.
>>
>> I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field equations.  I 
>> know that he insisted on them being tensor equations so that they would 
>> have the same form in all coordinate systems.  That may sound like a 
>> mathematical technicality, but it is really to ensure that the things in 
>> the equation, the tensors, could have a physical interpretation.  He also 
>> limited himself to second order differentials, probably as a matter of 
>> simplicity.  And he excluded torsion, but I don't know why.  And of course 
>> he knew it had to reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Here's a link which might help;
>
>  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf
>
> AG
>

I'm coming to the view that what I have been seeking these many years - 
namely, a mathematical derivation of Einstein's field equations, somewhat 
like a mathematical theorem -- doesn't exist. It's more a case of a set of 
highly subtle physical intuitions about how the universe functions, which, 
when cobbled together, result in the field equations. For this reason, most 
alleged explanations of GR involve, at some point, essentially pulling the 
field equations out of the proverbial hat.  As with the Principle of 
Relativity and the Least Action Principle, the latter say applied to 
asserting geodesic motion for freely falling bodies, they're not provable 
as "true", but assuming them "false" would be a dead-end for physics and 
would, as well, make our lives miserable. 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:53:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
> Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.
>
> I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field equations.  I 
> know that he insisted on them being tensor equations so that they would 
> have the same form in all coordinate systems.  That may sound like a 
> mathematical technicality, but it is really to ensure that the things in 
> the equation, the tensors, could have a physical interpretation.  He also 
> limited himself to second order differentials, probably as a matter of 
> simplicity.  And he excluded torsion, but I don't know why.  And of course 
> he knew it had to reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.
>
> Brent
>

Here's a link which might help;

 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05752.pdf

AG

>
> On 4/18/2019 7:59 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:16:45 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>> *I see no new text in this message. AG*
>>
>  
> Brent; if you have time, please reproduce the text you intended. 
>
> I recall reading that before Einstein published his GR paper, he used a 
> trial and error method to determine the final field equations (as he raced 
> for the correct ones in competition with Hilbert, who may have arrived at 
> them first).  So it's hard to imagine a mathematical methodology which 
> produces them. If you have any articles that attempt to explain how the 
> field equations are derived, I'd really like to explore this aspect of GR 
> and get some "satisfaction". I can see how he arrived at some principles, 
> such as geodesic motion, by applying the Least Action Principle, or how he 
> might have intuited that matter/energy effects the geometry of spacetime, 
> but from these principles it's baffling how he arrived at the field 
> equations. 
>
> AG
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2019 5:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
>> space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative 
>> at that 
>> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>>
>>
>> Sort of.  
>>
>
>
> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
> system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So 
> spacetime has 
> a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
> generally 
> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the 
> region around 
> that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
> space at 
> that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its 
> derivative as zero 
> at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG
>
>
> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
> Riemannian space.
>
> Brent
>

 But isn't it weird 

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Sorry, I don't remember what, if anything, I intended to text.

I'm not expert on how Einstein arrived at his famous field equations.  I 
know that he insisted on them being tensor equations so that they would 
have the same form in all coordinate systems. That may sound like a 
mathematical technicality, but it is really to ensure that the things in 
the equation, the tensors, could have a physical interpretation.  He 
also limited himself to second order differentials, probably as a matter 
of simplicity.  And he excluded torsion, but I don't know why.  And of 
course he knew it had to reproduce Newtonian gravity in the weak/slow limit.


Brent

On 4/18/2019 7:59 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:16:45 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:


*I see no new text in this message. AG*

Brent; if you have time, please reproduce the text you intended.

I recall reading that before Einstein published his GR paper, he used 
a trial and error method to determine the final field equations (as he 
raced for the correct ones in competition with Hilbert, who may have 
arrived at them first).  So it's hard to imagine a mathematical 
methodology which produces them. If you have any articles that attempt 
to explain how the field equations are derived, I'd really like to 
explore this aspect of GR and get some "satisfaction". I can see how 
he arrived at some principles, such as geodesic motion, by applying 
the Least Action Principle, or how he might have intuited that 
matter/energy effects the geometry of spacetime, but from these 
principles it's baffling how he arrived at the field equations.


AG



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/17/2019 5:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM
UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM
UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59
PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at
5:48:23 AM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019
at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11,
2019 at 7:12:17 PM
UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53
PM,
agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Thursday, April
11, 2019 at
4:37:39 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019
1:58 PM,
agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:





He might
have
been
referring
to a
transformation
to a
tangent
space
where
the
metric
tensor
  

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:17:59AM -0700, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
wrote:
> What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to
> implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a
> machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to have another
> part (A B C) which would contain the "self model". But this would be an extra
> part of the "self" which would be needed to be included in the "self model" in
> order to actually have a "self model", so you would need another part (A B C 
> (A
> B C)). But then again you would need to include this part as well in the "self
> model". So you will get to infinite regress. Therefore, you need a special 
> kind
> of entity to obtained the desired effect without getting into infinite 
> regress.
> And that's precisely why the self-reference that I'm talking about in the book
> is unformalizable. And as you say, being unformalizable, allows for
> bootstrapping consciousness into existence. You cannot simulate self-reference
> just by playing around with atoms. Self-reference just is. It just is the
> source of the entire existence. Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of
> existence. You can never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning,
> purpose, free will, memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by
> playing around with a bunch of atoms. All these properties of consciousness 
> are
> having their source in the unformalizable self-reference.
> 

The same argument was made in favour of vitalism - before the
structure and mechanics of DNA was discovered.

Self-reference is formalisable. See Löb's theorem.

-- 


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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:34:26AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> For
> instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
> a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.
> 
> Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, 
> when nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough 
> observation abilities?
> 
> 
> What makes the Mars Rover a machine is that it can act and react to its
> environment.  If it's an AI Rover it can learn and plan and reflect.  To 
> invoke
> an "observer" is just push the problem away to "What is an observer?"

To not recognise the observer is simply to put the problem under a
rug. Without an interpretation that voltages in excess of 3V represent
1, and voltages less than 2V represent 0, the logic circuits are just
analogue electrical circuits. Without such an interpretation (and
ipso facto an observer), the rover is not processing data at all!

Note an observer need be nothing more than a mapping of physical space
to semantic space. One possibility is to bootstrap the observer by
self-reflection.


-- 


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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[PGC]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 3:56:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> The puzzle is that if one looks at the literal SM formula shown here:
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
>
>
> It is somehow justified by the data, and some theoretical ideas, in the 
> book by Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli: Non Commutative Geometry, 
> Quantum Filed and Motives. That is page 167 of that book, and I am not up 
> there. 
> Yet, the main ideas are rather well explained in the more readable book by 
> Vic. Stenger.
>
>
> Unfortunately, even if the correct universal quantum field theory is 
> successfully extracted from the elementary arithmetic of the prime number, 
> or other sort of numbers, that would still be not quite satisfactory, for a 
> computationalist, because that theory should still be extracted from 
> arithmetic through the mathematics of arithmetical self-reference to get 
> right the distinctions and the relations between the first person plural 
> quanta and the first person singular quanta, beyond to get right the reason 
> of the physical observations existence.
>

Point taken Russell but I don't believe in age yet ;-). Concerning the 
statement quoted above: Why not reach out to Alain or his followers, get 
together with all the heavy Georgian and Russian folk, Block Esakia 
followers, Brent, Russell, Bruno, Telmo kicking ass, and after everybody 
wrestles to grok the other sides somewhat, see what happens? Maybe the 
thing will prove intractable for the time being or it won't. We never know 
until we try so why not just do that? Sitting around typing and crying 
about it for years won't clarify that: people could. Good faith, proper 
organization, appropriate resources could. PGC  

-- 
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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 05:31:06AM -0700, PGC wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:53:36 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
> 
> The physics of Game of Thrones
> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-
> tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
> 
> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical
> universe. That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist
> hypothesis, but even if that is the case, such an u (and of course
> all the u’ such that phi_u = phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived
> from elementary arithmetic, if mechanism is correct. 
> 
> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would 
> make
> our substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain”
> possible would be the entire physical universe. In that case, most
> of our biology and physics would be false. It is such a weakening
> of Mechanism, that it would make Mechanism wrong FAPP,
> contradicting all the evidences that we have for Mechanism, like
> evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in another number?
> 
> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
> 
> 
> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining
> (every)thing.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.
> 
> 
> I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then
> it has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).
> 
> 
> Prove this exclusive status.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>      
>      https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-
> model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
> 
> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of 
> elementary
> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language
> of Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}.
> 
> 
> Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.
> 
> How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that
> the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How,
> and why is explained in most of my papers.
> 
> 
> Which by now have achieved status of original research, right?
> 
> With everybody cited in it that's dead and their eternal peer support (where 
> we
> are not physicalists, but instead the spiritual-imaterial brothers of Einstein
> and Gödel, kissed by god's gift of the only original contribution on a planet
> full of idiots), I think folks wouldn't do terribly by taking the status of
> "explained" with a grain of salt.
> 
> If things were so clear, why would it require an infinite or 20-year amount of
> posting to justify? Infinite oracle shit is easy, but what you miss for years
> in the catholic "seriousness" dependence of having fundamental certainty in 
> our
> status as Gödel's progeny and architect of the future of science, is that
> support and resources can be obtained from exactly such infinite oracle
> activity. Imagine having poured just a fraction of the 20 year posting oracle
> activity into reaching out to others on their own terms, visiting some
> conferences, and therefore creating funding and peer support for fundamental
> research in less bounded ways.
> 
> Over the years, it becomes more and more evident as I peruse these lists that
> you appear to have little to no genuine interest for fundamental research.. in
> the sense of the kind of seriousness that is willing to absorb genuine risk 
> and
> indeterminacy with people and peers not content to stare into screens and 
> split
> rhetorical hairs. People can improvise with that indeterminacy, and guess 
> what?
> Sometimes they improvise less wrong. PGC
> 

To be fair, in the contemporary crowded and noisy scientific
marketplace of ideas, you do have to continously bang on about your
ideas in order not to be drowned out. It shocked me that I constantly
had to repeat myself, as things that I had realised decades ago are
still widely misunderstood.

One might ask what developments have occurred since Bruno submitted
his thesis (I recall there's been one or two, but not many). The most
fertile period of a scientist's life tends to be eir 20s and 30s,
and none of us are spring chickens any more, which might 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 3:52 AM, smitra wrote:

On 18-04-2019 03:29, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List wrote:


But how complete must the self-model be.


That is the 64 million dollar question.


As Bruno has pointed out, it can't
be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house 
keeping"self-knowledge,
like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, 
time,...


I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to
recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like
itself.

Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them 
learning and
planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation 
which
included some representation of themself; but that representation 
might be
very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan 
includes a

representation of yourself, but probably only as a location.



Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather
simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might
have some sort of consciousness.




There exists at least a "minimal system" comprising of the rover and 
perhaps controllers on Earth that makes the rover capable of taking in 
random information from its environment, interpret it and then take 
whatever action is necessary to make sure it is able to stay clear of 
trouble while performing certain tasks. The action it needs to take to 
stay clear of trouble implicitly contains information about itself. Of 
all the possible physical states the rover can be in, most correspond 
to the rover being in a totally broken down state. Then there are also 
ideal states and not so ideal states. The rover (with the aid of 
controllers) is programmed to take action to prevent it from drifting 
away to a less than ideal state and if it is in a less than ideal 
state, it will take action to try to get back into a more ideal state.


Pretty much like a bacterium, that was programmed by evolution.

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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 3:34 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no 
robot there, there are just a bunch of atoms


I thought you didn't believe in atoms.  I look forward to your 
construction of atoms from consciousness of...what?  atoms?


Brent

that bang into each others. You can move those atoms around all day 
long as you want. You will not create self-reference or "self models" 
or "imaginations of itself". These are just concepts that exist in the 
mind of the "researchers" and the "researchers" not getting outside of 
the lab too often, start to believe their own fantasies.


On Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:11:09 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:


*Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*

--
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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:56:54 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:53:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
>>>
>>> *The physics of Game of Thrones*
>>>
>>> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
>>>
>>> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. 
>>> That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if 
>>> that is the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = 
>>> phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if 
>>> mechanism is correct. 
>>>
>>> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our 
>>> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would 
>>> be the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and 
>>> physics would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would 
>>> make Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for 
>>> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> in another number?
>>>
>>> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining 
>>> (every)thing.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.
>>
>>
>> I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, 
>> then it has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>>  
>>  
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
>>
>> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary 
>> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of 
>> Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}. 
>>
>>
>> Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.
>>
>> How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, 
>> that the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. 
>> How, and why is explained in most of my papers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Why should our SM be the one, and not an alternative SM?
>>
>>
>> Because the sum on all computations is unique. 
>>
>> That is the nice thing with Mechanism. It justifies why there is an 
>> apparent physical universe, having the same law for any universal numbers. 
>> It justify the existence of physics, and its unicity, even if it take the 
>> shape of a mutilverse, or even some multi-multiverses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If every SM equation is possible (not just the one equation above), what 
>> is "explained”?
>>
>>
>> Only one SM equation can be possible (assuming mechanism of course, which 
>> I do all along).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It makes more sense that Lagrangian_{SM} and Logic_{EA} are completely 
>> contingent hypotheses written in languages created by us humans to model 
>> reality.
>>
>>
>> That would identify physics and geography, but with mechanism, we know 
>> already that geography is contingent, where the physical reality is lawful. 
>> Would all material mode of self-reference have collapsed into propositional 
>> calculus, there would be no physical laws, only geographical laws.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The puzzle is that if one looks at the literal SM formula shown here:
>
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png
>
>
> It is somehow justified by the data, and some theoretical ideas, in the 
> book by Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli: Non Commutative Geometry, 
> Quantum Filed and Motives. That is page 167 of that book, and I am not up 
> there. 
> Yet, the main ideas are rather well explained in the more readable book by 
> Vic. Stenger.
>
> But both Alain Connes and Vic Stenger are doing physics, and so they 
> assumes much more than what is permitted when we assume computationalism, 
> where even the starting ideas of Vic Stenger have to be derived from 
> arithmetic (using also the mechanist principle of the invariance of 
> consciousness for some digital functional substitution made at some level).
>
> Now, having said that, it is clear that Alain Connes suspect that equation 
> to be related at least to the arithmetical reality of the prime numbers, 
> and his work is among those work in fundamental physics which illustrates 
> deep relations between physics and number theory.
>
> For a logician, that insight makes sense. Elementary arithmetic is Turing 
> universal, and is thus an acceptable “theory” of Everything. But 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 3:17 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to 
implement "self model" leads to infinite regress.


No.  A "model" is not a complete description, it's a representation of 
some specific aspects.  Your "self-reference" cannot refer to everything 
about yourself...which according to you is a stream of consciousness.


Brent

Because let's say that a machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self 
model" would mean to have another part (A B C) which would contain the 
"self model". But this would be an extra part of the "self" which 
would be needed to be included in the "self model" in order to 
actually have a "self model", so you would need another part (A B C (A 
B C)). But then again you would need to include this part as well in 
the "self model". So you will get to infinite regress. Therefore, you 
need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect without 
getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the 
self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable. 
And as you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping 
consciousness into existence. You cannot simulate self-reference just 
by playing around with atoms. Self-reference just is. It just is the 
source of the entire existence. Is not up to anyone to simulate the 
source of existence. You can never obtain the properties of 
consciousness (meaning, purpose, free will, memory, intelligence, 
learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around with a bunch of atoms. 
All these properties of consciousness are having their source in the 
unformalizable self-reference.


On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:

each consciousness bootstraps its own
meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self
model in
its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I
would
extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.

--
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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 2:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.

It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. 
That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even 
if that is the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that 
phi_u = phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived from elementary 
arithmetic, if mechanism is correct.


But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make 
our substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” 
possible would be the entire physical universe. In that case, most of 
our biology and physics would be false. It is such a weakening of 
Mechanism, that it would make Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all 
the evidences that we have for Mechanism, like evolution, molecular 
biology or quantum physics.


That is one of my reservations about your theory, that it requires the 
substitution level to take into account the environment. Not the whole 
universe, but representative local sample of the universe.  It wouldn't 
make our biology and physics false, but it might make them what we call 
"effective theories" in physics, i.e. not fundamental in the 
metaphysical sense but approximations to an unknown fundamental theory 
that is effective in the domain where we can test it.


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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

I see you are of the scholastic school of philosophers (I thought they 
were all dead) who suppose that they can make things true by giving them 
"precise definitions" in words.  You should study some science and learn 
the importance of operational definitions in connecting words to facts.


Brent

On 4/18/2019 2:43 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
I think that you are making the classical confusion that a lot of 
materialists are doing, namely to not have a proper understanding of 
precise philosophical concepts, such as: meaning, purpose, free will, 
etc., and because of this lack of understanding, you randomly apply 
these concepts where they don't belong. Basically what you are doing 
is to personify objects. You basically say: "look, that puppet looks 
like a human, so it must be a human". Therefore, I would ask from you 
and other people that make such hastily use of these precise 
philosophical concepts, to do some reading before engaging in such 
conversations, because otherwise you will think that you say profound 
things, when in fact you only demonstrate a shallow understanding of 
serious concepts, which is a pity, because you lower the level of the 
discussion.


So:

1) Rover doesn't have purpose, since purpose is represented by a 
thinking that a consciousness is doing through which it bring thoughts 
in his mind and uses free will to choose between those possibilities. 
Also, the very concept of "artificial intelligence" is highly flawed, 
because intelligence (the natural one, the only one that exists) 
presupposes bringing new qualia into existence that never existed 
before in the whole universe. A deterministic system cannot do that. 
Rover doesn't have the ability to act, since act means a consciousness 
that through free will imposes its causal powers upon the world. Rover 
doesn't communicate, because communication means to exchange meaning, 
and meaning is something that exists in consciousness. Sending 0s and 
1s is not communication. Rover has no memory because memory means 
re-experiencing a previously experienced quale. Rover doesn't learn, 
because learning means the ability to re-act certain qualia that have 
been experienced before, and improve upon them.


2) You only make that assertion from your position of lack of 
knowledge. You have no knowledge of a whole field of study, and 
because you lack this knowledge, you assume that other people are 
lacking it as well.


As you can see, you are trying to engage in a discussion in which you 
have total lack of knowledge of basic concepts. With all due respect, 
I would suggest you first do some serious readings before engaging any 
further in these issues. You can start with my book. It is a very good 
starting place.


On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:43:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote:



On 4/16/2019 11:23 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

1) Well... It might be a very specific arrangement of atoms, but
they are still governed by Newton's Laws. Is not like if you put
them in certain order magic happens and new things start to
appear. It has no memory, no purpose and no ability to act, since
memory, purpose and ability to act are properties of consciousness.

1)

But a Mars Rover with artificial intelligence does have purpose,
to collect and analyze various data.  It has the ability to act,
to travel, to take samples, to communicate.  It has memory of its
purpose, where it's been, and for an AI system, even the ability
to learn.  Yes, no magic happens.  But new things start to appear
just as certain arrangements of atoms are your computer that can
transform and display these symbols but in another arrangement
would be just a lump of metal and plastic.



2) Try removing yourself from the house in the middle of the
winter. You will stop experience warmth, but this doesn't mean
that the quale of warmth is generated by the house.


True.  But something is different about inside and outside the
house that is not ONLY in your consciousness, because others agree
about it and measure it...it's called temperature.



3) I have done the thinking. I don't have to do the experiment to
know it is true.

2)

That's what all the scholastics thought.

Brent



On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:00:14 UTC+3, Brent wrote:

1)
First, that's false.  The Rover is a very specific
arrangement of atoms interacting with a specific
environment.  It has memory, purpose, and the ability to act.

2)

Try removing the phosphate atoms from your brain and see what
you believe...if anything.


Maybe because you think that the brain is just a bunch of
atoms. No, it is now. If you were to measure what the
electrons are doing in the brain, you would see that they
are not moving according to known physics, but they are
being moved by consciousness.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

For
instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.

Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, when 
nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough observation 
abilities?

What makes the Mars Rover a machine is that it can act and react to its 
environment.  If it's an AI Rover it can learn and plan and reflect.  To 
invoke an "observer" is just push the problem away to "What is an observer?"


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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:16:45 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> *I see no new text in this message. AG*
>
 
Brent; if you have time, please reproduce the text you intended. 

I recall reading that before Einstein published his GR paper, he used a 
trial and error method to determine the final field equations (as he raced 
for the correct ones in competition with Hilbert, who may have arrived at 
them first).  So it's hard to imagine a mathematical methodology which 
produces them. If you have any articles that attempt to explain how the 
field equations are derived, I'd really like to explore this aspect of GR 
and get some "satisfaction". I can see how he arrived at some principles, 
such as geodesic motion, by applying the Least Action Principle, or how he 
might have intuited that matter/energy effects the geometry of spacetime, 
but from these principles it's baffling how he arrived at the field 
equations. 

AG

>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2019 5:20 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 5:11:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2019 12:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:02:09 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/17/2019 7:37 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 9:15:40 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 6:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:11 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:10:16 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2019 11:41 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
 wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


>>
> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent 
> space where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative 
> at that 
> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>
>
> Sort of.  
>


 Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate 
 system and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So 
 spacetime has 
 a non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is 
 generally 
 non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the 
 region around 
 that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent 
 space at 
 that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its 
 derivative as zero 
 at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG


 Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a 
 Riemannian space.

 Brent

>>>
>>> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
>>> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test 
>>> particle in 
>>> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
>>>
>>> It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces 
>>> on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space 
>>> coordinates.  
>>> The transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local 
>>> free-fall 
>>> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting 
>> on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an 
>> external 
>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent 
>> plane 
>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime 
>> points. If 
>> this is true, it's 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 14:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 
> 
> I: Information
> E: Experience 
> M: Matter 
> 
> Some think selfhood can be made of pure-I; others think pure-E.
> 
> Most modern materialists think I-type M is enough.
> But experiential materialists think it's (E+I)-type M.
> 
> The ancient materialist Epicurus thought there were physical (I) and 
> psychical (E) atoms, so he was already an experiential materialist.


But we have not found (primitively) psychical atoms.

Nor do we have really found serious evidence for (primitively) material atoms. 

A case could be made that the fermions are material atoms, and the boson would 
be the psychical atoms, but that would be a sort of abuse of words, as both 
notions are well defined third or first  person sharable, and adding mind to 
them seems arbitrary, and does not seem to lead to testable conclusions, nor to 
explain anything. 

And, as I said, to introduce unintelligible axioms to allow oneself to feel 
“superior” (in this case: conscious) to some other creature is a bit 
frightening, as racism proceeds in a similar way.

Bruno





> 
> - pt
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
> The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are tricking 
> themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot there, 
> there are just a bunch of atoms that bang into each others. You can move 
> those atoms around all day long as you want. You will not create 
> self-reference or "self models" or "imaginations of itself". These are just 
> concepts that exist in the mind of the "researchers" and the "researchers" 
> not getting outside of the lab too often, start to believe their own 
> fantasies.
>  
> On Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:11:09 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:33:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 09:11, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 8:29:25 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > But how complete must the self-model be.  
>> 
>> That is the 64 million dollar question. 
>> 
>> > As Bruno has pointed out, it can't 
>> > be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house keeping"self-knowledge, 
>> > like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, 
>> > time,... 
>> 
>> I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to 
>> recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like 
>> itself. 
>> 
>> > Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning 
>> > and 
>> > planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation which 
>> > included some representation of themself; but that representation might be 
>> > very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan includes 
>> > a 
>> > representation of yourself, but probably only as a location. 
>> > 
>> 
>> Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather 
>> simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might 
>> have some sort of consciousness. 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>>  
>> 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 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> "self reference" has been long been a subject of AI, programming language 
>> theory (program reflection), theorem provers (higher-order logic).
>> 
>> I haven't seen yet what Hod Lipson has done
>> 
>> Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself
>> January 30, 2019 / Columbia Engineering
>> https://engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/lipson-self-aware-machines 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> but here is an interview with another researcher:
>> 
>> 
>> The Unavoidable Problem of Self-Improvement in AI: An Interview with Ramana 
>> Kumar, Part 1
>> March 19, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
>> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/19/the-unavoidable-problem-of-self-improvement-in-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-1/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> The Problem of Self-Referential Reasoning in Self-Improving AI: An Interview 
>> with Ramana Kumar, Part 2
>> March 21, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
>> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/21/the-problem-of-self-referential-reasoning-in-self-improving-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-2/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To break this down a little, in essence, theorem provers are computer 
>> programs that assist with the development of mathematical correctness 
>> proofs. These mathematical correctness proofs are the highest safety 
>> standard in the field, showing that a computer system always produces the 
>> correct output (or response) for any given input. Theorem provers create 
>> such proofs by using the formal methods of mathematics to prove or disprove 
>> the “correctness” of the control algorithms underlying a system. HOL theorem 
>> provers, in particular, are a family of interactive theorem proving systems 
>> that facilitate the construction of theories in higher-order logic. 
>> Higher-order logic, which supports quantification over functions, sets, sets 
>> of sets, and more, is more expressive than other logics, allowing the user 
>> to write formal statements at a high level of abstraction.
>> 
>> In retrospect, Kumar states that trying to prove a theorem about multiple 
>> steps of self-reflection in a HOL theorem prover was a massive undertaking. 
>> Nonetheless, he asserts that the team took several strides forward when it 
>> comes to grappling with the self-referential problem, noting that they built 
>> “a lot of the requisite infrastructure and got a better sense of what it 
>> would take to prove it and what it would take to build a prototype agent 
>> based on model polymorphism.”
>> 
>> Kumar added that MIRI’s (the Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s) 
>> Logical Inductors could also offer a satisfying version of formal 
>> self-referential reasoning and, consequently, provide a solution to the 
>> self-referential problem.
> 
> Proving makes 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:05, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Before going deeper into analyzing your claims, I would like to know if your 
> concept of machine has free will. Because this is a very important concept 
> for consciousness. If you machine doesn't have free will, then you are not 
> talking about consciousness.

They have as much free will as human (direct consequence of the Mechanist 
assumption).

Now, many people defending, or attacking the notion of free-will, have an 
inconsistent notion of free-will.

So, when I say that machines and humans in particular have free will, I mean 
that they have the ability to make a choice in absence of complete information. 
Free-will relies on the intrinsic “liberty” or “universality” of the universal 
number. The universal number are born with 8 conflicting view of reality, but 
they have a partial control to what happens to them. When they attempt to get 
total control, they loss universality/liberty/free-will.

Bruno




> 
> On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 19:08:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> machine
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:53:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
>>> 
>>> The physics of Game of Thrones
>>> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
>> 
>> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. That 
>> is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if that is 
>> the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = phi_u’ 
>> extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if mechanism is 
>> correct. 
>> 
>> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our 
>> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would be 
>> the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and physics 
>> would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would make 
>> Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for 
>> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> in another number?
>>> 
>>> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
>> 
>> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining (every)thing.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.
> 
> I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then it 
> has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>>  Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>>  
>>  
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary 
>> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of 
>> Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}.
> 
> Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.
> 
> How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that 
> the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How, and 
> why is explained in most of my papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Why should our SM be the one, and not an alternative SM?
> 
> Because the sum on all computations is unique. 
> 
> That is the nice thing with Mechanism. It justifies why there is an apparent 
> physical universe, having the same law for any universal numbers. It justify 
> the existence of physics, and its unicity, even if it take the shape of a 
> mutilverse, or even some multi-multiverses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If every SM equation is possible (not just the one equation above), what is 
>> "explained”?
> 
> Only one SM equation can be possible (assuming mechanism of course, which I 
> do all along).
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> It makes more sense that Lagrangian_{SM} and Logic_{EA} are completely 
>> contingent hypotheses written in languages created by us humans to model 
>> reality.
> 
> That would identify physics and geography, but with mechanism, we know 
> already that geography is contingent, where the physical reality is lawful. 
> Would all material mode of self-reference have collapsed into propositional 
> calculus, there would be no physical laws, only geographical laws.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The puzzle is that if one looks at the literal SM formula shown here:
> 
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png 
> 
> 

It is somehow justified by the data, and some theoretical ideas, in the book by 
Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli: Non Commutative Geometry, Quantum Filed and 
Motives. That is page 167 of that book, and I am not up there. 
Yet, the main ideas are rather well explained in the more readable book by Vic. 
Stenger.

But both Alain Connes and Vic Stenger are doing physics, and so they assumes 
much more than what is permitted when we assume computationalism, where even 
the starting ideas of Vic Stenger have to be derived from arithmetic (using 
also the mechanist principle of the invariance of consciousness for some 
digital functional substitution made at some level).

Now, having said that, it is clear that Alain Connes suspect that equation to 
be related at least to the arithmetical reality of the prime numbers, and his 
work is among those work in fundamental physics which illustrates deep 
relations between physics and number theory.

For a logician, that 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[PGC]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 3:22:18 PM UTC+2, telmo wrote:
>
> Hi Cosmin,
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 08:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> 1) Oh, I'm clearly not making that mistake. When I talk about emergence, I 
> talk about ontological emergence, not the hand-waving epistemic kind that 
> people usually talk about. The emergence that I'm talking about is the 
> emergence of new qualia on top of previously existing qualia. This is what 
> my book is about. So it's the real deal. Alternatively, have a look at my 
> presentation from the Science & Nonduality conference where I talk about 
> The Emergent Structure of Consciousness, where I talk about ontological 
> emergence and I specifically mention to the audience that the epistemic 
> emergence is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ 
> And what realizes the ontological emergence is self-reference through its 
> property of looking-back-at-itself, with looking-back becoming more than 
> itself, like in the cover of the book.
>
>
> Ok, I saw your presentation. We agree on several things, but I don't quite 
> get your qualia emergence idea. The things you describe make sense, for 
> example the dissolution of meaning by repetition, but what makes you think 
> that this is anything more than an observation in the domain of the 
> cognitive sciences? Or, putting it another way, and observation / model on 
> how our cognitive processes work?
>
>
> 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is 
> doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will 
> gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all 
> people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that 
> robots are alive.
>
>
> I don't mean to discourage or attack you in anyway, 
>

Lol, getting the new kids in line with the program, Telmo? What, did 
Twitter get too boring for you? 
 

> but one in a while someone with a book to promote shows up in this mailing 
> list. No problem with me, I have promoted some of my work sometimes. My 
> problem is with "if you read my book...". There are many books to read, 
> please give the main ideas. Then I might read it.
>
>
> 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And 
> they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The 
> "brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
>
> I have no problem with "the brain is just an idea in consciousess". I am 
> not sure if this type of claim can be verified, or if it falls into the 
> category of things we cannot assert, as Bruno would say. I do tend to think 
> privately in those terms.
>

Your certitude on public display always is impressive.
 

>
> So ok, the brain does not exist. It is just a bunch of qualia in 
> consciousness. But this is then true of every single thing! 
>

Holy Moses. 
 

> Again, no problem with this, but also no reason to abandon science. 
>

Yeah, in hands of the proper authorities such as ourselves, science is a 
powerful tool. 

Telmo, grow a pair. Nobody ever told you: you don't have to copy Bruno's. 
Grow your own. PGC
 

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/16/2019 6:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 03:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
> You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric. Every Mars Rover 
> knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, its 
> communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.
 
 I don't agree that the Mars Rover checking "it's own" battery levels is an 
 example of what is meant by self-reference in this type of discussion. The 
 entity "Mars Rover" exists in your mind and mine, but there is no "Mars 
 Rover mind" where it also exists. The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind 
 and mine, and I happen to be an entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity 
 "Telmo" also exists. This is real self-reference.
 
 Or, allow me to invent a programming language where something like this 
 could me made more explicit. Let's say that, in this language, you can 
 define a program P like this:
 
 program P:
  x = 1
  if x == 1:
  print('My variable x s holding the value 1')
 
 The above is the weak form of self-reference that you allude to. It would 
 be like me measuring my arm and noting the result. Oh, my arm is x cm 
 long. But let me show what could me meant instead by real self-reference:
 
 program P:
  if length(P) > 1000:
  print('I am a complicated program')
  else:
  print('I am a simple program')
 
 Do you accept there is a fundamental difference here?
>>> 
>>> I take your point. But I think the difference is only one of degree. In my 
>>> example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology. That 
>>> entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover 
>>> is represented by itself. 
>>> 
>>> I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
>>> self-reference. It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
>>> trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions. The simulation 
>>> must generally include the actor at some level. It's not some mysterious 
>>> property raising up a ghost in the machine.
>> 
>> With self-reference comes also self-modification. The self-replicators of 
>> nature that slowly adapt and complexify, the brain "rewiring itself"... 
>> Things get both weird and generative. I suspect that it goes to the core of 
>> what human intelligence is, and what computer intelligence is not (yet). But 
>> if you say that self-reference has not magic property that explains 
>> consciousness, I agree with you.
> 
> 
> You need some magic, but the magic of the truth of “2+3=5” is enough. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> On consciousness I have nothing interesting to say (no jokes about ever 
>> having had, please :). I think that:
>> 
>> consciousness = existence
> 
> 
> Hmm… That looks like God made it. Or like “it is”.
> 
> Are you OK with the ideas that from the point of view of a conscious entity, 
> consciousness is something:
> 
> Immediately knowable, and indubitable, (in case the machine can reason)
> Non definable, and non provable to any other machine.

I agree. Would this not also apply to the concept of "existance"?

> 
> Then the mathematical theory of self-reference explains why machine will 
> conclude that they are conscious, in that sense. They will know that they 
> know something that they cannot doubt, yet cannot prove to us, or to anyone. 
> And they can understand that they can test mechanism by observation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Existence entails self-referential machines, self-referential evolutionary 
>> processes, the whole shebang. But not the other way around.
> 
> Existence of the natural numbers + the laws of addition and multiplication 
> does that, and also justify what you don’t get any of that with any weaker 
> theory, having less axioms, than Robinson Arithmetic.
> 
> We have to assume numbers if we want just define precisely what a machine is, 
> but we cannot assume a physical universe: that is the price, we have to 
> derive it from arithmetic “seen from inside”.

I agree.

My point is much less sophisticated. It is such a trivial observation that I 
would call it a Lapalissade. And yet, in out current culture, you risk being 
considered insance for saying it:

Our first-person experience of the world is what exists, as far as we know. 
Everything else is a model, including the third-person view. There was no Big 
Bang at the same ontological level that there is a blue pen in my desk, because 
the Big Bang is nobody's experience (or is it?). The Big Bang is something that 
the machine has to answer if you ask it certain questions. As you say, if the 
machine is consistent then the big bang is "true" in a sense, if 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

Hi Cosmin,

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 08:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> 1) Oh, I'm clearly not making that mistake. When I talk about emergence, I 
> talk about ontological emergence, not the hand-waving epistemic kind that 
> people usually talk about. The emergence that I'm talking about is the 
> emergence of new qualia on top of previously existing qualia. This is what my 
> book is about. So it's the real deal. Alternatively, have a look at my 
> presentation from the Science & Nonduality conference where I talk about The 
> Emergent Structure of Consciousness, where I talk about ontological emergence 
> and I specifically mention to the audience that the epistemic emergence is 
> false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ 
> And what realizes the ontological emergence is self-reference through its 
> property of looking-back-at-itself, with looking-back becoming more than 
> itself, like in the cover of the book.

Ok, I saw your presentation. We agree on several things, but I don't quite get 
your qualia emergence idea. The things you describe make sense, for example the 
dissolution of meaning by repetition, but what makes you think that this is 
anything more than an observation in the domain of the cognitive sciences? Or, 
putting it another way, and observation / model on how our cognitive processes 
work?

> 
> 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is 
> doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will 
> gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all 
> people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that robots 
> are alive.

I don't mean to discourage or attack you in anyway, but one in a while someone 
with a book to promote shows up in this mailing list. No problem with me, I 
have promoted some of my work sometimes. My problem is with "if you read my 
book...". There are many books to read, please give the main ideas. Then I 
might read it.

> 
> 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And they 
> start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The "brain" 
> is just an idea in consciousness.

I have no problem with "the brain is just an idea in consciousess". I am not 
sure if this type of claim can be verified, or if it falls into the category of 
things we cannot assert, as Bruno would say. I do tend to think privately in 
those terms.

So ok, the brain does not exist. It is just a bunch of qualia in consciousness. 
But this is then true of every single thing! Again, no problem with this, but 
also no reason to abandon science. The machine doesn't exist either, but its 
elections (that don't exist either) follow a certain pattern of behavior that 
we call the laws of physics. Why not the electrons in the brain? What's the 
difference?

Telmo.

> 
> On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:06:45 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 18:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>>> Because Rover is just a bunch of atoms. Is nothing more than the sum of 
>>> atoms. But in the case of self-reference/emergence, each new level is more 
>>> than the sum of the previous levels. 
>> 1)
> 
>> 
>> I disagree. My position on this is that people are tricked into thinking 
>> that emergence has some ontological status, when if fact it is just an 
>> epistemological tool. We need to think in higher-order structures to 
>> simplify things (organisms, organs, mean-fields, cells, ant colonies, 
>> societies, markets, etc), but a Jupiter-brain could keep track of every 
>> entity separately and apprehend the entire thing at the same time. Emergence 
>> is a mental shortcut.
>> 
>> Self-reference is another matter (pun was accidental).
>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't know how you can trick yourself so badly into believing that if you 
>>> put some rocks together, the rocks become alive. Maybe because you think 
>>> that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it is now. If you were to 
>>> measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, you would see that they 
>>> are not moving according to known physics, but they are being moved by 
>>> consciousness.
>> 2)
>> 
>> 
>> For me, this is yet another version of "God did it". There is no point in 
>> attempting to explain some complex behavior if the explanation is even more 
>> complex and mysterious.
>> 
>>> And this doesn't happen in a machine. In a machine, electrons move 
>>> according to known physics.
>> 
>> 3)
>> 
>> These are fairly extraordinary claims. Do you have any empirical data to 
>> support them?
>> 
>> Telmo.
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:25:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 How can you argue that Rover has no knowledge, when you say that knowledge 
 is not formalisable?
 
 Introducing some fuzziness to claim a negative thing about a relation of 
 the type consciousness/machine is a bit frightening. It reminds the 
 catholic 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

There are 

I: Information
E: Experience 
M: Matter 

Some think selfhood can be made of pure-I; others think pure-E.

Most modern materialists think I-type M is enough.
But experiential materialists think it's (E+I)-type M.

The ancient materialist Epicurus thought there were physical (I) and 
psychical (E) atoms, so he was already an experiential materialist.

- pt

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 5:34:16 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
> tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot 
> there, there are just a bunch of atoms that bang into each others. You can 
> move those atoms around all day long as you want. You will not create 
> self-reference or "self models" or "imaginations of itself". These are just 
> concepts that exist in the mind of the "researchers" and the "researchers" 
> not getting outside of the lab too often, start to believe their own 
> fantasies.
>  
> On Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:11:09 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> *Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*
>>
>>

-- 
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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[PGC]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:53:36 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
>>
>> *The physics of Game of Thrones*
>>
>> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
>>
>> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. 
>> That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if 
>> that is the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = 
>> phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if 
>> mechanism is correct. 
>>
>> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our 
>> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would 
>> be the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and 
>> physics would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would 
>> make Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for 
>> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> in another number?
>>
>> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
>>
>>
>> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining 
>> (every)thing.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.
>
>
> I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then 
> it has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).
>

Prove this exclusive status.
 

>
>
>
>
>
>  Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>  
>  
> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
>
> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary 
> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of 
> Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}. 
>
>
> Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.
>
> How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that 
> the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How, 
> and why is explained in most of my papers.
>

Which by now have achieved status of original research, right? 

With everybody cited in it that's dead and their eternal peer support 
(where we are not physicalists, but instead the spiritual-imaterial 
brothers of Einstein and Gödel, kissed by god's gift of the only original 
contribution on a planet full of idiots), I think folks wouldn't do 
terribly by taking the status of "explained" with a grain of salt. 

If things were so clear, why would it require an infinite or 20-year amount 
of posting to justify? Infinite oracle shit is easy, but what you miss for 
years in the catholic "seriousness" dependence of having fundamental 
certainty in our status as Gödel's progeny and architect of the future of 
science, is that support and resources can be obtained from exactly such 
infinite oracle activity. Imagine having poured just a fraction of the 20 
year posting oracle activity into reaching out to others on their own 
terms, visiting some conferences, and therefore creating funding and peer 
support for fundamental research in less bounded ways.

Over the years, it becomes more and more evident as I peruse these lists 
that you appear to have little to no genuine interest for fundamental 
research.. in the sense of the kind of seriousness that is willing to 
absorb genuine risk and indeterminacy with people and peers not content to 
stare into screens and split rhetorical hairs. People can improvise with 
that indeterminacy, and guess what? Sometimes they improvise less wrong. PGC

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[smitra]

On 18-04-2019 03:29, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List wrote:


But how complete must the self-model be. 


That is the 64 million dollar question.


As Bruno has pointed out, it can't
be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house 
keeping"self-knowledge,
like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, 
time,...


I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to
recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like
itself.

Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them 
learning and
planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation 
which
included some representation of themself; but that representation 
might be
very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan 
includes a

representation of yourself, but probably only as a location.



Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather
simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might
have some sort of consciousness.




There exists at least a "minimal system" comprising of the rover and 
perhaps controllers on Earth that makes the rover capable of taking in 
random information from its environment, interpret it and then take 
whatever action is necessary to make sure it is able to stay clear of 
trouble while performing certain tasks. The action it needs to take to 
stay clear of trouble implicitly contains information about itself. Of 
all the possible physical states the rover can be in, most correspond to 
the rover being in a totally broken down state. Then there are also 
ideal states and not so ideal states. The rover (with the aid of 
controllers) is programmed to take action to prevent it from drifting 
away to a less than ideal state and if it is in a less than ideal state, 
it will take action to try to get back into a more ideal state.



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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot 
there, there are just a bunch of atoms that bang into each others. You can 
move those atoms around all day long as you want. You will not create 
self-reference or "self models" or "imaginations of itself". These are just 
concepts that exist in the mind of the "researchers" and the "researchers" 
not getting outside of the lab too often, start to believe their own 
fantasies.
 
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:11:09 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*
>
>

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:33:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2019, at 09:11, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 8:29:25 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
>> List wrote: 
>> > 
>> > But how complete must the self-model be.  
>>
>> That is the 64 million dollar question. 
>>
>> > As Bruno has pointed out, it can't 
>> > be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house 
>> keeping"self-knowledge, 
>> > like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, 
>> time,... 
>>
>> I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to 
>> recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like 
>> itself. 
>>
>> > Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning 
>> and 
>> > planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation 
>> which 
>> > included some representation of themself; but that representation might 
>> be 
>> > very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan 
>> includes a 
>> > representation of yourself, but probably only as a location. 
>> > 
>>
>> Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather 
>> simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might 
>> have some sort of consciousness. 
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>  
>>
>> 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 
>>  
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> "self reference" has been long been a subject of AI, programming language 
> theory (program reflection), theorem provers (higher-order logic).
>
> I haven't seen yet what Hod Lipson has done
>
> *Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*
> January 30, 2019 / Columbia Engineering
> https://engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/lipson-self-aware-machines
>
>
> but here is an interview with another researcher:
>
>
> *The Unavoidable Problem of Self-Improvement in AI*: An Interview with 
> Ramana Kumar, Part 1
> March 19, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
>
> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/19/the-unavoidable-problem-of-self-improvement-in-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-1/
>
> *The Problem of Self-Referential Reasoning in Self-Improving AI*: An 
> Interview with Ramana Kumar, Part 2
> March 21, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
>
> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/21/the-problem-of-self-referential-reasoning-in-self-improving-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-2/
>
>
> To break this down a little, in essence, theorem provers are computer 
> programs that assist with the development of mathematical correctness 
> proofs. These mathematical correctness proofs are the highest safety 
> standard in the field, showing that a computer system always produces the 
> correct output (or response) for any given input. Theorem provers create 
> such proofs by using the formal methods of mathematics to prove or disprove 
> the “correctness” of the control algorithms underlying a system. HOL 
> theorem provers, in particular, are a family of interactive theorem proving 
> systems that facilitate the construction of theories in higher-order logic. 
> Higher-order logic, which supports quantification over functions, sets, 
> sets of sets, and more, is more expressive than other logics, allowing the 
> user to write formal statements at a high level of abstraction.
>
> In retrospect, Kumar states that trying to prove a theorem about multiple 
> steps of self-reflection in a HOL theorem prover was a massive undertaking. 
> Nonetheless, he asserts that the team took several strides forward when it 
> comes to grappling with the self-referential problem, noting that they 
> built “a lot of the requisite infrastructure and got a better sense of what 
> it would take to prove it and what it would take to build a prototype agent 
> based on model polymorphism.”
>
> Kumar added that MIRI’s (the Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s) 
> Logical Inductors could also offer a satisfying version of formal 
> self-referential reasoning and, consequently, provide a solution to the 
> self-referential problem.
>
>
> Proving makes sense only in a theory. How could we know that the theory is 
> correct? That is precisely what Gödel and tarski showed to be impossible.
>
> Bruno
>
>
I think Lumar is just part of the "Gödel-Löb logic hacker"  gang (MIT, 
MIRI). They want working code, not "correctness".


cf. Löb’s Theorem
A functional pearl of dependently typed quining
https://people.csail.mit.edu/jgross/personal-website/papers/2016-lob-icfp-2016-draft.pdf

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 

Re: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 4:53:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
>>
>> *The physics of Game of Thrones*
>>
>> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
>>
>>
>>
>> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
>>
>> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. 
>> That is not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if 
>> that is the case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = 
>> phi_u’ extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if 
>> mechanism is correct. 
>>
>> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our 
>> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would 
>> be the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and 
>> physics would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would 
>> make Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for 
>> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> in another number?
>>
>> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
>>
>>
>> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining 
>> (every)thing.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.
>
>
> I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then 
> it has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).
>
>
>
>
>
>  Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>  
>  
> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
>
> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary 
> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of 
> Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}. 
>
>
> Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.
>
> How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that 
> the mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How, 
> and why is explained in most of my papers.
>
>
>
>
> Why should our SM be the one, and not an alternative SM?
>
>
> Because the sum on all computations is unique. 
>
> That is the nice thing with Mechanism. It justifies why there is an 
> apparent physical universe, having the same law for any universal numbers. 
> It justify the existence of physics, and its unicity, even if it take the 
> shape of a mutilverse, or even some multi-multiverses.
>
>
>
>
> If every SM equation is possible (not just the one equation above), what 
> is "explained”?
>
>
> Only one SM equation can be possible (assuming mechanism of course, which 
> I do all along).
>
>
>
>
> It makes more sense that Lagrangian_{SM} and Logic_{EA} are completely 
> contingent hypotheses written in languages created by us humans to model 
> reality.
>
>
> That would identify physics and geography, but with mechanism, we know 
> already that geography is contingent, where the physical reality is lawful. 
> Would all material mode of self-reference have collapsed into propositional 
> calculus, there would be no physical laws, only geographical laws.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
The puzzle is that if one looks at the literal SM formula shown here:

   
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/Screen_Shot_2016-08-03_at_3.20.12_pm.png

what if all the "2"s were changed to "3"s (or any "editing" like that).

One gets from L_{SM(2)}) (the one above) to L_{SM(3)}, where the 2s have 
been replaced by 3s.

Why would L_{SM(2)})  be the "necessary" theory, or could L_{SM(3)} "work" 
as a different physics?

- pt

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to 
implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a 
machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to have 
another part (A B C) which would contain the "self model". But this would 
be an extra part of the "self" which would be needed to be included in the 
"self model" in order to actually have a "self model", so you would need 
another part (A B C (A B C)). But then again you would need to include this 
part as well in the "self model". So you will get to infinite regress. 
Therefore, you need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect 
without getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the 
self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable. And as 
you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping consciousness into 
existence. You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with 
atoms. Self-reference just is. It just is the source of the entire 
existence. Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of existence. You can 
never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning, purpose, free will, 
memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around with a 
bunch of atoms. All these properties of consciousness are having their 
source in the unformalizable self-reference.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> each consciousness bootstraps its own 
> meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in 
> its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would 
> extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.
>

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Before going deeper into analyzing your claims, I would like to know if 
your concept of machine has free will. Because this is a very important 
concept for consciousness. If you machine doesn't have free will, then you 
are not talking about consciousness.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 19:08:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> machine
>
>

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I'm not the only consciousness. There are other consciousnesses as well. 
But that's all that exists: consciousnesses and their interactions. 
Everything else are external appearances of the internal interactions that 
take place between consciousnesses.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:47:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes you say there is no magic involved in your theory.  But then 
> you insist that only you are conscious.  Nothing that is not shaped like 
> Visan, perhaps nothing else at all, can be conscious. Why?  Magic. 
>
> 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: Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Apr 2019, at 15:06, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2019 at 6:39:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 15 Apr 2019, at 11:04, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics
>> 
>> The physics of Game of Thrones
>> https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/
>>  
>> 
> 
> That would be the mistake of Dgital Physics/Physicalism.
> 
> It is like saying that some program u generate the physical universe. That is 
> not entirely excluded from the mechanist hypothesis, but even if that is the 
> case, such an u (and of course all the u’ such that phi_u = phi_u’ 
> extensionally) must be derived from elementary arithmetic, if mechanism is 
> correct. 
> 
> But that can be shown to be not quite plausible, as this would make our 
> substitution level so low that the only “artificial brain” possible would be 
> the entire physical universe. In that case, most of our biology and physics 
> would be false. It is such a weakening of Mechanism, that it would make 
> Mechanism wrong FAPP, contradicting all the evidences that we have for 
> Mechanism, like evolution, molecular biology or quantum physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> in another number?
>> 
>> Or: Is there a a GoT reality?
> 
> Sure there is, but not a fundamental one, capable of explaining (every)thing.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Assume "our physics" is the Standard Model.

I can’t. If that “model” (theory) is the correct fundamental physics, then it 
has to be deduced from arithmetic (and Mechanism).




> 
>  Here it is in a few hundred characters (Lagrangian_{SM}):
>  
>  
> https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of-physics-actually-looks-like
>  
> 
> 
> How does one "derive" this Lagrangian_{SM} from the logic of elementary 
> arithmetic (Logic_{EA}) -- even given the translation of the language of 
> Lagrangians into the language of Logic_{EA}.

Yes, formalising a theory is not the same as deriving it.

How, to derive it? By studying the “material modes of self-reference, that the 
mode of the first person self, or the first person plural self. How, and why is 
explained in most of my papers.




> Why should our SM be the one, and not an alternative SM?

Because the sum on all computations is unique. 

That is the nice thing with Mechanism. It justifies why there is an apparent 
physical universe, having the same law for any universal numbers. It justify 
the existence of physics, and its unicity, even if it take the shape of a 
mutilverse, or even some multi-multiverses.




> If every SM equation is possible (not just the one equation above), what is 
> "explained”?

Only one SM equation can be possible (assuming mechanism of course, which I do 
all along).



> 
> It makes more sense that Lagrangian_{SM} and Logic_{EA} are completely 
> contingent hypotheses written in languages created by us humans to model 
> reality.

That would identify physics and geography, but with mechanism, we know already 
that geography is contingent, where the physical reality is lawful. Would all 
material mode of self-reference have collapsed into propositional calculus, 
there would be no physical laws, only geographical laws.

Bruno




> 
> - pt
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Apr 2019, at 01:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/16/2019 7:56 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com  
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:26:59 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
 
 
 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space 
>>> where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that 
>>> point in spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense?
>> 
>> Sort of. 
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system 
>> and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a 
>> non zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally 
>> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
>> around that point. But applying the EEP, we can  
>>transform to the tangent space at that point to 
>> diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at that 
>> point. Does THIS make sense? AG
> 
> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian 
> space.
> 
> Brent
> 
> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in 
> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
> 
 It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on it, it 
 will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates.  The 
 transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall 
 which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
 
 Brent
 
 In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test 
 particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external 
 observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane 
 at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If 
 this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the 
 gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>>> 
>>> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
>>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious 
>>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference 
>>> frame you get coriolis forces. 
>>> 
>>> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate 
>>> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR 
>>> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of 
>>> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>>> 
>>> Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 
>> 
>> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to  interpret, they 
>> mainly make models. By a model is meant a  mathematical construct which, 
>> with the addition of certain verbal  interpretations, describes observed 
>> phenomena. The justification of  such a mathematical construct is solely and 
>> precisely that it is  expected to work.
>> --—John von Neumann
>> 
>> This is straight out of the "shut up and calculate" school, and I don't 
>> completely buy it. E.g., the Principle of Relativity and Least Action 
>> Principle give strong indications of not only how the universe works, but 
>> why. That is, they're somewhat explanatory in nature. AG
> 
> Fine, then take them as explanations.  But to ask that they be explained is 
> to misunderstand their status.  It's possible that they could be explained; 
> but only by finding a more fundamental theory that includes them as 
> consequences or special cases.  Whatever theory is fundamental cannot have an 
> explanation in the sense you want because then it would not be fundamental.

Indeed. 

And with Mechanism, any Turing-complete theory can be chosen as fundamental, 
because we can’t explain them from less (provably so).

Then, physics becomes a sum on all histories, and the least action principle 
should be derivable from its quantum structure imposed by incompleteness on 
observation (defined by some variant of []p & p).

We cannot explained what we are starting from.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think that you are making the classical confusion that a lot of 
materialists are doing, namely to not have a proper understanding of 
precise philosophical concepts, such as: meaning, purpose, free will, etc., 
and because of this lack of understanding, you randomly apply these 
concepts where they don't belong. Basically what you are doing is to 
personify objects. You basically say: "look, that puppet looks like a 
human, so it must be a human". Therefore, I would ask from you and other 
people that make such hastily use of these precise philosophical concepts, 
to do some reading before engaging in such conversations, because otherwise 
you will think that you say profound things, when in fact you only 
demonstrate a shallow understanding of serious concepts, which is a pity, 
because you lower the level of the discussion.

So:

1) Rover doesn't have purpose, since purpose is represented by a thinking 
that a consciousness is doing through which it bring thoughts in his mind 
and uses free will to choose between those possibilities. Also, the very 
concept of "artificial intelligence" is highly flawed, because intelligence 
(the natural one, the only one that exists) presupposes bringing new qualia 
into existence that never existed before in the whole universe. A 
deterministic system cannot do that. Rover doesn't have the ability to act, 
since act means a consciousness that through free will imposes its causal 
powers upon the world. Rover doesn't communicate, because communication 
means to exchange meaning, and meaning is something that exists in 
consciousness. Sending 0s and 1s is not communication. Rover has no memory 
because memory means re-experiencing a previously experienced quale. Rover 
doesn't learn, because learning means the ability to re-act certain qualia 
that have been experienced before, and improve upon them.

2) You only make that assertion from your position of lack of knowledge. 
You have no knowledge of a whole field of study, and because you lack this 
knowledge, you assume that other people are lacking it as well.

As you can see, you are trying to engage in a discussion in which you have 
total lack of knowledge of basic concepts. With all due respect, I would 
suggest you first do some serious readings before engaging any further in 
these issues. You can start with my book. It is a very good starting place.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:43:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 11:23 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> 1) Well... It might be a very specific arrangement of atoms, but they are 
> still governed by Newton's Laws. Is not like if you put them in certain 
> order magic happens and new things start to appear. It  has no memory, no 
> purpose and no ability to act, since memory, purpose and ability to act are 
> properties of consciousness.
>
> 1)
>
 
>
But a Mars Rover with artificial intelligence does have purpose, to collect 
> and analyze various data.  It has the ability to act, to travel, to take 
> samples, to communicate.  It has memory of its purpose, where it's been, 
> and for an AI system, even the ability to learn.  Yes, no magic happens.  
> But new things start to appear just as certain arrangements of atoms are 
> your computer that can transform and display these symbols but in another 
> arrangement would be just a lump of metal and plastic.
>
>
> 2) Try removing yourself from the house in the middle of the winter. You 
> will stop experience warmth, but this doesn't mean that the quale of warmth 
> is generated by the house.
>
>
> True.  But something is different about inside and outside the house that 
> is not ONLY in your consciousness, because others agree about it and 
> measure it...it's called temperature.
>
>
> 3) I have done the thinking. I don't have to do the experiment to know it 
> is true.
>
> 2)
>
 
>
That's what all the scholastics thought.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:00:14 UTC+3, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> 1)
>> First, that's false.  The Rover is a very specific arrangement of atoms 
>> interacting with a specific environment.  It has memory, purpose, and the 
>> ability to act.
>>
>> 2)
>>
>  
>
>> Try removing the phosphate atoms from your brain and see what you 
>> believe...if anything.
>>
>> Maybe because you think that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it 
>> is now. If you were to measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, 
>> you would see that they are not moving according to known physics, but they 
>> are being moved by consciousness. 
>>
>> 3)
>>
>  
>>
> And have you done this observation?  A Nobel prize awaits.  
>>
>> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 09:11, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 8:29:25 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > But how complete must the self-model be.  
> 
> That is the 64 million dollar question. 
> 
> > As Bruno has pointed out, it can't 
> > be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house keeping"self-knowledge, 
> > like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, time,... 
> 
> I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to 
> recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like 
> itself. 
> 
> > Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning and 
> > planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation which 
> > included some representation of themself; but that representation might be 
> > very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan includes a 
> > representation of yourself, but probably only as a location. 
> > 
> 
> Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather 
> simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might 
> have some sort of consciousness. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  
> 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 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "self reference" has been long been a subject of AI, programming language 
> theory (program reflection), theorem provers (higher-order logic).
> 
> I haven't seen yet what Hod Lipson has done
> 
> Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself
> January 30, 2019 / Columbia Engineering
> https://engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/lipson-self-aware-machines
> 
> 
> but here is an interview with another researcher:
> 
> 
> The Unavoidable Problem of Self-Improvement in AI: An Interview with Ramana 
> Kumar, Part 1
> March 19, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/19/the-unavoidable-problem-of-self-improvement-in-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-1/
> 
> The Problem of Self-Referential Reasoning in Self-Improving AI: An Interview 
> with Ramana Kumar, Part 2
> March 21, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
> https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/21/the-problem-of-self-referential-reasoning-in-self-improving-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-2/
> 
> 
> To break this down a little, in essence, theorem provers are computer 
> programs that assist with the development of mathematical correctness proofs. 
> These mathematical correctness proofs are the highest safety standard in the 
> field, showing that a computer system always produces the correct output (or 
> response) for any given input. Theorem provers create such proofs by using 
> the formal methods of mathematics to prove or disprove the “correctness” of 
> the control algorithms underlying a system. HOL theorem provers, in 
> particular, are a family of interactive theorem proving systems that 
> facilitate the construction of theories in higher-order logic. Higher-order 
> logic, which supports quantification over functions, sets, sets of sets, and 
> more, is more expressive than other logics, allowing the user to write formal 
> statements at a high level of abstraction.
> 
> In retrospect, Kumar states that trying to prove a theorem about multiple 
> steps of self-reflection in a HOL theorem prover was a massive undertaking. 
> Nonetheless, he asserts that the team took several strides forward when it 
> comes to grappling with the self-referential problem, noting that they built 
> “a lot of the requisite infrastructure and got a better sense of what it 
> would take to prove it and what it would take to build a prototype agent 
> based on model polymorphism.”
> 
> Kumar added that MIRI’s (the Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s) 
> Logical Inductors could also offer a satisfying version of formal 
> self-referential reasoning and, consequently, provide a solution to the 
> self-referential problem.

Proving makes sense only in a theory. How could we know that the theory is 
correct? That is precisely what Gödel and tarski showed to be impossible.

Bruno




> 
> 
> - pt 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 03:29, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:
>> 
>> But how complete must the self-model be. 
> 
> That is the 64 million dollar question.

To have consciousness, I put the bar on universality, to simplify. Technically 
the notion of “subcreativity”, or the equivalent notion of self-speedability 
should be enough.

To have self-consciousness, it needs to be Gödel-Löbian, or a reflexive K4 
reasoner, to use Smullyan terminology.



> 
>> As Bruno has pointed out, it can't
>> be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house keeping"self-knowledge,
>> like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, time,...
> 
> I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to
> recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like
> itself.

Again, that is equivalent with being “rich enough” or Löbian, but hat is needed 
to have self-consciousness, to distinguish []p (used to define the belief of 
another machine) and []p & p, needed to “know itself” and assess the difference.

(Brute) consciousness is a simple form of knowledge. Self-consciousness is more 
demanding, it needs the transitive formula ([]p -> [][]p, Smullyan’s awareness 
of self-awareness).

Bruno



> 
>> Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning and
>> planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation which
>> included some representation of themself; but that representation might be
>> very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan includes a
>> representation of yourself, but probably only as a location.
>> 
> 
> Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather
> simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might
> have some sort of consciousness.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

But it has predictions. Is just that it depends what you understand by 
"predictions" at this point. If you understand something like predicting 
the masses of particles from physics, then it doesn't make such a 
prediction. But neither does physics. But on the other hand, it makes 
predictions like the fact that it explains the retentional passage of time. 
Husserl described the fact that time has a retentional structure, but he 
didn't explain why it is like this. In my theory, this is explained. The 
way it is explained is through the fact that time inherits the quality of 
self-reference from the Self and the quality of memory from Memory, so each 
present moment that goes into the past is pushed back into itself as 
present, therefore obtaining the retentional structure of time as described 
by Husserl. This is a big thing!

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:36:07 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand your ToE is like ideal monism.  But it is one thing to 
> assert it.  It is another to derive some predictions from it.
>
> 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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 03:00, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:25:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Rover is conscious, but still dissociated from ‘rover”. But that is just
>> because it has no strong induction axiom, and no way to build approximation 
>> of
>> models of itself. It lack a re-entring neural system rich enough to  manage 
>> the
>> gap between its first person apprehension, and the third person apparent
>> reality around it.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>The entity "Telmo" exists in your mind and mine, and I happen to be an
>>entity "Telmo" in whose mind the entity "Telmo" also exists. This is real
>>self-reference.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree. It is unclear for me if Mars Rover has it, or not, as I have not 
>> seen
>> the code, and even seeing it, it could ba a Helle of a difficulty to prove it
>> has not that ability. I doubt it has it, because Naza does not want a free
>> exploratory on Mars, but a docile slave.
> 
> 
> I do think self-reference has something to do with it, as without an
> observer to give meaning to something, it has no meaning.

The essence of a universal number is to provide meaning, it associates to 
number/code some function, or some truth value if the function is a predicate.

What is the meaning of the number x for the number u? It is phi_x, a function.

(I recall for the others that, when phi_i represents a recursive (computable) 
enumeration of all partial computable functions, a number u is universal means 
that phi_u() = phi_x(y).
 is some computable bijection from NxN to N.



> For
> instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as
> a machine, it is just a pile of atoms.

Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot interpret some of its data on Mars, when 
nobody observed it, or are you saying that Mars Rover has enough observation 
abilities?






> Unless you propose a la Bishop
> Berkley some sort of devine mind from which all meaning radiates,

The universal numbers are divine enough. The (finite) code of a universal 
dovetailer radiates all operational meaning of all codes.




> the
> only other possibility is that each consciousness bootstraps its own
> meaning from self-reference.

That has to be the case for self-consciousness. It is a sort of 
self-self-reference. 



> Unless the mars rover has a self model in
> its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would
> extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.

OK, Rover has no self-consciousness (plausibly), but it has the consciousness 
of the universal machine/number. It is a dissociative state, probably not 
related, in any genuine way, to Mars Rover activity on Mars. It is still a 
baby, and most probably does not distinguish truth from its inner truth.

Bruno



> A more interesting
> possibility is Hod Lipson's "starfish" robot, which has self-reference baked
> in.
> 
> 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.

-- 
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: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 8:29:25 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 06:22:35PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything 
> List wrote: 
> > 
> > But how complete must the self-model be.  
>
> That is the 64 million dollar question. 
>
> > As Bruno has pointed out, it can't 
> > be complete.  Current Mars Rovers have some "house 
> keeping"self-knowledge, 
> > like battery charge, temperature, power draw, next task, location, 
> time,... 
>
> I don't think that's enough. I think it must have the ability to 
> recognise other (perhaps similar) robots/machines as being like 
> itself. 
>
> > Of course current rovers don't have AI which would entail them learning 
> and 
> > planning, which would require that they be able to run a simulation 
> which 
> > included some representation of themself; but that representation might 
> be 
> > very simple.  When you plan to travel to the next city your plan 
> includes a 
> > representation of yourself, but probably only as a location. 
> > 
>
> Hod Lipson's starfish's representation of itself is no doubt rather 
> simple and crude, but it does pose the question of whether it might 
> have some sort of consciousness. 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> 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 
>  
>
>




"self reference" has been long been a subject of AI, programming language 
theory (program reflection), theorem provers (higher-order logic).

I haven't seen yet what Hod Lipson has done

*Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*
January 30, 2019 / Columbia Engineering
https://engineering.columbia.edu/press-releases/lipson-self-aware-machines


but here is an interview with another researcher:


*The Unavoidable Problem of Self-Improvement in AI*: An Interview with 
Ramana Kumar, Part 1
March 19, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/19/the-unavoidable-problem-of-self-improvement-in-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-1/

*The Problem of Self-Referential Reasoning in Self-Improving AI*: An 
Interview with Ramana Kumar, Part 2
March 21, 2019/by Jolene Creighton
https://futureoflife.org/2019/03/21/the-problem-of-self-referential-reasoning-in-self-improving-ai-an-interview-with-ramana-kumar-part-2/


To break this down a little, in essence, theorem provers are computer 
programs that assist with the development of mathematical correctness 
proofs. These mathematical correctness proofs are the highest safety 
standard in the field, showing that a computer system always produces the 
correct output (or response) for any given input. Theorem provers create 
such proofs by using the formal methods of mathematics to prove or disprove 
the “correctness” of the control algorithms underlying a system. HOL 
theorem provers, in particular, are a family of interactive theorem proving 
systems that facilitate the construction of theories in higher-order logic. 
Higher-order logic, which supports quantification over functions, sets, 
sets of sets, and more, is more expressive than other logics, allowing the 
user to write formal statements at a high level of abstraction.

In retrospect, Kumar states that trying to prove a theorem about multiple 
steps of self-reflection in a HOL theorem prover was a massive undertaking. 
Nonetheless, he asserts that the team took several strides forward when it 
comes to grappling with the self-referential problem, noting that they 
built “a lot of the requisite infrastructure and got a better sense of what 
it would take to prove it and what it would take to build a prototype agent 
based on model polymorphism.”

Kumar added that MIRI’s (the Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s) 
Logical Inductors could also offer a satisfying version of formal 
self-referential reasoning and, consequently, provide a solution to the 
self-referential problem.


- pt 

-- 
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.