date:20190605

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> * >Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? *
>

They make laws, force people to pay taxes ,conscript them into their army.
and give people no choice. It sure sounds like a government to me.

> * > Of course under almost all governments it is illegal to kill any
> citizen for pay.  *
>

Solderers are payed by the government and so are the police, and they have
both been known to kill people, sometimes on a industrial scale..

> * > I don't think anarcho-libertarians are, on average, more immune to
> racist, populist fear-mongering that other people.  *
>

I don't either but the morality of anarcho-libertarians has nothing to do
with it. There will be a Private Protection Agency  protecting Jews and if
there is another one that is trying to kill them then the employees of both
agencies will have very dangerous jobs and both will expect to be very well
payed . I maintain that the agency protecting the Jews will  be much better
payed  (and thus it will attract the most skilled warriors) and also they
will be.much better equipped than the agency that would like to kill them
 because the 6 million Jews would be willing to spend everything they have
if needed for protection while the 40 million Germans would not.be willing
to spend everything they had on destruction.

Another good thing is that when its clear that the soldiers on both sides
are just fighting for money then all the current crap associated with war,
like glory duty and heroism , would be diminished and the job of soldiering
would seem no more glorious than being a hedge fund manager on Wall Street.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv21eTNx%2B%2BHPojCXzcyRqA4r0Dhf%3DJTGUr60dkxA1DN51w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Jun 2019, at 17:42, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
>
>> >> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and 
>>> believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I 
>>> have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.
>>
>>
>> *> The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was 
>> clear enough to be shown wrong.*
>>
>
> Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year 
> old technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be 
> flawless was met with derision if not violence. 
>
>
> That is not Aristotle fault, but the fault of abandoning the most 
> fundamental science to “politics”. With the Renaissance, only a part of 
> science has been freed from “authority”.
>
>
>
>
> Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born.  
>
>
> That is hard to refute, or to prove.
>
>
>
>
> *> Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek 
>> neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all 
>> the time, DE FACTO.*
>>
>
> The new total is now (6.02*10^23) *+**2*. 
>
> And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to 
> clear up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said 
> how you do it.
>
> >> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know 
>>> how to do that is with infinity.
>>
>>
>> *>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.*
>>
>
> But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not 
> rotate.
>
>
> How do you know that? We don’t have yet a picture of what is beyond the 
> observable universe, nor do we have even a coherent theory of the physical 
> universe. We have to jewels: QM and GR, but they are insistent when taken 
> together, and both would contradict Mechanism (the hypothesis in cognitive 
> science) if taken as the fundamental theory.
>
> Bruno
>

It is unlikely, or at least if the universe rotates is is very small. A 
rotation frame drags spacetime, and for the Gödel universe that rotates as 
a stationary set of point then for points removed from the spatial center 
this frame dragging becomes enormous. There is even an event horizon 
generated. Also even regions inside the horizon scale have geodesics that 
will time loop, where in fact the only geodesic that will not time loop is 
one passing through the center and normal to the spatial surface. This is 
problematic for the spatial surface at any time can't contain unique Cauchy 
data. 

LC

[image: A-map-of-the-future-lightcones-of-the-Goedel-universe.png]
 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6e796bb-5d97-401a-a977-696dd759d8b7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

2019-06-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 6/5/2019 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM 'Brent Meeker'
> wrote:

/> But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite. /

Historically very few anti Semites, even even rabid anti Semites,
kill Jews or pay someone to kill Jews for them unless they are part
of a government.

Do you call ISIS and Hezbollah governments? Of course under almost all
governments it is illegal to kill any citizen for pay. So to have large
scale killing requires that the government at least look the other way.

/> there are lots of people who will murder jews for free./

There are some but not "lots", and if we're discussing the relative
merits of various political systems it's irrelevantbecause psychoswill
exist in in all of them; the question is what system best protect us
from them. And I just don't see any scenario under
anrcho-libertarianism were it would be possible for 40 million Germans
to murder 6 million Jews.

That's because you can't imagine the anarcho-libertarians being
persuaded the the Jews were plotting against them and were responsible
for all the bad things that had happened to them and were stealing their
money via banking laws, etc. But I don't think anarcho-libertarians
are, on average, more immune to racist, populist fear-mongering that
other people.

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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a434a57-900c-2228-4c79-9f1bd2e95843%40verizon.net.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 10:30 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 *>>>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR
>>> universe.*
>>
>>
>> >>But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does
>> not rotate.
>
>
> *>How do you know that? *
>

The short answer is by looking at the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation. The long answer is::

Scientists confirm the universe has no direction


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1114bTGXoZ4%3DKmS6FE8zRrhFSkjjtxwmVsorJK4F40oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> * > But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite. *
>

Historically very few anti Semites, even even rabid anti Semites,  kill
Jews or pay someone to kill Jews for them unless they are part of a
government.

*> there are lots of people who will murder jews for free. *
>

There are some but not "lots", and if we're discussing the relative merits
of various political systems it's irrelevant because psychos will exist in
in all of them; the question is what system best protect us from them.  And
I just don't see any scenario under anrcho-libertarianism were it would be
possible for 40 million Germans to murder 6 million Jews.

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0zzNsSq3KoEr_8HaiEdo9GPw9t6pcydX%3DSrbCQrtaToA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

2019-06-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:57 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:25:10 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid
>> like vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning
>> that, for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky
>> action at a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan
>> and save a lot of time!
>>
>
> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually
> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR
> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the 
> state
> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever
> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky
> action at a distance"
>
> Bruce
>

 Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time
 symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether
 you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a
 density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect
 solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the
 Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with
 respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still
 not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or
 if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many
 Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables
 measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving.

 LC

>>>
>>>
>>> Retrocausality in effect solves nothing.
>>>
>>> It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds,
>>> non-locality, all the nonsense you read today.
>>>
>>> [If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then
>>> one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic
>>> processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also
>>> how closely the two resemble each other.]
>>> via Rafael Sorkin
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyway, as you know well, I "adopted" the retrocausal view 20 years ago
>> via* Victor J. Stenger,* who pointed of course to Huw Price.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
>
> Just out:
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232330-200-weve-seen-signs-of-a-mirror-image-universe-that-is-touching-our-own/
>
> *We've seen signs of a mirror-image universe that is touching our own.*
> *New experiments are revealing hints of a world and a reality that are
> complete reflections of ours. *
>

You should stop being impressed by bullshit such as this in New Scientist,
Philip -- NS is about as unreliable a science reporting rag as you can get!

Bruce

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQVEFnNKaL%3Dy-uV5rLEgG8Z3wKMKFQy0U2KU0xU--A5Pg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

2019-06-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 6/5/2019 6:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:

/> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the
corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go
about forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set
of laws etc in which they could effectively conduct their
commerce. Of course it would be purely plutocratic, which in ways
is not terribly different from what we currently have,/

In todays world people have no choice where they get their police
protection from, they must purchase it from the government through
taxes. If the police worked for profit making corporations and every
person could choose which corporation to buy police protection from
please explain to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.

About buying police aggression against your competitor/enemy? Remember
when the railroads had their own police.

And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies
following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that
could be resolved. Mostly.

That would work about as well as arbitration between consumers and
corporations.

Brent

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com
.

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a35b04f5-a947-9e5a-dc7d-34467f6e8d92%40verizon.net.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

2019-06-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List








On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes > wrote:


>> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every
person could choose which corporation to buy police
protection from please explain to me how 40 million Germans
could murder 6 million Jews.


Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge
and form monopolies,


Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection 
Agency (PPA) that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a 
PPA that was being payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder 
them? A Jew would be willing to pay whatever it took, up to and 
including his entire net worth, to keep from getting murdered, but I 
doubt if even the most rabid anti semite would pay more than 1 or 2% 
to murder a Jew.


But nobody paid him to become a rabid anti-semite.  People form values 
prior to putting prices on them.  So it turns out that, some places, 
there are lots of people who will murder jews for free...in fact they 
will pay to murder jews, or rhoingyas, or romas, or, immigrants, or 
gays, or...


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/34368e7c-4b5c-e7bc-2b85-f77a28a515b9%40verizon.net.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

It occurred to me that the Quine statement is one which in a quantum 
computer would duplicate a state. A quantum state ψ that is a set of qubits 
and a set of operations {O} will as a Quine Q = {O, ψ} result in producing 
itself with ψ → ψψ and Q^2 = {O×O,.ψψ}. This is not something permissible 
in QM, so there must be a Hadamard gate operation that demolishes quantum 
phase. 

The reason why this duplication of quantum states is not quantum mechanical 
is that for ψ = a|+> + b|-> then a duplication ψψ is

ψψ = a^2|++> + b^2|--> + ab(|+-> + |-+>). 

However, if this duplication is unitary I can transform to a basis so the 
duplicated state is a^2|++> + b^2|-->, bu just duplicating on these basis 
elements. But no such unitary transformation exists. 

LC

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 5:21:24 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm*
> Queen Mary University of London, June 2019
>
> via @JDHamkins
>
> *This was a talk for the Theory Seminar for the theory research group in 
> Theoretical Computer Science at Queen Mary University of London. The talk 
> was held 4 June 2019 1:00 pm.*
>
>
> Abstract. Curious, often paradoxical instances of self-reference inhabit 
> deep parts of computability theory, from the intriguing Quine programs and 
> Ouroboros programs to more profound features of the Gödel phenomenon. In 
> this talk, I shall give an elementary account of the universal algorithm, 
> showing how the capacity for self-reference in arithmetic gives rise to a 
> Turing machine program e, which provably enumerates a finite set of 
> numbers, but which can in principle enumerate any finite set of numbers, 
> when it is run in a suitable model of arithmetic. In this sense, every 
> function becomes computable, computed all by the same universal program, if 
> only it is run in the right world. Furthermore, the universal algorithm can 
> successively enumerate any desired extension of the sequence, when run in a 
> suitable top-extension of the universe. An analogous result holds in set 
> theory, where Woodin and I have provided a universal locally definable 
> finite set, which can in principle be any finite set, in the right 
> universe, and which can furthermore be successively extended to become any 
> desired finite superset of that set in a suitable top-extension of that 
> universe.
>
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-queen-mary-university-of-london-june-2019/
> slides:
>
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-QMUL-2019-1.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8705849c-e2c0-483f-97e8-4cb81cb9475a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 15:52, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 15:16, John Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> > corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> > forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> > which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> > purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> > currently have,
>> 
>> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police protection 
>> from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. If the police 
>> worked for profit making corporations and every person could choose which 
>> corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me how 40 
>> million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.  
> 
> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
> monopolies, like corporations always try to do. Then suppose you are on the 
> wrong side of such a monopoly...
> 
>> 
>> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
>> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that could 
>> be resolved. Mostly.
> 
> Corporations are AIs. In fact, they are AIs driven by a very simple utility 
> function: profit maximization. Left to their own devices, they become an 
> instance of Bostrom's "paperclip maximizer". We already see week versions of 
> this taking shape, for example:
> 
> - Amazon warehouse workers peeing in bottles during their 12-hour shifts, so 
> that some more plastic crap from China that nobody really needs can be 
> delivered as quickly as possible, while we deplete fossil fuel reserves and 
> destroy our own environment;
> 
> - Google and Facebook employ some of the brightest minds of our generation to 
> figure out ways to exploit loopholes in our brain, that we are not evolved to 
> defend again (known as supernormal stimulus), so that we collectively waste 
> the maximum amount of our time trapped in absurdist Skinner boxes clicking on 
> ads, so that we develop a strong enough desire to buy said crap from China. 
> Turns out that some of the most effective supernormal stimulus also lead to 
> Trump and Brexit, risking the destruction of institutions that took centuries 
> to develop. In the case of the EU, flawed as it may be, it is a miracle that 
> it was even possible, and it led to the longest period of peace in the entire 
> History of the European continent.
> 
> Then there is the small issue of preferential attachment (aka 
> "rich-get-richer" or Matthew effect), inexorably leading to a world where 
> there is only one corporation that owns everything, and the rest of us are 
> its slaves. Of course, we have been there before, and at some point heads 
> start rolling, and back to square one we go.
> 
> If something is to be learned from the XX century, is that there is no simple 
> solution, no silver bullet. There is only one answer: education and a 
> constant struggle for justice and freedom, always with new challenges. The 
> more educated people are, the more they are capable of making informed and 
> rational choices when they vote. Education and fundamental science are not 
> possible in a world where the utility function is pure profit.

I would say: education, the rule of laws and Democracy. Separation of power, as 
much as possible, to be vigilant about that, all the time.

Liberal economy have good anti-monopoly laws, but there are well known technic 
to shortcut them, like the prohibition laws, which is handy technic to kill the 
competitors. Prohibition leads to extreme non regulated markets, but many form 
of coercions can do that.

Freedom of expression is not free-dom of defamation, on individuals and 
societies of all sorts.

Lies die hard. There are still some people who believe that cannabis (Hemp) is 
a dangerous drug justifying its interdiction, when the lies exist only since 
less than a century, and were very gross, denuked since day one by all 
independent experts, and the information is today directly available. And 
Cannabis is still schedule one, and illegal in most countries. 

But even that lie on cannabis are consequence of a much deeper lie which is 
that science and religion are separable, despite science can show that indeed a 
part of them are separable, but that is where the religion go in the direction 
of modesty and silence, and the listening to the other(s).

Fundamentally, religion is related to the mystical experience, but 
institutionalised religion, even with “good intentions” transform themselves 
into self-empowering machinery *preventing* that experience. The reason is that 
such an experience free you of all argument per authority. In the theology of 
the machines, it seems that the

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:16:03 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> *> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> currently have,*
>
>
> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police 
> protection from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. 
> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person could 
> choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me 
> how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.  
>
> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that 
> could be resolved. Mostly.
>
>  John K Clark
>

In the 19th century fire departments were private, and this was the case 
with some police departments as well. The practice was ended because in the 
case of fire departments sometimes the firemen would sit back and watch a 
structure burn because they were owned by a non-paying customer, with the 
result fires could spread. Private police organizations can easily become 
protection rackets. In the case of Germany the Friekorps and related 
organizations in the early 1920s were private police-like organizations 
that terrorized Jews and nonconformists and which demanded protection 
money. The Nazis loved guns and they had their 1920s hunting lodges, so the 
myth of the Nazis being similar to liberals who want guns laws is 
ludicrous. 

For the life of me I do not understand what people find attractive about 
libertarianism. I think there are four types of social organizations; 
statecraft, warcraft, priestcraft and tradecraft. :Libertarians want to 
eliminate statecraft, when there is no historical precedent for that. The 
Communists tried to eliminate tradecraft, or capitalism,.as well as 
priestcraft. In fact there is no historical precedent of any society that 
functions well which eliminates any of these. This is even warcraft, where 
while I would love to see John Lennon's *Imagine* take root, I suspect it 
can't and there is no historical precedent for a society without at least 
some minimum of that. While I do not think there is the sort of 
supernatural or magical reality proposed by religion, I also think some 
ritual practice surrounding mythic ideas will always exist in human 
societies.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bb795a06-ed63-4980-93a9-fe431470d57e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

Yes, that’s beautiful work. Quite advanced, though. The wonderful world of ZFC 
+ Determinacy. 

But most people have already difficulties for the extremely simple first order 
arithmetic of for the combinatory algebra, so set theory, … well, my student 
asks me to do a little bit of it, and I took pleasure explains the behavior  of 
the Goodstein sequences, which motivates in arithmetic for using transfinite 
induction.

It might take month of work to get that paper right, so I will stay mute on its 
relation with Indexical Digital Mechanism, at least for some period. But it is 
excellent theology!

I have thousand of extraordinary paper on arithmetical and set-theoretical 
self-reference, it is a blooming subject, even if sometimes, the fashion 
carried a bit away, but it always comes back, and self-reference is where 
mathematical logic taught the most fascinating discovery, to begin with Gödel 
1931.

Bruno

> On 5 Jun 2019, at 12:21, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm
> Queen Mary University of London, June 2019
> 
> via @JDHamkins
> 
> This was a talk for the Theory Seminar for the theory research group in 
> Theoretical Computer Science at Queen Mary University of London. The talk was 
> held 4 June 2019 1:00 pm.
> 
> 
> Abstract. Curious, often paradoxical instances of self-reference inhabit deep 
> parts of computability theory, from the intriguing Quine programs and 
> Ouroboros programs to more profound features of the Gödel phenomenon. In this 
> talk, I shall give an elementary account of the universal algorithm, showing 
> how the capacity for self-reference in arithmetic gives rise to a Turing 
> machine program e, which provably enumerates a finite set of numbers, but 
> which can in principle enumerate any finite set of numbers, when it is run in 
> a suitable model of arithmetic. In this sense, every function becomes 
> computable, computed all by the same universal program, if only it is run in 
> the right world. Furthermore, the universal algorithm can successively 
> enumerate any desired extension of the sequence, when run in a suitable 
> top-extension of the universe. An analogous result holds in set theory, where 
> Woodin and I have provided a universal locally definable finite set, which 
> can in principle be any finite set, in the right universe, and which can 
> furthermore be successively extended to become any desired finite superset of 
> that set in a suitable top-extension of that universe.
> 
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-queen-mary-university-of-london-june-2019/
> slides:
> http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-QMUL-2019-1.pdf
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aff13ede-4051-4509-aa52-4a9a1484dd31%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DE483CF8-1A76-4CDB-9D49-8B0177DB7F72%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 11:32 AM Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

*> I have read a version of this argument first in "The Machinery of
> Freedom" by David Friedman, and I found it quite compelling. *
>

Me too.

*> The problem is that rational actors qiuckly find the power of scale
effects, thus corporations and corporate mergers.*

People greatly exaggerate the evils of corporate monopolies. Take for
example the greatest monopoly of them all, Standard Oil. The company
existed from 1870 to 1911 when the government forced it to break up; during
those 41 years the price of kerosene, its principle product, dropped by 80%
 and the purity of the kerosene greatly increased. It's interesting that
every one of the people who ran crying to the government and later
testified that Standard Oil's predatory tactics made competition
impossible, nevertheless somehow managed to amass huge fortunes competing
with Standard Oil.

Take David P Reighard for example, when Standard Oil threatened to lower
the price so much that he would lose money on every gallon he sold,
Reighard called their bluff, he knew Standard oil sold a lot more gallons
of oil than he did, and so would lose a lot more money than he would if
they tried to do that. Standard Oil realized that the only way to stop
Reighard was to buy him out, which they did, at a huge profit to Reighard.
What did he do with all that money? He built an even larger oil refinery of
course. Standard felt they had to buy that one too, at an even larger
profit to Reighard. Are you starting to  see a pattern here? In all
Reighard did this 3 times before Standard caught on  and gave up, making
him one of the riches men in the country.

*> Consider the "war on drugs". I think we might agree that it is a
> collossal failure,*
>

Yes!

>
> *that not only did not stop drug traffic, but it contributed to make
> street drugs more dangerous and destroyed countless lives with prison
> sentences for victimless crimes.*
>

Yes!

*> And yet, we can't seem to get rid of those laws. Who is lobbying for
> such laws to stay in the books? Private prisions, pharmaceutical companies
> and police sindicates.*
>

I've never heard that pharmaceutical companies were pushing for more
draconian drug laws but I agree it's not surprising that DEA agents are
strongly opposed to legalizing drugs, if it happened they'd be out of a job.

> *> Trump is Putin, but with a much lower IQ.*
>

Yes and that is our one hope, the very stable genius may be too brain dead
dumb to be able to fulfill his wish to become dictator, or better yet king.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0doqtrDqWeLPJLWtPCRjCH8_0fZBAUy%2Bw1U8sPPLU0-A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

2019-06-05 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 16:32, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
>>> >> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person 
>>> >> could choose which corporation to buy police protection from please 
>>> >> explain to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews. 
>> 
>> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
>> monopolies,
> 
> Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection Agency (PPA) 
> that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a PPA that was being 
> payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder them? A Jew would be willing 
> to pay whatever it took, up to and including his entire net worth, to keep 
> from getting murdered, but I doubt if even the most rabid anti semite would 
> pay more than 1 or 2% to murder a Jew. In anrcho-libertarianism you can have 
> much more influence with things that are *REALLY* important to you than just 
> one man one vote.

I have read a version of this argument first in "The Machinery of Freedom" by 
David Friedman, and I found it quite compelling. I would even say that it could 
work, if society was forever structured by individuals and contracts between 
them. The problem is that rational actors qiuckly find the power of scale 
effects, thus corporations and corporate mergers.

Then suddenly you have one enity that can offset all the individual 
contributions of the people it wants to get rid of.

Consider the "war on drugs". I think we might agree that it is a collossal 
failure, that not only did not stop drug traffic, but it contributed to make 
street drugs more dangerous and destroyed countless lives with prison sentences 
for victimless crimes.

And yet, we can't seem to get rid of those laws. Who is lobbying for such laws 
to stay in the books? Private prisions, pharmaceutical companies and police 
sindicates.

Consider that the vast majority of people are religious. Consider how quickly 
you could be in the situation of the jews, through other mechanisms arising 
from the accumulation of power in a small number of actors.

> 
>> *> there is no simple solution, no silver bullet. *
> 
> I agree, what I have just said is of little practical use. Yes that would be 
> the way to go if we were starting from scratch but we are not and there is 
> virtually no chance of getting there before a technological singularity 
> occurs. I always knew I'd have to modify my libertarian views someday but AI 
> has been advancing faster than I expected so I had to make the modification 
> sooner than I expected. We must make the best of the institutions that 
> already exist, like government, and try to push it in the right direction.

Ok. I entertained libertarian ideas for some time, and modified my views for 
the exact same reasons you state. I guess we agree after all.

>  But Trump is pushing the government in the opposite direction that is 
> needed. 

Indeed. Trump is Putin, but with a much lower IQ. An autocrat and a mafia boss. 
I hope that your republic can survive him.

Telmo.

> 
> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32BkLNb1RtUvtmqcLW9NJzzP9sbPBY3%3DOjXhmLz_1fxQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dde488bc-50be-4878-92ea-e53644e0afae%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing


> On 5 Jun 2019, at 08:38, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> You didn't even read my paper, otherwise you would have seen that the paper 
> is about personal identity.

I saw this.


> And the connection with you theory in which each one of us is a number is 
> that the thought experiments suggest that we are not 1 number, but that 
> consciousnesses can unify and split and unifiy back, etc.

No problem with Mechanism for this. I have argue on this with the fact 
(discovered by Jouvet) that we can do two different dream simultaneously, when 
the corpus callosum is inihibited during a REM phase. We woke up with the 
memory of two different stream of consciousness.



> So because we cannot be identified with only 1 entity

The first person always identify itself with one body, even if it has an 
infinity of (virtual and arithmetical) body.


> (i.e. our soul), then your theory fails.

You need to find a contradiction, not a discrepancy with your theory, 
especially at a place where we agree (there is just no material bodies at all 
at the ontological level).

Bruno 


> 
> On Tuesday, 4 June 2019 18:13:45 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> See my papers where I use similar thought experience, and go toward the same 
> consequence (the falsity of materialism).
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e030c784-8683-4bb9-87e8-53feb5b3d262%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DA68A85B-2FAD-4211-AB07-076AFF737068%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-05 Thread Samiya Illias




> On 05-Jun-2019, at 9:52 AM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> If you don't do experiments to test your sacred text, then there is nothing 
> left but literalism.  If you do experiments and test your sacred text you 
> find it's bull shit.

Can you please quote an ayat of The Quran and suggest an experiment as an 
example of what you mean? 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/90E01AEA-C3B3-4AC2-8EC9-EACC380D1352%40gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity

2019-06-05 Thread Samiya Illias




> On 05-Jun-2019, at 7:49 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 5 Jun 2019, at 06:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 6/4/2019 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>> The problem is not Islam, but the fact that since Al Gazhali, Islam has 
>>> confined itself in literalism, which is frightening concerning the second 
>>> part of the Quran, and the practical implementations of that religious 
>>> oppression in many countries which called themselves islamic.
>> 
>> If you don't do experiments to test your sacred text, then there is nothing 
>> left but literalism.
> 
> Counter-example: mathematics.
> 
> 
> 
>>  If you do experiments and test your sacred text you find it's bull shit.
> 
> Counter-example: "the question of King Milinda", which has proposed the 
> Mechanist philosophy in between an unknown date and the 11th century.
> 
> OK, to be honest I concede that the buddhist “religious authorities” have 
> rejected “the question of kind Milinda” from the Canon Pali (the official 
> sacred text of buddhism).
> 
> With both mechanism, and greek theology, there is just no sacred texts at 
> all, just inspiring readings of good treatise.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0f5637a1-7013-1eae-4098-3efaf6919e84%40verizon.net.
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46DFD3D2-2AA9-42BB-97B5-8B67B8892B25%40ulb.ac.be.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/F3800AE4-3BF7-4B85-868D-C2E40D42925A%40gmail.com.

Re: Allah: the One and Only Deity



> On 5 Jun 2019, at 06:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/4/2019 9:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> The problem is not Islam, but the fact that since Al Gazhali, Islam has 
>> confined itself in literalism, which is frightening concerning the second 
>> part of the Quran, and the practical implementations of that religious 
>> oppression in many countries which called themselves islamic.
> 
> If you don't do experiments to test your sacred text, then there is nothing 
> left but literalism.

Counter-example: mathematics.



>   If you do experiments and test your sacred text you find it's bull shit.

Counter-example: "the question of King Milinda", which has proposed the 
Mechanist philosophy in between an unknown date and the 11th century.

OK, to be honest I concede that the buddhist “religious authorities” have 
rejected “the question of kind Milinda” from the Canon Pali (the official 
sacred text of buddhism).

With both mechanism, and greek theology, there is just no sacred texts at all, 
just inspiring readings of good treatise.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0f5637a1-7013-1eae-4098-3efaf6919e84%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/46DFD3D2-2AA9-42BB-97B5-8B67B8892B25%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]

> On 4 Jun 2019, at 18:10, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Unlike Philip Thrift and Penrose, you seems to assume both materialism and 
> > mechanism,
> 
> Well according to you "I have defined mechanism by the idea that we can 
> survive with a digital (universal) machine at the place of the brain", so by 
> that definition I am a believer in mechanism.

OK.

> Materialism means nothing exists except matter and its movements

Everyone believe in matter. But Materialism assumes that we cannot explain 
Matter from anything else. So it assumes that some matter or primary physical 
object have to be assumed in a theory of everything.

Materialism is just a popular variant of physicalism. 

> and modifications, and yes I believe in that too although it often more 
> appropriate  to speak at a higher level; when I say "I've changed my mind" I 
> mean I've changed my brain which means I've changed my neurons which means 
> I've changed my molecules which means I've changed the velocity and position 
> of my atoms. But it's usually better to just say I've changed my mind.
> 
> >Yet, Materialism/physicalism and Mechanism are incompatible.
> 
> The thing that's incompatible is the referent for the personal pronouns used 
> in your convoluted thought experiments. 

You told me this a billions times (so to speak), but each time you have erased 
the 1p and 3p distinction which were the key point to grasp to get the thought 
experiment right, I’m afraid. 

If you reject the first person indeterminacy, it is up to you to provide an 
argument such that the guy in Helsinki is able to predict the first person 
experience that *he* will lived, as a first person, that is defined indexically 
in both places (Washington and Moscow) given that we have already agree that he 
survived at both place, but from the first person indexical way. 

Of course that is impossible, but that is the point of the first person 
indeterminacy. Despite the Helsinki guy survived with P = 1, neither P(W/H), 
nor P(M/H) is equal to one, as both first persons indexically confirms in their 
diary after the experience.

Bruno

> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv04SgWT%2BUQwsQMAWLS36Lgk3yA-wRf8yojugv_eUPtMOg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E8E64B09-7633-4EC8-9E36-F27736D1A90D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:52 AM Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
> >> If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person
>> could choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain
>> to me how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.
>
>
> Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form
> monopolies,
>

Why would if be financially beneficial for a Private Protection Agency
(PPA) that was being payed by 6 million Jews to merge with a PPA that was
being payed by 40 million Germans that want to murder them? A Jew would be
willing to pay whatever it took, up to and including his entire net worth,
to keep from getting murdered, but I doubt if even the most rabid anti
semite would pay more than 1 or 2% to murder a Jew. In
anrcho-libertarianism you can have much more influence with things that are
*REALLY* important to you than just one man one vote.

*> there is no simple solution, no silver bullet. *

I agree, what I have just said is of little practical use. Yes that would
be the way to go if we were starting from scratch but we are not and there
is virtually no chance of getting there before a technological singularity
occurs. I always knew I'd have to modify my libertarian views someday but
AI has been advancing faster than I expected so I had to make the
modification sooner than I expected.  We must make the best of the
institutions that already exist, like government, and try to push it in the
right direction. But Trump is pushing the government in the opposite
direction that is needed.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv32BkLNb1RtUvtmqcLW9NJzzP9sbPBY3%3DOjXhmLz_1fxQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: BLOBS [was: Allah: the One and Only Deity]


> On 4 Jun 2019, at 17:42, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>  
> >> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and believe my 
> >> saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I have 
> >> embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith.
> 
> > The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was clear 
> > enough to be shown wrong.
> 
> Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year old 
> technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be 
> flawless was met with derision if not violence.

That is not Aristotle fault, but the fault of abandoning the most fundamental 
science to “politics”. With the Renaissance, only a part of science has been 
freed from “authority”.




> Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born.  

That is hard to refute, or to prove.



> 
> > Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek neoplatonist 
> > *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all the time, DE 
> > FACTO.
> 
> The new total is now (6.02*10^23) +2. 
> 
> And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to clear 
> up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said how you 
> do it.
> 
> >> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know how 
> >> to do that is with infinity.
> 
> >That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.
> 
> But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not 
> rotate.

How do you know that? We don’t have yet a picture of what is beyond the 
observable universe, nor do we have even a coherent theory of the physical 
universe. We have to jewels: QM and GR, but they are insistent when taken 
together, and both would contradict Mechanism (the hypothesis in cognitive 
science) if taken as the fundamental theory.

Bruno



> 
> John K Clark 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Bruno
> 
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mypGvD8s38UWfp9SZmR3SjMy7gGdihU-CoQ%2BDK3kguw%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1E21AB58-D37F-407A-B72D-544C3E883F20%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> .
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1sgpYi7Ns%2BOE%2BJMNZskkH3q_KySAOWAXu3mxjF4Fr2%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6DE6C9B6-69B0-4C38-A3CA-9A193EC5BD5E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Mark Twain's precognitive dream

2019-06-05 Thread howardmarks


Crackpot central indeed!   --

Just because a story reports something as true, doesn't mean it's 
true End of story.


On 6/5/2019 8:20 AM, John Clark wrote:

Yep, the Everything list is slowly turning into crackpot central.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0A%3DSh7xW%3Db4LFv-R3HRc%2BRCKMyvAftgcK6cCoUJfRNJg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/027d5fb6-d21d-2fd9-b4cb-f7813445a755%40doitnow.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)



On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:25:10 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift  
 wrote:

>
> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like 
> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning 
> that, 
> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action 
> at 
> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a 
> lot of time!
>

 The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually 
 explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR 
 pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the 
 state 
 preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever 
 given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky 
 action at a distance"

 Bruce

>>>
>>> Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time 
>>> symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether 
>>> you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a 
>>> density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect 
>>> solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the 
>>> Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with 
>>> respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still 
>>> not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or 
>>> if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many 
>>> Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables 
>>> measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving.
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>>
>> Retrocausality in effect solves nothing. 
>>
>> It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds, 
>> non-locality, all the nonsense you read today.
>>
>> [If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then 
>> one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic 
>> processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also 
>> how closely the two resemble each other.]
>> via Rafael Sorkin
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
>
>
> Anyway, as you know well, I "adopted" the retrocausal view 20 years ago via* 
> Victor J. Stenger,* who pointed of course to Huw Price.
>
> @philipthrift
>


Just out:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232330-200-weve-seen-signs-of-a-mirror-image-universe-that-is-touching-our-own/

*We've seen signs of a mirror-image universe that is touching our own.*
*New experiments are revealing hints of a world and a reality that are 
complete reflections of ours. *

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/153b8c5b-0fdf-4924-bf6a-7177697dc54a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

2019-06-05 Thread Telmo Menezes



On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, at 15:16, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>  wrote:
> 
>> *> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the 
>> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about 
>> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in 
>> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be 
>> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we 
>> currently have,*
> 
> In todays world people have no choice where they get their police protection 
> from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes. If the police 
> worked for profit making corporations and every person could choose which 
> corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me how 40 million 
> Germans could murder 6 million Jews. 

Private police organizations would have every incentive to merge and form 
monopolies, like corporations always try to do. Then suppose you are on the 
wrong side of such a monopoly...

> 
> And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies 
> following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that could 
> be resolved. Mostly.

Corporations are AIs. In fact, they are AIs driven by a very simple utility 
function: profit maximization. Left to their own devices, they become an 
instance of Bostrom's "paperclip maximizer". We already see week versions of 
this taking shape, for example:

- Amazon warehouse workers peeing in bottles during their 12-hour shifts, so 
that some more plastic crap from China that nobody really needs can be 
delivered as quickly as possible, while we deplete fossil fuel reserves and 
destroy our own environment;

- Google and Facebook employ some of the brightest minds of our generation to 
figure out ways to exploit loopholes in our brain, that we are not evolved to 
defend again (known as supernormal stimulus), so that we collectively waste the 
maximum amount of our time trapped in absurdist Skinner boxes clicking on ads, 
so that we develop a strong enough desire to buy said crap from China. Turns 
out that some of the most effective supernormal stimulus also lead to Trump and 
Brexit, risking the destruction of institutions that took centuries to develop. 
In the case of the EU, flawed as it may be, it is a miracle that it was even 
possible, and it led to the longest period of peace in the entire History of 
the European continent.

Then there is the small issue of preferential attachment (aka "rich-get-richer" 
or Matthew effect), inexorably leading to a world where there is only one 
corporation that owns everything, and the rest of us are its slaves. Of course, 
we have been there before, and at some point heads start rolling, and back to 
square one we go.

If something is to be learned from the XX century, is that there is no simple 
solution, no silver bullet. There is only one answer: education and a constant 
struggle for justice and freedom, always with new challenges. The more educated 
people are, the more they are capable of making informed and rational choices 
when they vote. Education and fundamental science are not possible in a world 
where the utility function is pure profit.

Telmo.


> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> 

> --
>  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
>  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eda6d032-e49d-4876-85b7-6f1fa7bb8b60%40www.fastmail.com.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

2019-06-05 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

 Or that.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/786228c8-583f-479b-9735-639de592f176%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm



You mean: ... is not what this professor of mathematical logic thinks it is.

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 8:22:17 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Self-reference is not what you think it is.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a69bd147-2648-4273-ac31-6bdcc49caae0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)



On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:56:41 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>

 As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like 
 vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that, 
 for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action 
 at 
 a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a 
 lot of time!

>>>
>>> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually 
>>> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR 
>>> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state 
>>> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever 
>>> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky 
>>> action at a distance"
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>
>> Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time 
>> symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether 
>> you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a 
>> density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect 
>> solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the 
>> Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with 
>> respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still 
>> not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or 
>> if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many 
>> Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables 
>> measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
>
> Retrocausality in effect solves nothing. 
>
> It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds, 
> non-locality, all the nonsense you read today.
>
> [If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then 
> one sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic 
> processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also 
> how closely the two resemble each other.]
> via Rafael Sorkin
>
> @philipthrift
>



Anyway, as you know well, I "adopted" the retrocausal view 20 years ago via* 
Victor J. Stenger,* who pointed of course to Huw Price.

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/49768bb3-f597-40af-aa83-0a280e3c6b07%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm

2019-06-05 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

Self-reference is not what you think it is.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/42fd1e62-385f-4f92-ae1a-058f5ff3be47%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Mark Twain's precognitive dream

Yep, the Everything list is slowly turning into crackpot central.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0A%3DSh7xW%3Db4LFv-R3HRc%2BRCKMyvAftgcK6cCoUJfRNJg%40mail.gmail.com.

Mark Twain's precognitive dream

2019-06-05 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/dreamgates/2012/01/the-shadow-of-mark-twains-precognitive-dream.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/19080035-b81c-4e2e-82d8-e2fe58df1496%40googlegroups.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:56 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Even if a completely libertarian system were established, the
> corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go about
> forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws etc in
> which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it would be
> purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from what we
> currently have,*

In todays world people have no choice where they get their police
protection from, they must purchase it from the government through taxes.
If the police worked for profit making corporations and every person could
choose which corporation to buy police protection from please explain to me
how 40 million Germans could murder 6 million Jews.

And Yes there would be disagreements between different police agencies
following different laws, but I explained in my previous post how that
could be resolved. Mostly.

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0BGixhsTH6xXVoHuL3ndsm5uLNbw49TZk1LK-VDtC%2B6A%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:17 AM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *Capitalism assumes that one can own things, especially money.  But
> without government to adjudicate and enforce claims of ownership, you
> couldn't own any more than you could carry on your back at a dead run. *
>

Obviously law is meaningless without enforcement, but as I explained in
some detail in my previous post governments are not the only thing that can
make laws or enforce them, corporations could do that too, and they would
do it better than government. I am convinced that if we were starting from
scratch that would be the way to go, but of course we are not starting from
scratch, far from it. So at this point we must just do the best we can with
what already exists. And like it or not government exists.

>
> *Most of the rich people in the U.S. are rich in virtue of owning stuff,
> not making stuff.*
>

Thanks to the tax and inheritance laws (which Trump wants to make even more
extreme) most rich people in the USA are rich because they chose their
parents wisely.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%3DyRNRczCC2jnYOAHbeUaa3dZcw352pDiGJVx_iOEFfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)



On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 6:45:32 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like 
>>> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that, 
>>> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action at 
>>> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a 
>>> lot of time!
>>>
>>
>> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually 
>> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR 
>> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state 
>> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever 
>> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky 
>> action at a distance"
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time 
> symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether 
> you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a 
> density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect 
> solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the 
> Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with 
> respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still 
> not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or 
> if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many 
> Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables 
> measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving.
>
> LC
>


Retrocausality in effect solves nothing. 

It solves wasting any time reading papers about QM many worlds, 
non-locality, all the nonsense you read today.

[If one views QM as a generalized measure on a space of histories, then one 
sees not only how quantal processes differ from classical stochastic 
processes (the main difference, they satisfy different sum rules), but also 
how closely the two resemble each other.]
via Rafael Sorkin

@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a3944d12-f22c-490f-b43c-a41b5502ea89%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

2019-06-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 7:48 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>
> I've given a retreocausal mechanism of course:
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/
>

As I said, even more mystical than 'spooky-action-at-a-distance'.

Bruce


If you know of other references, let me know.
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like
>>> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that,
>>> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action at
>>> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a
>>> lot of time!
>>>
>>
>> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually
>> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR
>> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state
>> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever
>> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky
>> action at a distance"
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLScNMkfxF8gbCYXPEfdZz9UmNb6TgB%3Dga382Ez-XwJ0xQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: anrcho-libertarianism

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 12:17:35 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/4/2019 4:29 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> If we were starting from scratch I would suggest Anarcho-Capitalism, I 
> think it would be far superior to democracy, but unfortunately we are not 
> starting from scratch and so it would be very difficult to get there from 
> here;  but don't let the word "anarchy" scare you, it just means lack of 
> government. Chaos necessarily implies anarchy but anarchy does not 
> necessarily imply chaos. 
>
>
> Capitalism assumes that one can own things, especially money.  But without 
> government to adjudicate and enforce claims of ownership, you couldn't own 
> any more than you could carry on your back at a dead run.   Most of the 
> rich people in the U.S. are rich in virtue of owning stuff, not making 
> stuff.
>
> Brent
>

These discussions have become far longer than what I want to spend time on. 
These types of discussions have a pernicious way of burning up time and 
frankly neurons. Even if a completely libertarian system were established, 
the corporations, banks and those at their top would pretty quickly go 
about forming a government to provide a platform, a coherent set of laws 
etc in which they could effectively conduct their commerce. Of course it 
would be purely plutocratic, which in ways is not terribly different from 
what we currently have, and with t'Rump it will go all the way full tilt 
into an American form of fascism. 

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c157c350-85aa-4b48-9cee-d8e8ce8eb160%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)

On Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 10:22:51 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
>>
>> As for quantum stochastic retrodependency (which physicists avoid like 
>> vampires avoid sunlight), it simplifies the "puzzles" of QM, meaning that, 
>> for the most part, the articles you see talking about the "spooky action at 
>> a distance" or "many wolds" of QM you can dump in the trashcan and save a 
>> lot of time!
>>
>
> The trouble is that these retrocausal "explanations" do not actually 
> explain anything! They sound like they should: "The formation of the EPR 
> pair depends on the future setting of the polarises as well as on the state 
> preparation." (Or something similar). But no detailed dynamics are ever 
> given, and the supposed explanation is even more mystical than "spooky 
> action at a distance"
>
> Bruce
>

Bingo --- ting ding ting ding ... . Thanks Bruce. Since QM is time 
symmetric or invariant in its form with respect to time direction whether 
you define time forwards or backwards, or do so for some partition of a 
density matrix or wave, makes no difference. Retrocausality in effect 
solves nothing. Nonlocality and the contextual nature of QM, eg the 
Mermin-Peres square that gives Kochen-Specker, have no definition with 
respect to any time direction. If you have locality in QM then it is still 
not possible to think meaningfully of counterfactual definiteness (CFD), or 
if QM is regarded as nonlocal only then can you have CFD, such as with Many 
Worlds Interpretation. It makes no difference whether the observables 
measured are considered forwards or backwards evolving.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cbc3bf87-75e2-4977-81a1-cffd565127d8%40googlegroups.com.

Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm


*Computational self-reference and the universal algorithm*
Queen Mary University of London, June 2019

via @JDHamkins

*This was a talk for the Theory Seminar for the theory research group in 
Theoretical Computer Science at Queen Mary University of London. The talk 
was held 4 June 2019 1:00 pm.*


Abstract. Curious, often paradoxical instances of self-reference inhabit 
deep parts of computability theory, from the intriguing Quine programs and 
Ouroboros programs to more profound features of the Gödel phenomenon. In 
this talk, I shall give an elementary account of the universal algorithm, 
showing how the capacity for self-reference in arithmetic gives rise to a 
Turing machine program e, which provably enumerates a finite set of 
numbers, but which can in principle enumerate any finite set of numbers, 
when it is run in a suitable model of arithmetic. In this sense, every 
function becomes computable, computed all by the same universal program, if 
only it is run in the right world. Furthermore, the universal algorithm can 
successively enumerate any desired extension of the sequence, when run in a 
suitable top-extension of the universe. An analogous result holds in set 
theory, where Woodin and I have provided a universal locally definable 
finite set, which can in principle be any finite set, in the right 
universe, and which can furthermore be successively extended to become any 
desired finite superset of that set in a suitable top-extension of that 
universe.

http://jdh.hamkins.org/computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-queen-mary-university-of-london-june-2019/
slides:
http://jdh.hamkins.org/wp-content/uploads/Computational-self-reference-and-the-universal-algorithm-QMUL-2019-1.pdf


@philipthrift

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aff13ede-4051-4509-aa52-4a9a1484dd31%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Retrocausality in Quantum Mechanics (SEP)