date:20191030



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 6:42:09 PM UTC-6, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Lets cut to the chase. Do you, or do you feel Schneider (without knowing) 
> believes that a subject's mind, is transferable, duplicatable, transferable 
> to a diff substrate?  Hey, its Halloween! 
>

I have no idea. AG 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Grayson >
> To: Everything List >
> Sent: Wed, Oct 30, 2019 6:01 am
> Subject: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bb0679e8-bc22-4e6a-abeb-46878d9f9383%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/491c6b58-be5e-4039-ba0e-bb540c4521da%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:11:43 PM UTC-6, scerir wrote:
>
> I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
> behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
> that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
> information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
> ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
> such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
> experimental results demonstrate. 
> AG 
>
> About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, see 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026 
>

I really thought you had passed away. This is good news of course, but 
bittersweet since I sent a few emails many months ago which weren't 
responded to. AG 

>
> s. 
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/6472bc11-a1fd-49d4-be84-d30b2fed5d78%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

2019-10-30 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Lets cut to the chase. Do you, or do you feel Schneider (without knowing) 
believes that a subject's mind, is transferable, duplicatable, transferable to 
a diff substrate?  Hey, its Halloween! 

-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Wed, Oct 30, 2019 6:01 am
Subject: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
-- 
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/bb0679e8-bc22-4e6a-abeb-46878d9f9383%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/1482438656.3958286.1572482524757%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:45:29 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 07:44, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:01:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:

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

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a common AI view, that the program (programming) of consciousness 
>>> (like what's running in your brain right now) is substrate independent.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> What is "substrate independent"?
>>
>
> The computation is the same independently of the substrate of its 
> implementation. For example, you could run the same program on a computer 
> based on vacuum tubes or transistors, with the same output.
>
>> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

That's the case for the conventional-Platonistic definition of computing.

Not the case for computing with a material-intrinsic semantics.


@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/cf6758ca-3924-44f5-b0ff-f32111c27ecf%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

2019-10-30 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 at 07:44, Alan Grayson  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:01:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a common AI view, that the program (programming) of consciousness
>> (like what's running in your brain right now) is substrate independent.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> What is "substrate independent"?
>

The computation is the same independently of the substrate of its
implementation. For example, you could run the same program on a computer
based on vacuum tubes or transistors, with the same output.

> --
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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/CAH%3D2ypX1rLyTw53goJ-qA%3Dtz_HoxOe4J%3D%3DY0BNyMCJPkrDBc8g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 3:44:23 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:01:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a common AI view, that the program (programming) of consciousness 
>> (like what's running in your brain right now) is substrate independent.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> What is "substrate independent"? AG 
>

As defined by Mad Max Tegmark. (I have the opposite view.)

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27126

Substrate-Independence

What do waves, computations and conscious experiences have in common, that 
provides crucial clues about the future of intelligence? They all share an 
intriguing ability to take on a life of their own that’s rather independent 
of their physical substrate. 

*Waves* have properties such as speed, wavelength and frequency, and we 
physicists can study the equations they obey without even needing to know 
what substance they are waves in. When you hear something, you're detecting 
sound waves caused by molecules bouncing around in the mixture of gases we 
call air, and we can calculate all sorts of interesting things about these 
waves—how their intensity fades as the square of the distance, how they 
bend when they pass through open doors, how they reflect off of walls and 
cause echoes, etc.—without knowing what air is made of.

We can ignore all details about oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc., 
because the only property of the wave's substrate that matters and enters 
into the famous wave equation is a single number that we can measure: the 
wave speed, which in this case is about 300 meters per second. Indeed, this 
wave equation that MIT students are now studying was first discovered and 
put to great use long before physicists had even established that atoms and 
molecules existed! 

Alan Turing famously proved that *computations* are substrate-independent 
as well: There’s a vast variety of different computer architectures that 
are “universal” in the sense that they can all perform the exact same 
computations. So if you're a conscious superintelligent character in a 
future computer game, you'd have no way of knowing whether you ran on a 
desktop, a tablet or a phone, because you would be substrate-independent.

Nor could you tell whether the logic gates of the computer were made of 
transistors, optical circuits or other hardware, or even what the 
fundamental laws of physics were. Because of this substrate-independence, 
shrewd engineers have been able to repeatedly replace the technologies 
inside our computers with dramatically better ones without changing the 
software, making computation twice as cheap roughly every couple of years 
for over a century, cutting the computer cost a whopping million million 
million times since my grandmothers were born. It’s precisely this 
substrate-independence of computation that implies that artificial 
intelligence is possible: Intelligence doesn't require flesh, blood or 
carbon atoms. 

This example illustrates three important points.

First, substrate-independence doesn't mean that a substrate is unnecessary, 
but that most details of it don't matter. You obviously can't have sound 
waves in a gas if there's no gas, but any gas whatsoever will suffice. 
Similarly, you obviously can't have computation without matter, but any 
matter will do as long as it can be arranged into logic gates, connected 
neurons or some other building block enabling universal computation.

Second, the substrate-independent phenomenon takes on a life of its own, 
independent of its substrate. A wave can travel across a lake, even though 
none of its water molecules do—they mostly bob up and down.

Third, it's often only the substrate-independent aspect that we're 
interested in: A surfer usually cares more about the position and height of 
a wave than about its detailed molecular composition, and if two 
programmers are jointly hunting a bug in their code, they're probably not 
discussing transistors.

Since childhood, I’ve wondered how tangible physical stuff such as flesh 
and blood can give rise to something that feels as intangible, abstract and 
ethereal as intelligence and consciousness. We’ve now arrived at the 
answer: these phenomena feel so non-physical because they're 
substrate-independent, taking on a life of their own that doesn't depend on 
or reflect the physical details. We still don’t understand intelligence to 
the point of building machines that can match all human abilities, but AI 
researchers are striking ever more abilities from their can’t-do list, from 
image classification to Go-playing, speech recognition, translation and 
driving.

But what about *consciousness,* by which I mean simply "subjective 
experience"? When you’re driving a car, you’re having a conscious 
experience of colors, sounds, e

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:36:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2019 12:43 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>
>>
>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>> detector in the experiment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> Here is an unconventional approach if via logical variables in stochastic 
> concurrent logic programming:
>
> Timeless Histories 
>  
>  
>
> 0. Given a single source S, a set of possible destinations Dj, j∈J, a set 
> of possible histories historyi, i∈I (pictured as spacetime trajectories) 
> from S to one of the Dj.
>
> 1. Each history has an evolving phase e*i*·θ(t), *i*=√(-1), where t runs 
> from time leaving source to time arriving at destination.
>
> 2. Each history has a hidden (logical) variable* _W (for “weight”):
>
>   historyi(_Wi,e*i*·θi(t))
>
> 3. Each history is a “timeless” entity though (cf. *Timeless Reality*, 
> Victor J. Stenger). There is no “preferred” time direction.
>
> 4. At each destination Dj, the phases of the histories historyi terminating 
> at Dj are summed, the norm is taken, and the result is unified with _Wi.
>
> 5. At the source S, the weights _Wi determine a probability distribution 
> on I: a single history is selected at the source.
>
> Conclusion: With timeless histories, the choice is made in the present 
> (the time the histories leave the source) probabilistically from weights 
> determined in the future (the times the histories reach their destinations).
>  
>
> * Logical variables are distinguished here by a “_” prefix. Not only do 
> they play a “hidden variable role, they introduce nonlocality into 
> logical processes.
>  
>
> cf. A histories perspective on characterizing quantum non-locality 
> 
>
> ~~~
>
> *The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.*
> ― Ludwig Wittgenstein 
> 
>
> CLP (concurrent logic programming) and SCLP (stochastic CLP) might provide 
> a new language of logical processes for physics — nature as written as 
> “billions and billions” of (stochastic) processes. The logical variable 
> would play a role as a hidden variable (a term mentioned in some quantum 
> theory references) because its binding could allow one process to instantly 
> “update” another process separated from it by either space or time (i.e., a 
> program-linguistic analog of spacial or temporal nonlocality).
>
> There is no reason physics has to continue to be written in the 
> mathematical language of a century ago when there are new languages today 
> from the domain of programming.
>
> *Underneath the surface of the classical world lies the hidden births and 
> deaths of quantal histories.*
>
>
> It seems to be a weakness of these history based quantum interpretations 
> that one must specify a "destination"...exactly like assuming a measurement 
> process in CI that is different from the rest of the evolution.
>
> Brent
>


That quantal histories have sources and destinations is a bit odd.



*Figure 6:* Illustration of the many paths an electron can follow through 
the double-slit apparatus

[image: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{quantum_electron_dslit.eps}]

https://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/adv.chem/lectures/lecture_5/node3.html


@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/e3e1302f-1b37-4d51-9aec-665758d4abdd%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-30 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, behaves 
as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and that wave 
goes through both slits producing interference. When such information exists, 
even if it isn't used or measured, the interference ceases to exist. Obviously, 
there's a huge mystery how the existence of such information is sufficient to 
destroy interference, but that's what the experimental results demonstrate.
AG

About the role played by the (available, but finite) information, see 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201026
s.


-- 
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/1511461939.132066.1572473501717%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: Galileo!

2019-10-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/30/2019 3:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:40 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:


>> There is one why question religion can not answer and claims
it would be wicked to even ask: Why is a religious answer
better than no answer at all?


/> If a religion answers, with an air of claiming it is a
definitive answer; then it is not a religion, but a fraud./


I agree of course but that wasn't what I was getting at. If there was 
some deep existential problem you wanted to know more about I can 
understand why you would want to discuss it with a mathematician or a 
scientist, but why would you ask a expert on religion? Why would you 
expect a theologian to give a better answer to the question "why is 
there something rather than nothing?" than for example, an expert on 
gardening or an expert on plumbing?


At least you could expect the plumber's theories to hold water.

Brent, with apologies to Bertrand Russell.

--
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/8454d3e0-80f2-baf7-e858-722c9c53da89%40verizon.net.

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?

2019-10-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/30/2019 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does not
make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can today
considered as real before us.

"2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories.

They are supposed to refer to things which we believe to be independent of us
and of our theories.

Before us there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the relation of
"making sense to”.

Does this prevents us to believe that there was a big-bang before the humans?
Or that 67 is odd, even in absence of human?

Of course not. We invented the terms to describe what we believe. But
it doesn't mean the terms themselves "made sense" a billion years ago;
they make sense about things a billion years ago. The terms and the
"make sense" relation are in the present.

Brent

If it does, I’m afraid we are on a slope toward anthropocentrism if not
solipsism.

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/8228ca99-daf4-1bd1-0fb9-cd81dd246051%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/191549fc-2a52-44f5-b9b1-f5f7c2ce6296%40verizon.net.

Re: Galileo!

2019-10-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/30/2019 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Oct 2019, at 21:24, John Clark > wrote:

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' 
> wrote:

> /Religion starts by telling us "why". /

There is one why question religion can not answer and claims it would 
be wicked to even ask: Why is a religious answer better than no 
answer at all?

If a religion answers, with an air of claiming it is a definitive 
answer; then it is not a religion, but a fraud.

So all recognized religions are frauds.   Only some personal philosophy 
that no philologist would call a religion is not a fraud.

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/25aa382e-4285-39ea-1e36-72b1f1acb69d%40verizon.net.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

2019-10-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/30/2019 12:43 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at
the SoL. The point is that if there's information available for
which-way, even if not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG

What does "available" mean? The information that left at the
speed of light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the
screen or detector in the experiment.

Brent

Here is an unconventional approach if via logical variables in
stochastic concurrent logic programming:

Timeless Histories

0. Given a single source S, a set of possible destinations Dj, j∈J, a
set of possible histories historyi, i∈I (pictured as spacetime
trajectories) from S to one of the Dj.

1. Each history has an evolving phase e/i/·θ(t), /i/=√(-1), where t
runs from time leaving source to time arriving at destination.

2. Each history has a hidden (logical) variable* _W (for “weight”):

historyi(_Wi,e/i/·θi(t))

3. Each history is a “timeless” entity though (cf. /Timeless Reality/,
Victor J. Stenger). There is no “preferred” time direction.

4. At each destination Dj, the phases of the histories
historyi terminating at Dj are summed, the norm is taken, and the
result is unified with _Wi.

5. At the source S, the weights _Wi determine a probability
distribution on I: a single history is selected at the source.

Conclusion: With timeless histories, the choice is made in the present
(the time the histories leave the source) probabilistically from
weights determined in the future (the times the histories reach their
destinations).

* Logical variables are distinguished here by a “_” prefix. Not only
do they play a “hidden variable role, they introduce nonlocality into
logical processes.

cf. A histories perspective on characterizing quantum non-locality

~~~

/The limits of my language mean the limits of my world./
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

CLP (concurrent logic programming) and SCLP (stochastic CLP) might
provide a new language of logical processes for physics — nature as
written as “billions and billions” of (stochastic) processes. The
logical variable would play a role as a hidden variable (a term
mentioned in some quantum theory references) because its binding could
allow one process to instantly “update” another process separated from
it by either space or time (i.e., a program-linguistic analog of
spacial or temporal nonlocality).

There is no reason physics has to continue to be written in the
mathematical language of a century ago when there are new languages
today from the domain of programming.

/Underneath the surface of the classical world lies the hidden births
and deaths of quantal histories./

It seems to be a weakness of these history based quantum interpretations
that one must specify a "destination"...exactly like assuming a
measurement process in CI that is different from the rest of the evolution.

Brent

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted



On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:53:10 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/29/2019 3:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2019 12:46 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 1:25:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 10/29/2019 11:43 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

 What does that mean?  No one even detects them.  They need not even be 
> absorbed, but could simply fly off to infinity.
>
> Brent
>

 What exactly is the situation? Interference is destroyed, more and 
 more, as they get hotter, but without any observations? AG 


 Right.

 Brent

>>>
>>> It sounds like some sort of hidden variable (don't take this too 
>>> literally), where the particles send out information of whether 
>>> interference will occur or not, and it doesn't matter if it's observed. 
>>> This could fit into my model of superposition with some modification; 
>>> namely, it you do a which-way experiment, OR if information about which-way 
>>> is available, interference is destroyed. And what goes through the slits in 
>>> the absence of these conditions is a wave going through both slits. AG
>>>
>>>
>>> OK.  Except "send out" doesn't make sense.   It implies signaling, which 
>>> would be at less than light speed (c.f. delay choice quantum eraser 
>>> experiment).
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> What descriptive term do you prefer? Those IR photons travel at the SoL. 
>> The point is that if there's information available for which-way, even if 
>> not observed, the interference is destroyed. AG
>>
>>
>> What does "available" mean?  The information that left at the speed of 
>> light is not "available" in any conventional sense at the screen or 
>> detector in the experiment.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> That's the mystery we have to figure out. What we know, is that the 
> particles release IR photons which could be observed, and when that 
> emission occurs, interference disappears. It doesn't even depend on any 
> observations being made. AG 
>

I would revise my interpretation this way; the electron, or whatever, 
behaves as a wave when no information exists to distinguish which-way, and 
that wave goes through both slits producing interference. When such 
information exists, even if it isn't used or measured, the interference 
ceases to exist. Obviously, there's a huge mystery how the existence of 
such information is sufficient to destroy interference, but that's what the 
experimental results demonstrate. 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d13eee6-5f1c-4a0d-a51a-4a8a6474ff0e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:30:19 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:01:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
>>
>
>
>
>
> It's a common AI view, that the program (programming) of consciousness 
> (like what's running in your brain right now) is substrate independent.
>
> @philipthrift
>

What is "substrate independent"? 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85c1b49a-7147-499f-9dd3-53ce76f711e7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: SpongeBob SpaceTime



On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:19:24 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *A Fractal Menger Sponge Space-Time Proposal to Reconcile Measurements and 
> Theoretical Predictions of Cosmic Dark Energy*
>
> https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Fractal-Menger-Sponge-Space-Time-Proposal-to-and-Naschie/bf39351cf29d042066a0052e80ebab4dade98290
>
> *Evaluating the exact infinitesimal values of area of Sierpinski's carpet 
> and volume of Menger's sponge*
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3150
>
> @philipthrift
>


"The Menger Sponge has a fractional dimension (technically referred to as 
the Hausdorff dimension) between a plane and a solid, approximately 2.73, 
and it has been used to visualize certain models of a foam-like spacetime."

2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?

Menger Sponge
Clifford Pickover
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27007

@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/0c8d6281-ea06-46a1-b56d-22ff0e17b56b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Galileo!

2019-10-30 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 5:40 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> There is one why question religion can not answer and claims it would be
>> wicked to even ask: Why is a religious answer better than no answer at all?
>
>
> *> If a religion answers, with an air of claiming it is a definitive
> answer; then it is not a religion, but a fraud.*
>

I agree of course but that wasn't what I was getting at. If there was some
deep existential problem you wanted to know more about I can understand why
you would want to discuss it with a mathematician or a scientist, but why
would you ask a expert on religion? Why would you expect a theologian to
give a better answer to the question "why is there something rather than
nothing?" than for example, an expert on gardening or an expert on plumbing?

 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/CAJPayv0x4Ar06EF74znRjAy7nLQuoQHj4qTaZdoq8R6F9HgeZQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Interesting lady; Susan Schneider



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 5:01:14 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Schneider
>




It's a common AI view, that the program (programming) of consciousness 
(like what's running in your brain right now) is substrate independent.

@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/fe7660d0-c275-4419-a9d9-f971b41b76a0%40googlegroups.com.

Interesting lady; Susan Schneider

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

-- 
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/bb0679e8-bc22-4e6a-abeb-46878d9f9383%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Einstein's field equations


> On 29 Oct 2019, at 16:43, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 2:31:14 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 7:21:40 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> On Monday, October 28, 2019 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 8:56 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 10:04:42 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> Quantum mechanics makes no particular prediction on the continuity of 
> spacetime. If one equates the Schwarzschild radius with a Compton wavelength 
> you get the Planck scale of 1.6x10^{-35}m. However, this really just tells us 
> one is not able to locate a qubit in a region smaller than this scale. The 
> Fermi and Integral spacecraft data on arrival times of different wavelengths 
> of radiation from burstars indicates spacetime is smooth to two orders of 
> magnitude smaller than the Planck length.
> 
> > You're out of my depth here. If the Schwartzshild radius has one value, and 
> > the Compton wavelength has another value, why would anyone want to equate 
> > them? AG
> 
> The Compton wavelength of a particle is just the wavelength light would have 
> if the mass of the particle were converted to energy. As the wavelength gets 
> smaller the energy gets larger, at some point the energy gets so high and the 
> distance so small it turns into a Black Hole; that distance is the Planck 
> length the time it takes light to move that distance is the Planck Time and 
> the amount of mass required is the Planck Mass which is about the mass of a 
> flea egg. The most acceleration anything can have is the Planck Acceleration, 
> it is the amount of acceleration needed to move something from a speed of 
> zero to the speed of light in the Planck Time, and the hottest that things 
> can get is the Planck Temperature (1.4*10^32 Kelvin) because anything hotter 
> would start radiating Black Holes instead of Blackbody Radiation. Or at least 
> that's what Quantum Mechanics says, but if the evidence from the Fermi and 
> Integral spacecraft holds up and spacetime really is smooth then something is 
> wrong with this picture.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> That is basically it. The Planck scale does not say that spacetime is sliced 
> and diced up into chunks. It just says that if you try to localize a qubit 
> onto a region smaller than √(Għ/c^3) ~ 1.6×10^{-35}m one gets a quantum of 
> black hole that conceals the qubit for a tiny time interval √(Għ/c^5) ~ 
> 5×10^{-44}sec before it explodes into a huge number of low mass particles. It 
> is a sort of Heisenberg microscope argument. 
> 
> The LQG machers were forced into a frantic fix on their loop theories that 
> had spacetime chopped up near the Planck scale. The data very much appears to 
> indicate that spacetime is not built up from chunks, but instead it may be 
> built from nonlocal quantum entanglements. So rather than spacetime being a 
> highly localized structure, with it might be added a lot of fine tuning of 
> variables, it is more an emergent phenomenon due to nonlocaly of QM and 
> entanglements. 
> 
> LC
> 
> 
> Of course space being made of "variables" vs. foam is a more mathematically 
> Platonistic view.
> 
> Emergent 4-dimensional linearized gravity from spin foam models
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.02110.pdf 
> 
>  
> 
> In this paper, we show for the first time that smooth solutions of 
> 4-dimensional Einstein equation emerge from Spin Foam Models (SFMs) under an 
> appropriate semiclassical continuum limit (SCL).
> 
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> I downloaded this and I am aware of these ideas. I still prefer holographic 
> quantum entanglement.


Me too. It is by far more coherent with digital mechanism, but I cannot judge 
from the paper here.(I mean in any wish way, as I have to study it first, …).

Bruno



> It really is much simpler because the fundamental physics is on a lower 
> dimensional manifold. I will try to read this before too long however.
> 
> 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/ce9ab848-9928-42ca-bbc3-237c594763e9%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 discuss

Re: Is idealism fundamentally unthinkable ?



> On 29 Oct 2019, at 19:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/29/2019 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Obviously. But my point is that if 2 does not make sense, 2 electrons does 
>> not make sense either, and the Big Bang is no more something that we can 
>> today considered as real before us.
> 
> "2" and "Big Bang" are descriptive elements in our theories. 

They are supposed to refer to things which we believe to be independent of us 
and of our theories.



> Before us there is no one to hold the theories, no one to stand in the 
> relation of "making sense to”.

Does this prevents us to believe that there was a big-bang before the humans? 
Or that 67 is odd, even in absence of human?

If it does, I’m afraid we are on a slope toward anthropocentrism if not 
solipsism.

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/8228ca99-daf4-1bd1-0fb9-cd81dd246051%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/6EEA0531-E2F6-4DE0-9BA0-54397968C439%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Galileo!

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 21:24, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Religion starts by telling us "why". 
> 
> There is one why question religion can not answer and claims it would be 
> wicked to even ask: Why is a religious answer better than no answer at all?

If a religion answers, with an air of claiming it is a definitive answer; then 
it is not a religion, but a fraud.

The religion is just the faith that there is a rational, intelligible, answer, 
but it will never claim to have it, except under the form of a theory to be 
tested.

Of course, most institutionalised religions *are* fraud, since a long time. 
They are just tools to give power to a tyran by exploiting the childhood 
nostalgia of having a “Father”, and the fear of death, etc. They hide the 
scientific theology which brought doubts on all theories, and by this way, on 
all tyran’s pretensions.

Making theology back in science is just allowing doubts and critics in the 
fundamental science, but today, some scientists are (consciously? 
Unconsciously) religious by mocking those who doubt the last theology in 
fashion (materialism). The problem is that by mocking any science, it let the 
science in the hand of the charlatans of the intistutionalised religion, and no 
progress are possible, except secretly by the dissidents or the courageous 
people.

Religion is the assumption of meaning. Science is the mean top make it clearer 
and testable so that we can improve the fundamental research. Both Mechanism 
and Quantum Mechanics illustrates the difficulties of the Materialist 
Metaphysics/Religion.

Bruno

> 
> > Lets see the making is work part first.
> 
> Yes indeed! Until you know how something works you don't even know what why 
> question to ask; for example medieval theologians were constantly asking why 
> there were only 5 planets in the universe, 7 if you count the sun and the 
> moon which they called planets. 
> 
>  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/CAJPayv0OX%3DgT6_ijitCNMqPqPJmyn8Q9tfLh-KWKHbNKHqrfhw%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/54BD3308-2939-40C7-8A2C-259B942FCFA6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Galileo!



On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 4:27:48 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Oct 2019, at 18:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Science has stopped to seek the “why” since the “why” has been stolen by 
> criminals. Be it through the stealing of theology, like 1500 years ago, or 
> by the stealing of the health politics, like about 100 years ago. 
>
> We can handle the why, once we accept o abandon the search of “certainty” 
> (which, with mechanism, is close to insanity).
>
>
> Religion starts by telling us "why".  Lets see the making is work part 
> first.
>
>
>
> I would say that religion starts from the semantic or the intuition, and 
> then we make a theory trying to get that semantic, but it can never succeed 
> completely, so science do exploration, and has to correct its view again 
> and again.
>
> Religion is the (only) goal.
> Science is the (only) mean.
>
> Both science and religion can become perverted when mixed with a tyranny 
> or with other roots of argument by authority, and dogma.
>
> Religion is the belief in (some) Truth.
> (Fundamental) Science is the research of that Truth.
>
> Mechanism + Tarski implies that such a fundamental truth cannot be 
> defined, which is useful in the theory of consciousness (which cannot be 
> defined either, except by reference toward such a Truth). 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>

Pragmatism's first rule: Don't talk about truth. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

@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/0b8c31bc-5c47-486e-ab0e-5a0ff7b2abe6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Galileo!

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 18:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/29/2019 3:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Oct 2019, at 19:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10/28/2019 4:34 AM, John Clark wrote:
 On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:16 AM Philip Thrift >>> > wrote:

 > We don't even know yet what gravity is.

 I think General Relativity gives us a better fundamental understanding of 
 what gravity is than we have for understanding what electromagnetism is, 
 all Einstein starts with is the existence of movement, that is spacetime, 
 and mass. Electromagnetism needs all that too but also needs to assume the 
 existence of something called "electrical charge".  

 > "we could be leaving an age of analysis to enter an age of synthesis. We 
 > may be synthesizing things (materials science, synthetic biology, 
 > nanotechnology) that we cannot analyze (explain why they work)."

 Science can tell us how things work, but as for why.. logically the 
 chain of why questions either goes on forever or it doesn't and ends in a 
 brute fact, after that there is no why, that's just the way things are.

 John K Clark
>>> 
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> Science has stopped to seek the “why” since the “why” has been stolen by 
>> criminals. Be it through the stealing of theology, like 1500 years ago, or 
>> by the stealing of the health politics, like about 100 years ago. 
>> 
>> We can handle the why, once we accept o abandon the search of “certainty” 
>> (which, with mechanism, is close to insanity).
> 
> Religion starts by telling us "why".  Lets see the making is work part first.

I would say that religion starts from the semantic or the intuition, and then 
we make a theory trying to get that semantic, but it can never succeed 
completely, so science do exploration, and has to correct its view again and 
again.

Religion is the (only) goal.
Science is the (only) mean.

Both science and religion can become perverted when mixed with a tyranny or 
with other roots of argument by authority, and dogma.

Religion is the belief in (some) Truth.
(Fundamental) Science is the research of that Truth.

Mechanism + Tarski implies that such a fundamental truth cannot be defined, 
which is useful in the theory of consciousness (which cannot be defined either, 
except by reference toward such a Truth). 

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/85090a54-242d-a840-1900-fa562291746d%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/95C33B87-9FAF-4470-A862-E29F230FA92A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted

> On 29 Oct 2019, at 11:58, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 9:50 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2019, at 21:17, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>> Keep in mind that the wave I have been referring to, is a probability wave, 
>> not a physical wave. AG 
> 
> The whole “problem" is there. The amplitude of probability wave acts like if 
> it was a physical thing. If not, there would not be any physical wave 
> interference for single particle.
> 
> Now why on earth would you say that?

It is QM.

> The probability wave is not "a physical thing", so there is no collapse 
> problem. It is epistemic, not ontological.

I can agree, but how could something epistemological interfere with something 
physical (unless you put the whole physical in the epistemological, in which 
case this is coherent with Mechanism).

> Probability waves can interfere just as easily as can physical waves.

Not if the probabilities describes the observer’s ignorance. Or you believe 
that consciousness can act on matter?

> Or do you not really believe in the  additivity of arithmetic?

I have no problem with this. The problem is that without the many-worlds, 
interference would depend on the state of an observer.

I have some difficulties to interpret your interpretation. If up + down is pure 
epistemology, does that means that the particles is really just up or just down 
without us knowing? Would that not make it into a mixed state, without any 
interference possible?

Either the wave is purely epistemological, but then consciousness acts directly 
on matter, and that is incompatible with Mechanism.
Or the wave describes a physical state of affair, and we get the relative 
states, with its many relative histories being “physically realised”.

Bruno

> 
> 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/CAFxXSLSFseVwuRn%2BdQtDCkTyf9pNU6UfgfyQrH6hdSCqiW2Zvg%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/743528AC-03FF-4580-8BAF-2CDF2577D762%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Superposition Misinterpreted