Re: Curvature

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>  
>
>> *> do clocks in distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in 
>> our galaxy*
>
>
> There is no objectively correct rate for a clock to tick, but it has been 
> experimentally checked many many times that a fast moving clock (relative 
> to us) ticks more slowly than a clock sitting right next to us just as 
> Einstein said it would. And this isn't even General Relativity, plain old 
> Special Relativity is all you need for that.
>

*By "objective" I just meant that when the clocks are compared, the elapsed 
time differs between the clocks being compared, and the effect is NOT just 
an appearance.  It's like the case of comparing an orbiting clock with a 
ground clock. But there's a problem IMO. Will the far away galaxy's clock, 
be slower than, say, the Earth's clock, from the pov of the Earth observer? 
But the reverse is also true, as seen from the observer in the far away 
galaxy. Seems like a contradiction. Each clock runs slower than the other 
observer's clock.  I had a long discussion about this with Brent awhile 
ago, and he claimed that the resolution involved simultaneity, but I never 
resolved it. AG *

>
> *> You're implicitly claiming we can measure these variables in the 
>> NON-observable region*
>
>
> No, I'm claiming a sphere that follows the rules of Hyperbolic Geometry, 
>

*Doesn't a hyperbolic geometry have negative curvature? If so, this is not 
what is measured for our universe. AG*
 

> as our observable universe does, could contain a unlimited number of stars 
> even if it's radius is finite. Granted that doesn't prove it actually does 
> contain an infinite number of stars, but it does show that your claim to 
> have proven the number of stars must be finite is incorrect. So maybe it's 
> finite and maybe it's infinite.
>
> As for the non-observable region more distant than 13.8 light years I'm 
> afraid it's the same story, maybe it's finite and maybe it's infinite, 
> and nobody has come up with a good way to tell the difference and 
> it's unlikely anyone ever will.
>

*For a hyper-spherical universe, the volume must be finite, including the 
non-observable region. Whatever its radius, it's contained in a larger 
sphere with larger radius; hence FINITE. AG *

>
>  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/1c2f5759-7638-44b9-8172-7679b2b1d6f9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: 2 recent papers on Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 1/28/2020 3:31 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:




Maybe. But the failure I wrote of applies if consciousness occurs only 
in brains (or even in just human brains) and IIT only applies to that. 
Unless IIT is modified as Mørch proposes, but then IIT would not be 
the same IIT that Aaronson is writing about 6 years ago.


It would still fail though, because Scott's counter example includes 
things made of matter:

/
//In my view, IIT fails to solve the Pretty-Hard Problem because it 
unavoidably predicts vast amounts of consciousness in physical systems 
that no sane person would regard as particularly “conscious” at all: 
indeed, systems that do nothing but apply a low-density parity-check 
code, or other simple transformations of their input data.  Moreover, 
IIT predicts not merely that these systems are “slightly” conscious 
(which would be fine), but that they can be unboundedly more conscious 
than humans are./


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/fce886c6-c476-f89f-f36f-8b8477a47dfe%40verizon.net.

Re: A odd Gravitational Wave

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 2:45:20 PM UTC-6, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:13:07AM -0800, Lawrence Crowell wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 5:32:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 6:01 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com 
> > > > wrote: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > *> There have been a couple of these unnova events. Some stars have 
> just 
> > >> winked out almost instantly. I would imagine this would ;produce a 
> fair 
> > >> amount of gravitational radiation, even if the whole star is gulped 
> by a 
> > >> black hole before EM radiation escapes. * 
>
> Are those "unnova events" summarized somewhere? Gog only knows about some 
> kids' artefacts. Is there a pattern or are they more or less random? 
>

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

>
> [...] 
> > > A stellar mass Black Hole couldn't swallow a planet in one gulp, tidal 
> > > forces would tear it apart into dust long before it reached the Event 
> > > Horizon. The tidal force is weaker for a supermassive Black Hole so a 
> small 
> > > strong nickel-iron asteroid might reach the Event Horizon more or less 
> > > intact, but the mass would be so low I don't think the Gravitational 
> Waves 
> > > would amount to much, and the nearest supermassive is a long way away. 
> > > 
> > 
> > A planet entering stellar mass black hole would be tidally disrupted and 
> it 
> > would be pulled into a streamer. The 1994  cometary impact on Jupiter is 
> a 
> > plausible model. A lump of matter crossing the event horizon will be 
> > physics of moving a holographic screen and there will be a gravitational 
> > wave. The details of this again I am not that privy to. Maybe the BH has 
> to 
> > be an intermediate mass BH. 
>
> Could it be a relatively small BH swallowing something in Kuiper 
> Belt/van Oort Cloud? 
>
> Could it be a signature of something being "unswallowed"? As in, some 
> kind of transportation means which have not been discovered yet on 
> this puny planet. Yeah, kind of, jumping out of "hyperspace" or 
> whatever it could be called. No, I am not a big fan of Star Wars, not 
> even a small fan (i.e. I am posting a serious question, even if movie 
> industry works hard to make it sound stupid). 
>
>
I doubt it is anything that exotic. If this should turn out be a black hole 
lurking in the Oort cloud we better get a space probe ready to launch ASAP! 
It could not be in the Kuiper belt, for the perturbation by gravity of 
planetary motion would be noticeable. There was some conjecture the so 
called Planet 9 some are looking for is a mini-black hole with Neptune 
mass. I sort of doubt this is the case. I am not sure how such a BH could 
have arisen. 

Star Wars was great when I was a teenager and they came out. Later these 
films lost some of their appeal, as character development is rather 2 
dimensional. They are sort of space-operas with a mythic sort of aspect to 
them. I have not seen some of the later ones that have come out in the last 
few years,

LC
 

> -- 
> Regards, 
> Tomasz Rola 
>
> -- 
> ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  ** 
> ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home** 
> ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  ** 
> ** ** 
> ** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomas...@bigfoot.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/499eeadc-9d29-4fdc-aa4b-0c08f6e90612%40googlegroups.com.

The Easy Part of the Hard Problem: A Resonance Theory of Consciousness

[Philip Thrift]

*The Easy Part of the Hard Problem: A Resonance Theory of Consciousness*
Tam Hunt and Jonathan W. Schooler
Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, 
Santa Barbara, CA

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00378/full

@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/535c75fa-cc49-477d-84b1-e7efacf34e61%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Aristotle?

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 1/28/2020 8:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Aristotle: Reality is what we see.
Plato: what we see might be the shadow of a simpler reality 
(mathematical, musical, theological, …).


Science is really born from that important platonic doubt.


Nonsense.  Religious mysticism was born from platonic doubt. Science was 
already born in the school of Thales of Miletus. Aristotle at least 
believed that observation was a source of knowledg; while platonists 
depreacted it as illusory shadows of reality.  St Agustine made 
Platonism Christian and Thomas Aquinas made Aristotleanism Christian, 
and those two, with the power of the Church behind them dominated 
Western intellectual thought for nine centuries, known as "The Dark 
Ages" for a good reason.


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/95a18b3e-252b-6593-f36d-ea372c3586a5%40verizon.net.

Re: 2 recent papers on Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

[Bruce Kellett]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:31 AM Philip Thrift 
wrote:

>
> Maybe. But the failure I wrote of applies if consciousness occurs only in
> brains (or even in just human brains) and IIT only applies to that. Unless
> IIT is modified as Mørch proposes, but then IIT would not be the same IIT
> that Aaronson is writing about 6 years ago.
>

I don't think simple modifications to IIT to make it no longer IIT is going
to allow it to escape from Aronson's critique. Besides, there is no "hard
problem" of consciousness..

Bruce

>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 1:35:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2020 10:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> The bottom line for why* IIT fails*:
>>
>> If there are no experiences (experiential units, constituents, whatever)
>> - wherever they may be in nature, assumedly in brains - to process, there
>> is nothing to be integrated in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it fails because it doesn't agree with the common sense assessment of
>> what is conscious and what is not.  From Scott's blog:
>>
>> *For we can easily interpret IIT as trying to do something more “modest”
>> than solve the Hard Problem, although still staggeringly audacious.
>> Namely, we can say that IIT “merely” aims to tell us which physical systems
>> are associated with consciousness and which aren’t, purely in terms of the
>> systems’ physical organization.  The test of such a theory is whether it
>> can produce results agreeing with “commonsense intuition”: for example,
>> whether it can affirm, from first principles, that (most) humans are
>> conscious; that dogs and horses are also conscious but less so; that rocks,
>> livers, bacteria colonies, and existing digital computers are not conscious
>> (or are hardly conscious); and that a room full of people has no
>> “mega-consciousness” over and above the consciousnesses of the individuals.*
>>
>> 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/CAFxXSLTPi7wFumVnb9oFFc_ZOBpQ7dwapm6cNTPv3pzAVqinbg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: 2 recent papers on Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

[Philip Thrift]

Maybe. But the failure I wrote of applies if consciousness occurs only in 
brains (or even in just human brains) and IIT only applies to that. Unless 
IIT is modified as Mørch proposes, but then IIT would not be the same IIT 
that Aaronson is writing about 6 years ago.

@philipthrift


On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 1:35:02 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/27/2020 10:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The bottom line for why* IIT fails*: 
>
> If there are no experiences (experiential units, constituents, whatever) - 
> wherever they may be in nature, assumedly in brains - to process, there is 
> nothing to be integrated in the first place.
>
>
>
> No, it fails because it doesn't agree with the common sense assessment of 
> what is conscious and what is not.  From Scott's blog:
>
> *For we can easily interpret IIT as trying to do something more “modest” 
> than solve the Hard Problem, although still staggeringly audacious.  
> Namely, we can say that IIT “merely” aims to tell us which physical systems 
> are associated with consciousness and which aren’t, purely in terms of the 
> systems’ physical organization.  The test of such a theory is whether it 
> can produce results agreeing with “commonsense intuition”: for example, 
> whether it can affirm, from first principles, that (most) humans are 
> conscious; that dogs and horses are also conscious but less so; that rocks, 
> livers, bacteria colonies, and existing digital computers are not conscious 
> (or are hardly conscious); and that a room full of people has no 
> “mega-consciousness” over and above the consciousnesses of the individuals.*
>
> Brent
>
> @philipthrift
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 12:12:52 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems that  
>>
>>  https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 
>> 
>>
>>   (written 6 years ago)
>>
>>  and
>>
>> https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCICI
>>
>> (2019)
>>
>> are in agreement in terms of their* information processing* criticism.
>>
>> @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/80d3d1d8-4b73-42ed-8cf9-d35113c8259d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Curvature

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:


> *> do clocks in distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in our
> galaxy*


There is no objectively correct rate for a clock to tick, but it has been
experimentally checked many many times that a fast moving clock (relative
to us) ticks more slowly than a clock sitting right next to us just as
Einstein said it would. And this isn't even General Relativity, plain old
Special Relativity is all you need for that.

*> You're implicitly claiming we can measure these variables in the
> NON-observable region*


No, I'm claiming a sphere that follows the rules of Hyperbolic Geometry, as
our observable universe does, could contain a unlimited number of stars
even if it's radius is finite. Granted that doesn't prove it actually does
contain an infinite number of stars, but it does show that your claim to
have proven the number of stars must be finite is incorrect. So maybe it's
finite and maybe it's infinite.

As for the non-observable region more distant than 13.8 light years I'm
afraid it's the same story, maybe it's finite and maybe it's infinite, and
nobody has come up with a good way to tell the difference and it's unlikely
anyone ever will.

 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/CAJPayv1%3DeLuhRuOWSNkZ2avh9%2BOckgqZyrcNTapbxag0Tt3QKw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Curvature

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 2:45:15 PM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 11:57:08 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:28 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:
>>
>> *> For the observer situated in a distant galaxy, his clock does not 
>>> dilate, and his length does not contract. *
>>
>>
>> Alan, we know from the redshift that clocks at cosmological distances do NOT 
>> all run at the same rate, so if you didn't also have length contraction 
>> there is no way all observers could measure the same speed for light. You 
>> must have both.
>>
>
> *I'm confused about what relativity tells us. I'd like some input from 
> Brent. We know that orbital clocks do not run at the same rate as ground 
> clocks, so the effect is objective, not merely apparent.  So do clocks in 
> distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in our galaxy (as 
> orbiting clocks do compared to ground clocks) based on the cosmological red 
> shift, and are their masses increasing since they're moving close to light 
> speed? I am not sure. AG*
>
>>
>> > those galaxies would NOT shrink in length to zero,
>>
>>
>> But that contradicts your previous post, you said there were no 
>> discontinuities and length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase 
>> continuously and does not stop suddenly at some point short of the speed 
>> of light. Einstein says from our viewpoint distant galaxies can be 
>> arbitrarily thin and the clocks in them can be arbitrarily slow. What do 
>> you say?
>>
>
> *I say you're wrong. You're implicitly claiming we can measure these 
> variables in the NON-observable region, but you know this is impossible. 
> Further, since the universe has been expanding for finite time, if it's 
> spherical, it's must be finite in volume.  I don't see any way around this 
> conclusion. **The assumption that it continues to expand forever might be 
> correct, but at any time t, determined by the physical clock of the CMBR, 
> its volume is finite. AG*
>
> *The mass is also finite since no mass is being created as it expands. 
> OTOH, since distant galaxies within our observable region are receding 
> close to light speed, you might conclude their mass is increasing. I am not 
> sure how to resolve this issue. Perhaps if the relative velocities are 
> caused by the expansion of space, and NOT due to relative kinematic motion, 
> conclusions based on the cosmological red shift are invalid. I am not sure 
> what's going here. I think Brent can resolve this issue. AG*
>
> John K Clark
>>
>
*My tentative conclusion, in addition to pointing out your error in 
assuming we can measure galaxy variables in our NON-observable region, is 
that since the expansion of space does not produce relative motions of the 
type assumed in SR (which I call "kinematic"), your conclusions about the 
relativistic effects due to the cosmological red shift (and spatial 
expansion) are incorrect. 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/b3afc3be-dffb-42b9-aa7a-2b1a6ac8f7bb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Curvature

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 11:57:08 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:28 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> For the observer situated in a distant galaxy, his clock does not 
>> dilate, and his length does not contract. *
>
>
> Alan, we know from the redshift that clocks at cosmological distances do NOT 
> all run at the same rate, so if you didn't also have length contraction 
> there is no way all observers could measure the same speed for light. You 
> must have both.
>

*I'm confused about what relativity tells us. I'd like some input from 
Brent. We know that orbital clocks do not run at the same rate as ground 
clocks, so the effect is objective, not merely apparent.  So do clocks in 
distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in our galaxy (as 
orbiting clocks do compared to ground clocks) based on the cosmological red 
shift, and are their masses increasing since they're moving close to light 
speed? I am not sure. AG*

>
> > those galaxies would NOT shrink in length to zero,
>
>
> But that contradicts your previous post, you said there were no 
> discontinuities and length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase 
> continuously and does not stop suddenly at some point short of the speed 
> of light. Einstein says from our viewpoint distant galaxies can be 
> arbitrarily thin and the clocks in them can be arbitrarily slow. What do 
> you say?
>

*I say you're wrong. You're implicitly claiming we can measure these 
variables in the NON-observable region, but you know this is impossible. 
Further, since the universe has been expanding for finite time, if it's 
spherical, it's must be finite in volume.  I don't see any way around this 
conclusion. **The assumption that it continues to expand forever might be 
correct, but at any time t, determined by the physical clock of the CMBR, 
its volume is finite. AG*

*The mass is also finite since no mass is being created as it expands. 
OTOH, since distant galaxies within our observable region are receding 
close to light speed, you might conclude their mass is increasing. I am not 
sure how to resolve this issue. Perhaps if the relative velocities are 
caused by the expansion of space, and NOT due to relative kinematic motion, 
conclusions based on the cosmological red shift are invalid. I am not sure 
what's going here. I think Brent can resolve this issue. AG*

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/08ba6e2e-f56e-492c-8ad9-df2831a0bdb1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A odd Gravitational Wave

[Tomasz Rola]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 04:13:07AM -0800, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 23, 2020 at 5:32:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 6:01 AM Lawrence Crowell  > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > *> There have been a couple of these unnova events. Some stars have just 
> >> winked out almost instantly. I would imagine this would ;produce a fair 
> >> amount of gravitational radiation, even if the whole star is gulped by a 
> >> black hole before EM radiation escapes. *

Are those "unnova events" summarized somewhere? Gog only knows about some
kids' artefacts. Is there a pattern or are they more or less random?

[...]
> > A stellar mass Black Hole couldn't swallow a planet in one gulp, tidal 
> > forces would tear it apart into dust long before it reached the Event 
> > Horizon. The tidal force is weaker for a supermassive Black Hole so a small 
> > strong nickel-iron asteroid might reach the Event Horizon more or less 
> > intact, but the mass would be so low I don't think the Gravitational Waves 
> > would amount to much, and the nearest supermassive is a long way away.
> >
> 
> A planet entering stellar mass black hole would be tidally disrupted and it 
> would be pulled into a streamer. The 1994  cometary impact on Jupiter is a 
> plausible model. A lump of matter crossing the event horizon will be 
> physics of moving a holographic screen and there will be a gravitational 
> wave. The details of this again I am not that privy to. Maybe the BH has to 
> be an intermediate mass BH.

Could it be a relatively small BH swallowing something in Kuiper
Belt/van Oort Cloud?

Could it be a signature of something being "unswallowed"? As in, some
kind of transportation means which have not been discovered yet on
this puny planet. Yeah, kind of, jumping out of "hyperspace" or
whatever it could be called. No, I am not a big fan of Star Wars, not
even a small fan (i.e. I am posting a serious question, even if movie
industry works hard to make it sound stupid).

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.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/20200128204518.GB12549%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Re: 2 recent papers on Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 1/27/2020 10:42 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The bottom line for why*IIT fails*:

If there are no experiences (experiential units, constituents, 
whatever) - wherever they may be in nature, assumedly in brains - to 
process, there is nothing to be integrated in the first place.



No, it fails because it doesn't agree with the common sense assessment 
of what is conscious and what is not.  From Scott's blog:


/For we can easily interpret IIT as trying to do something more “modest” 
than solve the Hard Problem, although still staggeringly audacious.  
Namely, we can say that IIT “merely” aims to tell us which physical 
systems are associated with consciousness and which aren’t, purely in 
terms of the systems’ physical organization. The test of such a theory 
is whether it can produce results agreeing with “commonsense intuition”: 
for example, whether it can affirm, from first principles, that (most) 
humans are conscious; that dogs and horses are also conscious but less 
so; that rocks, livers, bacteria colonies, and existing digital 
computers are not conscious (or are hardly conscious); and that a room 
full of people has no “mega-consciousness” over and above the 
consciousnesses of the individuals./


Brent

@philipthrift


On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 12:12:52 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



It seems that

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799



      (written 6 years ago)

 and

https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCICI 

    (2019)

are in agreement in terms of their*information processing* criticism.

@philipthrift

On Monday, January 27, 2020 at 11:49:54 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 4:18 PM Philip Thrift
 wrote:


What is Scott Aaronson's counterexample to IIT?


A simple search on Aaronson's blog gives many hits. Perhaps
the most relevant is:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799



Is he in agreement with Mørch?


No.

Bruce

@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/0e223772-7512-4b9c-8f22-4d0632cdb0e0%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/ffdb0988-41b8-5df0-7419-d1549f9b00ca%40verizon.net.

Re: Curvature

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 1:28 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> For the observer situated in a distant galaxy, his clock does not
> dilate, and his length does not contract. *


Alan, we know from the redshift that clocks at cosmological distances do NOT
all run at the same rate, so if you didn't also have length contraction
there is no way all observers could measure the same speed for light. You
must have both.

> those galaxies would NOT shrink in length to zero,


But that contradicts your previous post, you said there were no
discontinuities and length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase
continuously and does not stop suddenly at some point short of the speed of
light. Einstein says from our viewpoint distant galaxies can be arbitrarily
thin and the clocks in them can be arbitrarily slow. What do you say?

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/CAJPayv37gjEa4khzwyXGnmfFCF-j2SLds03QKfQe8P9Lhv%2BVzA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Curvature

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 5:44:52 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:54 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> >> We know for a fact time runs slower relative to us for an observer in 
>>> a distant galaxy because we can see the redshift, the decrease in 
>>> frequency, of light that comes from there. But if clocks ran slower for 
>>> them but lengths did not also contract for them then they would observe a 
>>> different speed of light then we do. But we also know for a fact from other 
>>> experiments that the speed of light is the one true constant for everyone 
>>> everywhere, the observed speed of light does not depend on the speed of the 
>>> observer or on the speed of the source producing the light. So why are you 
>>> "not sure it is applicable in this situation"?
>>
>>
>> *> Simple.*
>
>
> Yes your answer is very simple, but that word has more than one meaning.
>
> * > **Because length contraction, say of a rod, depends on comparing 
>> measurement of the rod's length as observed in two frames of reference, 
>> moving wrt each other.  In this case, we're making a measurement of the 
>> CMBR to determine curvature. AG*
>
>
> I'm not talking about Euclidean curvature! I'm trying to show you the 
> volume in a expanding sphere can be infinite. An observer in a distant 
> galaxy using a clock and a meter stick can measure the speed of light. We 
> know for a fact his clock runs slower than our clock (we know this from the 
> redshift). So if his meter stick is not shorter than our meter stick (from 
> relativistic length contraction) then he would measure a different speed 
> for light than we do.  But we know all observers measure the same speed for 
> light. Therefore he must experience both time dilation *AND* length 
> contraction. 
>

*For the observer situated in a distant galaxy, his clock does not dilate, 
and his length does not contract. Rather, that's how it appears for an 
observer far from that galaxy, moving away with some relative speed.  
Moreover, if that galaxy is in the non-observable region wrt to the distant 
observer "measuring" time and length, no measurements are possible. And 
even if the impossible measurement could be made, those galaxies would NOT 
shrink in length to zero, presumably allowing for infinite volume, since 
the expansion has been going on for finite time, 13.8 BY. AG*

So regardless of what the local geometry is, on a large scale the geometry 
> of our universe must be hyperbolic; and the same would be true for any 
> universe that was expanding and had a finite speed of causality.
>
>  >>> *would just mean that the estimate without it would be too large, 
 but not infinite. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Neither Einstein's theory or anything else in physics says length 
>>> contraction, time dilation, and mass increase discontinuously stops at some 
>>> point short of the speed of light, they don't suddenly stop increasing, 
>>> they increase continuously up to the speed of light. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *> I haven't stated anything about discontinuities. They don't exist in 
>> this situation. AG*
>>
>
> OK fine, but if there are no discontinuities then as galaxies get more and 
> more distant from us the clocks in them can run arbitrarily slower than 
> ours from time dilation. And galaxies can be arbitrarily thin from length 
> contraction. And so you could fit a arbitrarily large number of galaxies in 
> a arbitrarily small volume of space. And so globally the universe must 
> follow the rules of hyperbolic geometry not those of Euclid.  And so there 
> is nothing to prevent the volume of a sphere from being infinite if it is 
> expanding and does what Einstein says.
>
> 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/1ef1ef1c-48fa-496d-aeeb-caa7c08ee8b4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Curvature

[Alan Grayson]

On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 5:44:52 AM UTC-7, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:54 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> >> We know for a fact time runs slower relative to us for an observer in 
>>> a distant galaxy because we can see the redshift, the decrease in 
>>> frequency, of light that comes from there. But if clocks ran slower for 
>>> them but lengths did not also contract for them then they would observe a 
>>> different speed of light then we do. But we also know for a fact from other 
>>> experiments that the speed of light is the one true constant for everyone 
>>> everywhere, the observed speed of light does not depend on the speed of the 
>>> observer or on the speed of the source producing the light. So why are you 
>>> "not sure it is applicable in this situation"?
>>
>>
>> *> Simple.*
>
>
> Yes your answer is very simple, but that word has more than one meaning.
>
> * > **Because length contraction, say of a rod, depends on comparing 
>> measurement of the rod's length as observed in two frames of reference, 
>> moving wrt each other.  In this case, we're making a measurement of the 
>> CMBR to determine curvature. AG*
>
>
> I'm not talking about Euclidean curvature! I'm trying to show you the 
> volume in a expanding sphere can be infinite. An observer in a distant 
> galaxy using a clock and a meter stick can measure the speed of light. We 
> know for a fact his clock runs slower than our clock (we know this from the 
> redshift). So if his meter stick is not shorter than our meter stick (from 
> relativistic length contraction) then he would measure a different speed 
> for light than we do.  But we know all observers measure the same speed for 
> light. Therefore he must experience both time dilation *AND* length 
> contraction. So regardless of what the local geometry is, on a large scale 
> the geometry of our universe must be hyperbolic; and the same would be true 
> for any universe that was expanding and had a finite speed of causality.
>
>  >>> *would just mean that the estimate without it would be too large, 
 but not infinite. AG *
>>>
>>>
>>> >> Neither Einstein's theory or anything else in physics says length 
>>> contraction, time dilation, and mass increase discontinuously stops at some 
>>> point short of the speed of light, they don't suddenly stop increasing, 
>>> they increase continuously up to the speed of light. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *> I haven't stated anything about discontinuities. They don't exist in 
>> this situation. AG*
>>
>
> OK fine, but if there are no discontinuities then as galaxies get more and 
> more distant from us the clocks in them can run arbitrarily slower than 
> ours from time dilation. And galaxies can be arbitrarily thin from length 
> contraction. And so you could fit a arbitrarily large number of galaxies in 
> a arbitrarily small volume of space. And so globally the universe must 
> follow the rules of hyperbolic geometry not those of Euclid.  And so there 
> is nothing to prevent the volume of a sphere from being infinite if it is 
> expanding and does what Einstein says.
>
> John K Clark
>

Since you can't measure anything in the NON-observable region, your 
argument fails. Moreover, the radius of a sphere is the same everywhere, so 
if we measure it via the CMBR, this is sufficient to calculate its total 
volume, including the NON-observable region. 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/53c8ffcd-9a9d-4ea8-9563-4177e41bb690%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena

[Stathis Papaioannou]

I’m sorry, this thread is from another mailing list and seems to have been
posted by mistake to the Everything List.

On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 00:15, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Jan 2020, at 22:02, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 05:26, Brent Allsop  wrote:
>
> >> With your robot example, you are proposing that we consider what qualia
> are, then change the system so that the qualia are inverted or disappear or
> are represented by a different, abstract method. The qualia would change,
> and the behaviour of the system would also change if it had a memory of
> what it was like before.
>
> >Exactly.  The consensus Representational Qualia Theory says that
> consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities, in the
> brain, like redness and grenness.
>
>
> How could a representational theory be related to (physical) qualities;
> What could be a physical qualities?
>
> Above all, how could a anything (a physical universe, a god, whatever)
> select some computations in arithmetic?
>
>
>
>   You can play all you want with thought experiments.  But if they do not
> include the minimum requirements to not be qualia blind thought
> experiments, you aren't really talking about the qualitative nature of
> consciousness or what it is like.  You are just talking about what
> computers can do and just quine or ignore qualia.
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>
> >>What I am proposing with the neural substitution is that you only
> attempt to reproduce the low level behaviour. So in a robot, if there is a
> LM741 op amp you can replace it with a TL071 op amp, which has a completely
> different internal circuit design but identical pins and similar
> performance.
>
> >Yes, and all this is completely qualia blind.  You start with the
> assumption that whatever it is that has the redness quality we can directly
> experience can somehow "arise" in a disconnected or separate from reality
> "magic happens here" way.  If you could include anything in your thought
> experiment of things you are substituting that includes redness, and the
> ability to bind this with something physically different like grenness,
> this substitution thought experiment would be something more than absurd
> (i.e. only revealing of your ignorance of how consciousness is
> "computationally bound qualia.")  And also, I predict that no matter what
> you come up with as a prediction of what could be redness (whether
> functional, behavioral, physical, quantum, the right set of logic gates,
> the rite string of ones and zeros... or anything else, even including
> "magic happens here") you will find that this will be impossible, for the
> same reasons you don't think glutamate can be redness.  The way this
> thought experiment is designed qualia simply aren't possible, even
> magically.  It's just not logically possible in any way, without having the
> same problem you have with glutamate being redness.  To say nothing about
> the required neural ponytail binding system which can connect to brains so
> you can verify whether it has changed, or not, after the substitution.
>
> You don’t think it’s possible the robot’s red qualia could be a property
> specific to the LM741 op amp? Neither do I. Here is why.
>
> 1. Suppose the red qualia are a specific property of the LM741 op amp, a
> component in the robot’s visual processing system.
>
> 2. The TL071 op amp has completely different internal circuitry to the
> LM741, but an identical pin configuration, and identical performance in the
> robot.
>
> 3. Therefore, if you replace the LM741 with TL071, the robot will behave
> the same in every way. You can observe it, test it, talk to it, connect it
> with a neural ponytail to your own brain: there can be no difference.
>
> 4. The conclusion is that red qualia cannot be a specific property of the
> LM741 op amp.
>
>
> No, but it can still be the first person result of infinitely many
> computations structured by the logic of self-reference, which, as the rch
> (Löbian) machine already explain as something that can be felt immediately,
> can have shapes, is non rationally justifiable without invoking a notion of
> truth, cannot be communicated among subjects, etc.
>
> Of course, the problem here is that if we follow this (computationalist)
> line, at some point we have to understand that there is no physical
> universe at all, except as a sort of consciousness selection of infinitely
> many histories in arithmetic.
>
> Here the magic is still there, but is reduced into our unexplainable
> belief/understanding, if not consciousness, of the natural numbers. Here
> the advantage is that the machine can explain why this has to be
> unexplainable, unless assuming more unexplained objects.
>
> The qualia red is what appears in those histories where machine develop
> vision together with “enough” self-reference abilities, and the
> Gödel-Löbian machine, which are just the machine believing in some
> induction axioms, can already explain why 

Re: Why Aristotle?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jan 2020, at 05:08, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> When I offered my theory of a hyper-spherical universe, I was accused of 
> being "Aristotelian". But why?


I might oversimplify all this to be clear and simple, but the main difference 
between Aristotle and Plato is that Aristotle believes in an ontologically 
primitive physical reality. He believes in a Universe (a physical universe), 
and his criteria of reality is in seeing, touching, measuring, observing. It 
has led to physicalism, i.e. the metaphysical assumption that physics is the 
fundamental science.

The god/non-god debate hides the original question of the greek theologians, 
which was about the ontological existence of the physical universe.

I did not wait Mechanism to develop doubt about this. I don’t remember having 
believe in”real universe out there" even one second. It does not stand the 
(antic) dream argument, especially when you realise that all computations are 
implemented in arithmetic.

Aristotle: Reality is what we see.
Plato: what we see might be the shadow of a simpler reality (mathematical, 
musical, theological, …).

Science is really born from that important platonic doubt. The idea that 
physics has to be the fundamental science is just due to the fact that the 
Church has institutionalised religion, and has used a lot of Aristotle 
metaphysics, although Judaism, Christianism and Islam have had some intense, 
usually short, (neo)Platonic period, and indeed those periods were peaceful, 
prosper and contributed a lot to science and technology. But we have fall back 
in Aristotle, and today, in metaphysics, Aristotelianism, or weak materialism 
(the belief in some primary matter) is the main current theological paradigm. 
It has never been my religion.





> My primary assumption was IF the universe had a start or beginning, that 
> "time" must of been characterized by zero volume. My reasoning is that IF had 
> non-zero volume, it must have begun earlier; hence, this situation wasn't its 
> start or beginning. My prejudice, if that's what it is, is that the creation 
> event, if there was one, couldn't have "started" without some time-requiring 
> process. So, if there was something, rather than nothing at the beginning, 
> the time-requiring process must have began earlier, thus contradicting the 
> idea of a beginning with some thing already existing, say some volume of 
> space. The logic here is sort-of a proof by contradiction. Whether you agree 
> or not, what has this to do with Aristotle? TIA, AG


It presupposes some physical reality, like space, time, …

I cannot explain to you why I do not believe in this, but I can prove you that 
the amount of mechanism needed to make sense of Darwin theory of evolution is 
enough to understand that the physical reality is something emergent and 
evolving from a non physical reality: namely elementary arithmetic (or anything 
Turing)-equivalent to it).

If you are patient and interested, I can prove this to you. With Digital 
Mechanism (an hypothesis in the cognitive science), physicalism cannot work. 
Even if “real”, a physical universe cannot select a computation and make it 
more or less conscious than another in arithmetic, nor can it influence the 
first person indeterminacy in arithmetic, without adding some magic abilities 
in matter, or invoking actual infinities, which leads to abandoning Mechanism 
(and Darwin, …).


Bruno



> 
> -- 
> 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/cb0b0b7f-e107-428a-8dd8-6be57170932c%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/80415017-846F-4993-81D6-8136331DDFFE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Aristotle?

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, January 26, 2020 at 10:08:54 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> When I offered my theory of a hyper-spherical universe, I was accused of 
> being "Aristotelian". But why? My primary assumption was IF the universe 
> had a start or beginning, that "time" must of been characterized by zero 
> volume. My reasoning is that IF had non-zero volume, it must have begun 
> *earlier*; hence, this situation wasn't its start or beginning. My 
> prejudice, if that's what it is, is that the creation event, if there was 
> one, couldn't have "started" without some time-requiring process. So, if 
> there was something, rather than nothing at the beginning, the 
> time-requiring process must have began *earlier*, thus contradicting the 
> idea of a beginning with some thing already existing, say some volume of 
> space. The logic here is sort-of a proof by contradiction. Whether you 
> agree or not, what has this to do with Aristotle? TIA, AG
>

There is York time τ = 4/3 Tr(K) that measures time according to the 
extrinisic curvature of a compact 3-manifold. This measures time according 
to the extrinsic time, a curvature defined by the parallel translation of a 
normal vector to a 3-manifold K = δN or

dN_i = (∂N_i/∂x^j)dx^j = K_{ij}dx^j, 

for K_{ij} the extrinsic curvature tensor. This time parameter has some 
conformal properties and is divergent for the volume of the manifold → 0. 
This however only works on compact 3-spaces and are not applicable to open 
or noncompact spaces.

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/497c770d-bec8-46ae-94af-f2f6de24d9d3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Cancer

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 22 Jan 2020, at 01:03, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> The journal Nature Immunology published an article yesterday that I think 
> could be pretty important in the war on cancer:
> 
> CRISPR–Cas9 screening reveals ubiquitous T-cell cancer targeting via the 
> monomorphic MR1 protein  
> 
> 
> It's been Known for some time that T-cells can be extracted from a cancer 
> patient and genetically modified with CRISPR to produce a receptor for the 
> patient's cancer and therefore label it as malignant so the immune system can 
> attack it. This has produced some very good results for some cancers like 
> leukemia but unfortunately the treatment must be personalized for each 
> patient and is far less effective in dealing with large solid cancers. But in 
> this new discovery they found a  protein called MR1 that does not change from 
> person to person and exists on the surface of many different types of 
> cancers. When they used CRISPR to make T-cells to produce a receptor for this 
> MR1 protein the results have been encouraging.
> 
> So far they've only tried it with mice and with human cells in vitro, but at 
> least in those limited circumstances it has been shown to kill lung, skin, 
> blood, colon, breast, bone, prostate, ovarian, kidney, and cervical cancer 
> cells but seems to have no effect at all on non-cancerous normal cells. And 
> one size fits all, no personalization is needed. It remains to be seen if 
> this works as well in clinical trials, sometimes they don't, but one can hope.
> 
> Scientist Finds New Blood Cell That Kills Cancer While Ignoring Healthy Cells 
> 
> 


My favorite paper on Cancer is the famous Spanish paper of 2000:

https://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

It is a (re)discovery, in Spain, that THC cures some cancer, and indeed in way 
killing only cancerous cells without harming healthy cells. The original 
discovery was made in 1974 by Americans, but has been hidden to the general 
public, and I have never found a copy of the publication.

This explained a little bit here:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

When I read this in the book on Hemp by Jack Herer, I thought that he was 
exaggerating or just doing pro-cannabis propaganda, but everything Jack Herer 
said in his book has been confirmed, including the “conspiracy” against letting 
people know this. After all the American were paid to prove that cannabis 
provoke cancer, and the boss was not happy with the result!

Note also that since then, many other cannabinoids having a negative impact on 
cancer has been found. The CBD has also anti-cancerous properties, and 
according to which kind of cancer needs to be treated, the relative 
concentration of different cannabinoids plays an important rôle. 

Another interesting paper is

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6387667/

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/CAJPayv0o_HwbCKQBqA%3DQVPnYqULQe%3DywbCo9KfRJ5VCdwLU2Ew%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/1BD60177-B97D-4B25-A6AD-E2E680D1D00D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: [ExI] Mental Phenomena

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 21 Jan 2020, at 22:02, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 05:26, Brent Allsop  > wrote:
> 
> >> With your robot example, you are proposing that we consider what qualia 
> >> are, then change the system so that the qualia are inverted or disappear 
> >> or are represented by a different, abstract method. The qualia would 
> >> change, and the behaviour of the system would also change if it had a 
> >> memory of what it was like before.
> 
> >Exactly.  The consensus Representational Qualia Theory says that 
> >consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities, in the 
> >brain, like redness and grenness.

How could a representational theory be related to (physical) qualities; What 
could be a physical qualities?

Above all, how could a anything (a physical universe, a god, whatever) select 
some computations in arithmetic?



>   You can play all you want with thought experiments.  But if they do not 
> include the minimum requirements to not be qualia blind thought experiments, 
> you aren't really talking about the qualitative nature of consciousness or 
> what it is like.  You are just talking about what computers can do and just 
> quine or ignore qualia.

OK.



> 
> >>What I am proposing with the neural substitution is that you only attempt 
> >>to reproduce the low level behaviour. So in a robot, if there is a LM741 op 
> >>amp you can replace it with a TL071 op amp, which has a completely 
> >>different internal circuit design but identical pins and similar 
> >>performance.
> 
> >Yes, and all this is completely qualia blind.  You start with the assumption 
> >that whatever it is that has the redness quality we can directly experience 
> >can somehow "arise" in a disconnected or separate from reality "magic 
> >happens here" way.  If you could include anything in your thought experiment 
> >of things you are substituting that includes redness, and the ability to 
> >bind this with something physically different like grenness, this 
> >substitution thought experiment would be something more than absurd (i.e. 
> >only revealing of your ignorance of how consciousness is "computationally 
> >bound qualia.")  And also, I predict that no matter what you come up with as 
> >a prediction of what could be redness (whether functional, behavioral, 
> >physical, quantum, the right set of logic gates, the rite string of ones and 
> >zeros... or anything else, even including "magic happens here") you will 
> >find that this will be impossible, for the same reasons you don't think 
> >glutamate can be redness.  The way this thought experiment is designed 
> >qualia simply aren't possible, even magically.  It's just not logically 
> >possible in any way, without having the same problem you have with glutamate 
> >being redness.  To say nothing about the required neural ponytail binding 
> >system which can connect to brains so you can verify whether it has changed, 
> >or not, after the substitution.
> 
> You don’t think it’s possible the robot’s red qualia could be a property 
> specific to the LM741 op amp? Neither do I. Here is why.
> 
> 1. Suppose the red qualia are a specific property of the LM741 op amp, a 
> component in the robot’s visual processing system.
> 
> 2. The TL071 op amp has completely different internal circuitry to the LM741, 
> but an identical pin configuration, and identical performance in the robot.
> 
> 3. Therefore, if you replace the LM741 with TL071, the robot will behave the 
> same in every way. You can observe it, test it, talk to it, connect it with a 
> neural ponytail to your own brain: there can be no difference.
> 
> 4. The conclusion is that red qualia cannot be a specific property of the 
> LM741 op amp.

No, but it can still be the first person result of infinitely many computations 
structured by the logic of self-reference, which, as the rch (Löbian) machine 
already explain as something that can be felt immediately, can have shapes, is 
non rationally justifiable without invoking a notion of truth, cannot be 
communicated among subjects, etc.

Of course, the problem here is that if we follow this (computationalist) line, 
at some point we have to understand that there is no physical universe at all, 
except as a sort of consciousness selection of infinitely many histories in 
arithmetic.

Here the magic is still there, but is reduced into our unexplainable 
belief/understanding, if not consciousness, of the natural numbers. Here the 
advantage is that the machine can explain why this has to be unexplainable, 
unless assuming more unexplained objects.

The qualia red is what appears in those histories where machine develop vision 
together with “enough” self-reference abilities, and the Gödel-Löbian machine, 
which are just the machine believing in some induction axioms, can already 
explain why the qualia cannot have any representational theory. 
But there can be a theory, and the theory 

Re: Curvature

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:54 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

>> We know for a fact time runs slower relative to us for an observer in a
>> distant galaxy because we can see the redshift, the decrease in frequency,
>> of light that comes from there. But if clocks ran slower for them but
>> lengths did not also contract for them then they would observe a different
>> speed of light then we do. But we also know for a fact from other
>> experiments that the speed of light is the one true constant for everyone
>> everywhere, the observed speed of light does not depend on the speed of the
>> observer or on the speed of the source producing the light. So why are you
>> "not sure it is applicable in this situation"?
>
>
> *> Simple.*


Yes your answer is very simple, but that word has more than one meaning.

* > **Because length contraction, say of a rod, depends on comparing
> measurement of the rod's length as observed in two frames of reference,
> moving wrt each other.  In this case, we're making a measurement of the
> CMBR to determine curvature. AG*


I'm not talking about Euclidean curvature! I'm trying to show you the
volume in a expanding sphere can be infinite. An observer in a distant
galaxy using a clock and a meter stick can measure the speed of light. We
know for a fact his clock runs slower than our clock (we know this from the
redshift). So if his meter stick is not shorter than our meter stick (from
relativistic length contraction) then he would measure a different speed
for light than we do.  But we know all observers measure the same speed for
light. Therefore he must experience both time dilation *AND* length
contraction. So regardless of what the local geometry is, on a large scale
the geometry of our universe must be hyperbolic; and the same would be true
for any universe that was expanding and had a finite speed of causality.

 >>> *would just mean that the estimate without it would be too large, but
>>> not infinite. AG *
>>
>>
>> >> Neither Einstein's theory or anything else in physics says length
>> contraction, time dilation, and mass increase discontinuously stops at some
>> point short of the speed of light, they don't suddenly stop increasing,
>> they increase continuously up to the speed of light.
>>
>
>
> *> I haven't stated anything about discontinuities. They don't exist in
> this situation. AG*
>

OK fine, but if there are no discontinuities then as galaxies get more and
more distant from us the clocks in them can run arbitrarily slower than
ours from time dilation. And galaxies can be arbitrarily thin from length
contraction. And so you could fit a arbitrarily large number of galaxies in
a arbitrarily small volume of space. And so globally the universe must
follow the rules of hyperbolic geometry not those of Euclid.  And so there
is nothing to prevent the volume of a sphere from being infinite if it is
expanding and does what Einstein says.

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%3D6rO9pJtPfShjyaA0cJB0v5CE701QMrU33ifjgTN67g%40mail.gmail.com.