date:20210310

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Only if we could break into other worldliness does MWI seem interesting.
> Especially for trade between earth's! Maybe the Neanderthal earth never
> discovered yams as a food source, so we could trade some of ours for their
> wonderful gray crystals that do photonic computing so well? Your axioms are
> indisputable, but I would still hug the real world closely, as it doesn't
> do to ignore the punches that nature delivers.
>

You might like the TV series: Counterpart. It explorers these ideas.

Jason



> --
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal  com> wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:45, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great
> Program. One may ask, running on what?
>
>
>
> *IF* you are willing to bet, like Darwin did implicitly, that life is
> Turing emulable, so that for example, you can survive with an artificial
> digital brain (and there are evidences for this, if only the success of
> Darwin’s type of explanation in biology),
> *Then*, the “Great program” are given any Universal Turing Machinery.
> More precisely, any Model (in the sense of Logician) of any Turing-complete
> theory would do the work. As the elementary arithmetic that we all learn in
> primary school is a universal machinery, we need only to believe in the
> truth of 2+2=4 & Co.
>
> Now, you might ask where does that arithmetical reality come from?
>
> *Answer:* any other universal machinery can explain this. You can derive
> the Robinson Axioms of Arithmetic from the simple theory of combinators,
> which has only two axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz) together with three
> simple identity axioms(*). I did it explicitly on this forum (search
> “combinators”).
> So, all we need is to assume one Universal machinery, whichever you want.
>
> Now, you might ask where does that “first” universal machinery comes from?
>
> *Answer:* It is impossible to derive a universal machinery from something
> which is not already a universal machinery. So, a universal machinery is a
> needed to even just define the notion of machine and machinery.
>
> (In case people have forgotten: a universal machinery is given by all
> programs in some Turing universal system, or the partial computable
> functions associates with those programs, the phi_i. A universal
> machine/number is a number u such that
> phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is called the computer, x is called the program,
> and y is called the data. (x, y) is supposed to be a number (coding the two
> numbers x and y).
>
> Note that when you have a universal number, you can define a universal
> machinery associated with it, and all universal machinery contains
> (infinitely many) universal numbers.
>
> Once we assume/believe/bet-on Indexical Digital Mechanism (yes doctor +
> the Church Turing thesis), physics is reduced to a statistics on all
> (relative) computations going through our computational mental states, and
> that statistics is given by the modal logic of the “observable” variant of
> Gödel’s beweisbar predicate.
>
> A believer in an ontological physical universe must abandon Mechanism, or
> abandon rationality.
>
> I got the "many-world” aspect of physics from this in the 1970, and it
> took 30 years to get quantum logic for the observable, and quantum
> intuitionist logic for the sensible.
>
> I recall you the 8 modes of self-reference imposed by incompleteness. P
> represents sigma_1 arithmetical proposition.
>
> p (truth)
> []p (justifiable) (splits in two along G*/G)
> []p & p (knowable)
> []p & <>t (observable) (splits in two along G*/G)
> []p & <>t & p (sensible) (splits in two along G*/G)
>
> G* proves them all equivalent, but G cannot prove any of those
> equivalences. It means that the machine sees the same truth, but from 8
> very different perspective obeying 8 very different mathematics.
>
> Bruno
>
> (*) the full basic theory of combinators is:
>
> RULES:
>
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
>
> AXIOMS:
>
> 4) Kxy = x
> 5) Sxyz = xz(yz)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones  wrote:
>
> What was there before there was nothing?
>
>
> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather,
> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of
> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define
> all

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 8:00 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Well for this knuckle dragging savage, I compulsively am driven towards
> how can our species make use of science and philosophy to make life better?
> We may chose to view your fellow compuationalist philosopher, Juergen
> Schmidhuber, viewing God (you know He doesn't like to be called that!) As
> being The Great Programmer. Yet, we primates are behaviorally motivated by
> rewards, so we would have to gain a material reason to act in common?
>
I believe that a universal ethics, can follow from theories of personal
identity.

To me, the most sensible of which suggest universalism / open
individualism: the idea that there is only one mind and we are all it.

This converts self interest into a common interest for the good of all
sentient beings.

Jason



--
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 10 Mar 2021, at 14:08, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 5:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great
> Program. One may ask, running on what?
>
>
> I agree that thought is in a sense, more fundamental (existing prior to)
> the observed. Of course the next question is what explains the origin of
> this thought? This is the answer I now tell myself (I welcome
> revisions/improvements):
>
> If one accepts the independent existence of mathematical truths, like "2 +
> 2 = 4" then, due to Turing universal equations, one must also accept truths
> like "The 1,829,735th step of program #789 contains a bit string "01011101".
>
> We can keep going, and extend this to say, programs that describe
> computable physical worlds, and relate the bit strings representing those
> generated states to facts about these computable realities
>
> It therefore becomes a mathematically provable fact that "there exists a
> universal equation that includes an encoding of this very e-mail, written
> by a computational version of a person just like me, who exists as part of
> a computed physical reality which looks just like our observable universe."
>
> So if 2+2=4, then thoughts exist.
>
>
> Indeed :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> --
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones  wrote:
>
> What was there before there was nothing?
>
>
> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather,
> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of
> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define
> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a
> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See:
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation
>
>
> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws,
> number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.
> The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any
> sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has
> several different meanings.
>
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".
>
> I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types,
> or modes of existence:
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence
>
> Jason
>
> --
> 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/CA%2BBCJUhz5QF90QwoJfbF-u76tuYr%2B61fY5%3D%2BbkhjLZMxxqrqEA%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/1268362286.989763.1615333541353%40mail.yahoo.com
>

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Without any thinking involved I would guess that the only thing that could be
running is information. Info in the form of photons and electrons and the
patterns we detect, if any? As Jason Resch pointed out months ago, a lot of
info necessarily is hidden from us, physically. How? Jason noted that it simply
is not in our light cone, in the Minkowski sense of things. A photon emitted
from the far side of the sun cannot be observed from earth telescopes. Now, if
you were to sign an enormously large check for an interplanetary space based
solar telescope that observed solar phenomena from it's special perspective,
and then sent the data forward to earth, then it would be in our light cone.
This was Everett's big thing, the Observer. It was also Bryce DeWitt & Wheelers
big thing.

Mayhaps, if the cosmos or multiverse has a purpose, it is to be a species that
is an observer, and then create and launch multiple mechanical observers to
detect things? Like the good Von Newmann machines they are, they will make more
in order to better observe. To induce outcomes in this universe or to cause
logical split offs.

For my world view Shrodinger's Cat is not a potential victim in a ghastly
experiment, but an active participant, for the cat observes sitting in the lap
of Wigner's Friend.

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 John Clark
wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:

> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program.
> One may ask, running on what?

There's only one thing it could be running on, the laws of physics.

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis

--
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/CAJPayv1RmwztO04e3ZhnkRtAN%3DVJLC2TZ1xDo41H8Rpmhhdrtg%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Only if we could break into other worldliness does MWI seem interesting. 
Especially for trade between earth's! Maybe the Neanderthal earth never 
discovered yams as a food source, so we could trade some of ours for their 
wonderful gray crystals that do photonic computing so well? Your axioms are 
indisputable, but I would still hug the real world closely, as it doesn't do to 
ignore the punches that nature delivers.

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:45, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British 
astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the cosmos 
as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program. One may 
ask, running on what?




IF you are willing to bet, like Darwin did implicitly, that life is Turing 
emulable, so that for example, you can survive with an artificial digital brain 
(and there are evidences for this, if only the success of Darwin’s type of 
explanation in biology),Then, the “Great program” are given any Universal 
Turing Machinery. More precisely, any Model (in the sense of Logician) of any 
Turing-complete theory would do the work. As the elementary arithmetic that we 
all learn in primary school is a universal machinery, we need only to believe 
in the truth of 2+2=4 & Co.
Now, you might ask where does that arithmetical reality come from?
Answer: any other universal machinery can explain this. You can derive the 
Robinson Axioms of Arithmetic from the simple theory of combinators, which has 
only two axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz) together with three simple identity 
axioms(*). I did it explicitly on this forum (search “combinators”). So, all we 
need is to assume one Universal machinery, whichever you want.
Now, you might ask where does that “first” universal machinery comes from?
Answer: It is impossible to derive a universal machinery from something which 
is not already a universal machinery. So, a universal machinery is a needed to 
even just define the notion of machine and machinery.
(In case people have forgotten: a universal machinery is given by all programs 
in some Turing universal system, or the partial computable functions associates 
with those programs, the phi_i. A universal machine/number is a number u such 
thatphi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is called the computer, x is called the program, 
and y is called the data. (x, y) is supposed to be a number (coding the two 
numbers x and y).
Note that when you have a universal number, you can define a universal 
machinery associated with it, and all universal machinery contains (infinitely 
many) universal numbers.
Once we assume/believe/bet-on Indexical Digital Mechanism (yes doctor + the 
Church Turing thesis), physics is reduced to a statistics on all (relative) 
computations going through our computational mental states, and that statistics 
is given by the modal logic of the “observable” variant of Gödel’s beweisbar 
predicate. 
A believer in an ontological physical universe must abandon Mechanism, or 
abandon rationality.
I got the "many-world” aspect of physics from this in the 1970, and it took 30 
years to get quantum logic for the observable, and quantum intuitionist logic 
for the sensible.
I recall you the 8 modes of self-reference imposed by incompleteness. P 
represents sigma_1 arithmetical proposition. 
p (truth)[]p (justifiable) (splits in two along G*/G)[]p & p (knowable)[]p & 
<>t (observable) (splits in two along G*/G)[]p & <>t & p (sensible) (splits in 
two along G*/G)
G* proves them all equivalent, but G cannot prove any of those equivalences. It 
means that the machine sees the same truth, but from 8 very different 
perspective obeying 8 very different mathematics.
Bruno
(*) the full basic theory of combinators is:
RULES:
1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z2) If x = y then xz = yz3) If x = y then zx = 
zy
AXIOMS:
4) Kxy = x5) Sxyz = xz(yz)








On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch  wrote:



On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:

  
 
 On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
  
  
  
  On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones  wrote:
  
 What was there before there was nothing?
  
 
  I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, 
there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of 
numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all 
computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result 
of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: 
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation   
 
 But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws, 
number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.  The 
logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any sensible 
discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Well for this knuckle dragging savage, I compulsively am driven towards how can
our species make use of science and philosophy to make life better? We may
chose to view your fellow compuationalist philosopher, Juergen Schmidhuber,
viewing God (you know He doesn't like to be called that!) As being The Great
Programmer. Yet, we primates are behaviorally motivated by rewards, so we would
have to gain a material reason to act in common?
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 10 Mar 2021, at 14:08, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 5:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List
wrote:

I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the cosmos
as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program. One may
ask, running on what?

I agree that thought is in a sense, more fundamental (existing prior to) the
observed. Of course the next question is what explains the origin of this
thought? This is the answer I now tell myself (I welcome
revisions/improvements):
If one accepts the independent existence of mathematical truths, like "2 + 2 =
4" then, due to Turing universal equations, one must also accept truths like
"The 1,829,735th step of program #789 contains a bit string "01011101".
We can keep going, and extend this to say, programs that describe computable
physical worlds, and relate the bit strings representing those generated states
to facts about these computable realities
It therefore becomes a mathematically provable fact that "there exists a
universal equation that includes an encoding of this very e-mail, written by a
computational version of a person just like me, who exists as part of a
computed physical reality which looks just like our observable universe."
So if 2+2=4, then thoughts exist.

Indeed :)
Bruno

Jason

On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones wrote:

What was there before there was nothing?

I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather,
there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of
numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define all
computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a result
of these computations creating consciousness observers. See:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation

But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist". Logical laws,
number, etc are derivative on language. They don't "exist" physically. The
logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate. Any sensible
discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different
meanings.

Hi Brent,
You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".
I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types, or
modes of existence:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence
Jason
--
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/CA%2BBCJUhz5QF90QwoJfbF-u76tuYr%2B61fY5%3D%2BbkhjLZMxxqrqEA%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/CA%2BBCJUg5zZT%2BnX2oWtTOobPBnx_C_vOLQ%3D7-6rsnOTm1VZX6BA%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

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real"
existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

As I said, possible means identical to itself.

I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible
that there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum
of two primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a
cardinal number between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you
flip a coin is it possible it will come up heads? What's the
difference between "possible" and "necessary".

If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means
that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical
to itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between
possible and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible
object exists necessarily

You're avoiding the questions. Your coin coming up heads isn't an
object. Neither is the even number that is not the sum of two primes.
And as Bruno pointed out "object" is not well defined. Is John Clark an
object, or as he puts it "a verb".

in reality as a whole. The distinction between possible and necessary
is used when talking about something that exists only in some possible
worlds versus something that exists in every possible world, respectively.

But if something is not necessary then there are world's that are same
except that the something exists in one and not the other. Is it
identical to itself if it doesn't satisfy the "exists" predicate?

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/7a0f7a50-140a-dbd0-d11f-e19035c2abcc%40verizon.net.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:52 AM Tomas Pales  wrote:

> On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>>
>>> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
>>> changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
>>>
>>
>> As I said, possible means identical to itself.
>>
>>
>> I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so.  Is it possible that
>> there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two
>> primes?  Is it real?  Is it possible that there is a cardinal number
>> between aleph0 and aleph1?  Is it real?  If you flip a coin is it possible
>> it will come up heads?  What's the difference between "possible" and
>> "necessary".
>>
>
> If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means
> that the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to
> itself and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible
> and necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists
> necessarily in reality as a whole.
>


That is known as 'begging the question' in that you have assumed the result
that it is necessary for you to prove. In other words, you have a circular
argument.

Bruce

The distinction between possible and necessary is used when talking about
> something that exists only in some possible worlds versus something that
> exists in every possible world, respectively.
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQddUPHiSSeW%2BPkaQGP-iyb79j1nzJpdVCauqfTyQET0g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Thursday, March 11, 2021 at 12:15:43 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) 
>> changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
>>
>
> As I said, possible means identical to itself. 
>
>
> I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so.  Is it possible that 
> there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two 
> primes?  Is it real?  Is it possible that there is a cardinal number 
> between aleph0 and aleph1?  Is it real?  If you flip a coin is it possible 
> it will come up heads?  What's the difference between "possible" and 
> "necessary".
>

If there is a contradiction in the definition of an object, that means that 
the law of identity is violated and the object is not identical to itself 
and hence is not possible. There is no difference between possible and 
necessary in the absolute sense because every possible object exists 
necessarily in reality as a whole. The distinction between possible and 
necessary is used when talking about something that exists only in some 
possible worlds versus something that exists in every possible world, 
respectively.

-- 
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/f42bfc0d-3c1f-47fc-9929-5fbaf44b0d60n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Just name the string "Bob" and output Bob.

Brent

On 3/10/2021 2:55 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
I believe Chaitin has a definition of randomness that works for finite
strings. If I remember correctly it has to do with the length of the
shortest program that outputs the string being longer than the string
itself.

Jason

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 3:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 3/10/2021 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness
exist? If so, then by having existential properties it
is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does not exist
then there must exist something. In a sense God is the
antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the
same paradoxical issue.

There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between
/nothing/ and /everything/, particularly as it relates to
information theory. Insofar as the total set of all
possibilities has zero information content.

Even if it tells us what is not possible? I think you're
getting in over your head. What kind of "possible" to you
mean? Simple not self-contradictory? Nomological? Or what?

A random message string can contain zero information, but still
exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.

I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries
maximum information, per Shannon. That's why maximally
compressed string looks random; although you can't really define
random in the information theoretic sense for finite strings.

You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant.

What does it mean "up to a constant"?

Most universal machine will agree on some large string being
random, but can differ on strings shorter than themselves, say.
See the book by Calllude on the randomness of finite string.
This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is
said to be random if almost all his initial segments are.

Even with only two "l"s in his name, I find no reference to him.
If you have a finite string you can just adopt a notation in which
it has a short name, "Bob", and then it's Kolomogorov complexity
is that of "Bob". So I don't see by what definition you can prove
a finite string to be random.

Brent

Bruno

Brent

This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an
elementary confusion of categories.

This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory
of Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html

That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.

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/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%40mail.gmail.com

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

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%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/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 3/10/2021 2:51 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 4:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:



On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:



On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:



On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:



On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent
wrote:



On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

The law of identity determines what can possibly
exist, namely that which is identical to itself.
But what is the difference between a possibly
existing object and a "really" existing object? I
see no difference, and hence all possible objects
exist, necessarily.


So everything that does not exist is something that
cannot possibly exist.  But does that mean in the
future or just now.  If it means /just now/ then
it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what
it is." and has no useful content.  But if it means
now and the future, even confined to the near
future, it's false.


When you talk about something you must define it. The
temporal position of an object is part of its
definition (identity). So when object X can exist at
time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial,
just an example of the law of identity.




To which someone might say something like: "But
there is a red car parked in front of my house.
Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car
would be parked there instead? Then the blue car
would be a possible object that obviously doesn't
exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that
would be a contradiction, a violation of the law
of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car
might be parked in front of my house in a
different possible world but then we are talking
about a different world, and not really about my
house either but rather about a copy of my house
in that other world - and the fact that you can't
see that other world is not a proof that it
doesn't exist.


c.f. Russell's teapot.


c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they
don't exist

The question is what is the difference between a
possibly existing object and a "really" existing
object? The fact that you don't see something doesn't
mean that it doesn't exist.


That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it
does exist either. Or even that it's (nomologically)
possible.


I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying
that something is possible (identical to itself). I am just
saying that if something is possible then it exists, because
I don't see a difference between possible and "real" existence.


Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real"
existence (2) changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

Brent


Then Minsky was mad:

https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs 


Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning.   He
doesn't define what he means by possible. It's interesting that he
takes as an example repeated addition and says he can't understand
how there could be a world in which it doesn't exist.  But only a
moment before he's discussing things existing in computer games,
which can only do finite arithmetic.


He said his preference would be to get rid of the word 'real' and only 
speak of 'possible', because exist doesn't add anything (except for 
the case of relative existence within the universe, like the button in 
his shirt).


In other words, except for the only case that makes sense.

But thinks it's a useless concept to speak of other possible universes 
being 'real', and prefers only using possible in that context.


Whether he thinks possibility by itself is enough for existence is not 
clear, but he suggests it when he says we could be part of the logical 
possibilities of a program that was never turned on.


But is it possible to turn the program on?  If it was not turned on, and 
possible=necessary then it was necessarily turned off and could not 
possibly be turned on.  In which case it was possible, was it?


Brent

--
You received this

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 2:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

As I said, possible means identical to itself.

I know you said it, but that doesn't make it so. Is it possible that
there is a an even number greater than 2 which is not the sum of two
primes? Is it real? Is it possible that there is a cardinal number
between aleph0 and aleph1? Is it real? If you flip a coin is it
possible it will come up heads? What's the difference between
"possible" and "necessary".

When you define a word you need to make it consistent with usage.

Brent

Now you tell me how it differs from "real".

--
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/a45abe3e-31af-4619-a883-5eed60aec8e8n%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/f021d0f3-cbf6-9bec-3e33-83b226870f0b%40verizon.net.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

I believe Chaitin has a definition of randomness that works for finite
strings. If I remember correctly it has to do with the length of the
shortest program that outputs the string being longer than the string
itself.

Jason

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 3:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/2021 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then
>>> by having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness
>>> does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the
>>> antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
>>
>>
>> There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between *nothing*
>> and *everything*, particularly as it relates to information theory.
>> Insofar as the total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
>>
>
> Even if it tells us what is not possible?  I think you're getting in over
> your head.  What kind of "possible" to you mean?  Simple not
> self-contradictory?  Nomological?  Or what?
>
>
>
> A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist --
> written on a piece of paper, for example.
>
>
> I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum
> information, per Shannon.  That's why maximally compressed string looks
> random; although you can't really define random in the information
> theoretic sense for finite strings.
>
>
>
> You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant.
>
>
> What does it mean "up to a constant"?
>
> Most universal machine will agree on some large string being random, but
> can differ on strings shorter than themselves, say. See the book by
> Calllude on the randomness of finite string.
> This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is said to be
> random if almost all his initial segments are.
>
>
> Even with only two "l"s in his name, I find no reference to him.  If you
> have a finite string you can just adopt a notation in which it has a short
> name, "Bob", and then  it's Kolomogorov complexity is that of "Bob".  So I
> don't see by what definition you can prove a finite string to be random.
>
> Brent
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
> This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary
> confusion of categories.
>
> This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing:
>> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html
>>
>
>
> That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
>
> 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/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%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/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%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/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad09055f-874c-59d3-bf91-868b8bc962b2%40verizon.net
>

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 4:38 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>>>

 On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

 The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that
 which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly
 existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and
 hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.

 So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly
 exist.  But does that mean in the future or just now.  If it means *just
 now* then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is."
 and has no useful content.  But if it means now and the future, even
 confined to the near future, it's false.

>>> When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position
>>> of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can
>>> exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an
>>> example of the law of identity.
>>>

 To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car
 parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue
 car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible
 object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that
 would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence
 impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different
 possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not
 really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that
 other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a
 proof that it doesn't exist.

 c.f. Russell's teapot.

>>>
>>> c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
>>>
>>> The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing
>>> object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see
>>> something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist
>>> either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
>>>
>>
>> I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that
>> something is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if
>> something is possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference
>> between possible and "real" existence.
>>
>>
>> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
>> changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Then Minsky was mad:
>
> https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs
>
>
> Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning.   He doesn't
> define what he means by possible.  It's interesting that he takes as an
> example repeated addition and says he can't understand how there could be a
> world in which it doesn't exist.  But only a moment before he's discussing
> things existing in computer games, which can only do finite arithmetic.
>

He said his preference would be to get rid of the word 'real' and only
speak of 'possible', because exist doesn't add anything (except for the
case of relative existence within the universe, like the button in his
shirt). But thinks it's a useless concept to speak of other possible
universes being 'real', and prefers only using possible in that context.

Whether he thinks possibility by itself is enough for existence is not
clear, but he suggests it when he says we could be part of the logical
possibilities of a program that was never turned on.

Jason

> 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/11f2a79b-659f-730a-c7a6-aa4c15286915%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

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?



On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:29:13 PM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed 
> the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
>

As I said, possible means identical to itself. Now you tell me how it 
differs from "real".


-- 
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/a45abe3e-31af-4619-a883-5eed60aec8e8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 4:12:21 PM UTC+1 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales  wrote:
>
> The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which 
> is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly 
> existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and 
> hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
>
>
> But what is an object? 
>

Good question. Whatever an object is, it seems it must necessarily have 
these two kinds of relations to other objects: 

1) composition relation (the relation between a part and a whole, or 
between an object and a collection (combination, set) of objects that 
includes this object)
2) instantiation relation (the relation between an object and its property)

Having a composition relation means being a part or having a part (all 
objects are parts of a greater object, and some objects also have parts). 
Having an instantiation relation means having a property or being a 
property (all objects have a property, and some objects are also 
properties). Wouldn't you agree that every possible object must have these 
two kinds of relations?

The composition relation generates all possible collections (combinations, 
sets), down to empty collections (non-composite objects) and maybe even 
without bottom as long as there is no contradiction. And the instantiation 
relation generates all possible properties and objects that have these 
properties, down to collections (which are not properties of anything else) 
and maybe even without bottom as long as there is no contradiction.

So, there are two kinds of objects: collections and properties (roughly 
synonymous with concrete and abstract objects, respectively). Actually, we 
might count relations as a third kind of object because, after all, they 
are something too. Abstract relations are also properties of concrete 
relations (for example the abstract/general composition relation is a 
property of any concrete composition relation).

> I agree that Unicorn can exist, in the mind of some people, or in a dream, 
> but most would say that Unicorn do no exist, because being fictional is 
> part of their definition.
>

Minds are parts of reality, so parts of minds (like unicorns) are parts of 
reality too. Like every object, unicorns exist in the way in which they are 
defined, in this case as parts of minds. And maybe in some other world also 
outside of minds, as long as there is no contradiction.

> Or take a square circle, or a dog which is also a cat…
>

These are not possible objects because their definition violates the law of 
identity. What is a circle that is not a circle? Nothing.

Why? A red can which is blue can be identical with itself. All odd natural 
> number solution to 2x = x + 1 are equal to itself, despite not existing. 
> Your self-identity criteria is too weak for being a criteria of existence.
>

A red car that is blue is a red car that is not red. Violation of law of 
identity, therefore nothing.

-- 
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/cd4c87ad-ebdf-488a-9d0e-66e4f9d7e0f3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 9:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

The law of identity determines what can possibly exist,
namely that which is identical to itself. But what is
the difference between a possibly existing object and a
"really" existing object? I see no difference, and
hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.

So everything that does not exist is something that
cannot possibly exist. But does that mean in the future
or just now. If it means /just now/ then it's a trivial
tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no
useful content. But if it means now and the future,
even confined to the near future, it's false.

When you talk about something you must define it. The
temporal position of an object is part of its definition
(identity). So when object X can exist at time t, then it
must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an example of the
law of identity.

To which someone might say something like: "But there
is a red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it
possible that, at this moment, a blue car would be
parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a
possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no.
A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction,
a violation of the law of identity, and hence
impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my
house in a different possible world but then we are
talking about a different world, and not really about
my house either but rather about a copy of my house in
that other world - and the fact that you can't see that
other world is not a proof that it doesn't exist.

c.f. Russell's teapot.

c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't
exist

The question is what is the difference between a possibly
existing object and a "really" existing object? The fact
that you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does
exist either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.

Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

Brent

Then Minsky was mad:

https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs

Minsky says real is relative to "this"...not your meaning. He doesn't
define what he means by possible. It's interesting that he takes as an
example repeated addition and says he can't understand how there could
be a world in which it doesn't exist. But only a moment before he's
discussing things existing in computer games, which can only do finite
arithmetic.

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/11f2a79b-659f-730a-c7a6-aa4c15286915%40verizon.net.

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 7:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 9 Mar 2021, at 20:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark > wrote:

Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

John K Clark

My comment there:

<<
Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all
models of elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that
no universal machine can know which computations support it, and
indeed that if the machine looks below at itself (and environment)
its Mechanist Substitution level, she has to see the statistical
impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem is that the
wave itself must be explained by the logics of
machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already
in the 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I
was not aware that the physicists were already there. The advantage
is a simpler "theory of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing
equivalent), but also that we get very naturally the
qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not well known,
and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this,
as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.

We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any
evidence that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I
can argue that we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental
reality is not physical, but arithmetical. We have even a proof once
we assume the (indexical and digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the
cognitive science (not in the physical science).

Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.

That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not
refute mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains
what we observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just
for the observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc.

You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain
everything, but that is interesting only if we can make prediction,
both positive and negative, like physical laws. But with mechanism we
have an explanation of where the physical laws come from, and why they
give rise to sharable quanta, and non sharable qualia.

A good example. You have an explanation of where physical laws come
from because you have theory that explains every possible physical law
(according to you).

Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the
universe, but two contradicting theories, but it does not address at
all the question of consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this.
It uses an identity thesis incompatible with Mechanism, used already
in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. That is why strict materialist
believer

There's a big difference between being a believer and a scientist. I'm
content to regard problems as unsolved until someone finds a solution.

Brent

come up with the idea that consciousness is an illusion (but that is
non-sensical), or just eliminate persons and consciousness altogether,
which is not really satisfying…

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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%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/D85A8911-5DBA-4295-89DD-95D42853FC82%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/748bc420-4f8e-525b-a5f1-d9acc723681e%40verizon.net.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch > wrote:

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist?
If so, then by having existential properties it is not pure
nothingness. If nothingness does not exist then there must
exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis of
nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.

Even if it tells us what is not possible? I think you're getting in
over your head. What kind of "possible" to you mean? Simple not
self-contradictory? Nomological? Or what?

A random message string can contain zero information, but still
exist -- written on a piece of paper, for example.

I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum
information, per Shannon. That's why maximally compressed string
looks random; although you can't really define random in the
information theoretic sense for finite strings.

You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant.

What does it mean "up to a constant"?

Most universal machine will agree on some large string being random,
but can differ on strings shorter than themselves, say. See the book
by Calllude on the randomness of finite string.
This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is said
to be random if almost all his initial segments are.

Even with only two "l"s in his name, I find no reference to him. If you
have a finite string you can just adopt a notation in which it has a
short name, "Bob", and then it's Kolomogorov complexity is that of
"Bob". So I don't see by what definition you can prove a finite string
to be random.

Brent

Bruno

Brent

This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an
elementary confusion of categories.

This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of
Nothing: https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html

That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.

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/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%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/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%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/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be
.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ad09055f-874c-59d3-bf91-868b8bc962b2%40verizon.net.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread smitra

On 10-03-2021 18:41, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that
which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a
possibly existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no
difference, and hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.

So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly
exist. But does that mean in the future or just now. If it means
_just now_ then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what
it is." and has no useful content. But if it means now and the
future, even confined to the near future, it's false.

When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal
position of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when
object X can exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's
trivial, just an example of the law of identity.

To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car
parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this
moment, a blue car would be parked there instead? Then the blue
car would be a possible object that obviously doesn't exist." Um,
no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a contradiction, a
violation of the law of identity, and hence impossible. A blue car
might be parked in front of my house in a different possible world
but then we are talking about a different world, and not really
about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that
other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is
not a proof that it doesn't exist.

c.f. Russell's teapot.

c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist

The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing
object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see
something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist
either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.

I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that
something is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if
something is possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference
between possible and "real" existence.
Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

Brent

Then Minsky was mad:

https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs

Jason

Here the discussion about possible and real starts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJwzVD3jEs=294s

This point of view makes sense, existence is relative in the sense that
everything that is possible exists and then relative to some agent X,
some other possible thing Y may not exist inside X's universe such that
X can interact with Y. But Y is also guaranteed to exist in its own
universe.

Saibal

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 11:29 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>>
>>> The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that
>>> which is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly
>>> existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and
>>> hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
>>>
>>>
>>> So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly
>>> exist.  But does that mean in the future or just now.  If it means *just
>>> now* then it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is."
>>> and has no useful content.  But if it means now and the future, even
>>> confined to the near future, it's false.
>>>
>>>
>> When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position
>> of an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can
>> exist at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an
>> example of the law of identity.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car
>>> parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue
>>> car would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible
>>> object that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that
>>> would be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence
>>> impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different
>>> possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not
>>> really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that
>>> other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a
>>> proof that it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> c.f. Russell's teapot.
>>>
>>
>> c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
>>
>> The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object
>> and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something
>> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>> That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist
>> either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
>>
>
> I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that something
> is possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if something is
> possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference between possible
> and "real" existence.
>
>
> Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2) changed
> the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.
>
> Brent
>

Then Minsky was mad:

https://youtu.be/hVJwzVD3jEs

Jason

-- 
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/CA%2BBCJUiJxADo0atFqn4fqDEPNamQ8wby52Gy%2BBcf-dXh2cyO_g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 3/10/2021 1:18 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:

On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:

The law of identity determines what can possibly exist,
namely that which is identical to itself. But what is the
difference between a possibly existing object and a "really"
existing object? I see no difference, and hence all possible
objects exist, necessarily.

So everything that does not exist is something that cannot
possibly exist. But does that mean in the future or just
now. If it means /just now/ then it's a trivial tautology,
equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no useful content.
But if it means now and the future, even confined to the near
future, it's false.

When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal
position of an object is part of its definition (identity). So
when object X can exist at time t, then it must exist at time t.
It's trivial, just an example of the law of identity.

To which someone might say something like: "But there is a
red car parked in front of my house. Isn't it possible that,
at this moment, a blue car would be parked there instead?
Then the blue car would be a possible object that obviously
doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would
be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and
hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my
house in a different possible world but then we are talking
about a different world, and not really about my house
either but rather about a copy of my house in that other
world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is
not a proof that it doesn't exist.

c.f. Russell's teapot.

c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist

The question is what is the difference between a possibly
existing object and a "really" existing object? The fact that you
don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does
exist either. Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.

Then you've either (1) changed the meaning of "real" existence (2)
changed the meaning of possible or (3) gone mad.

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/7abcbe9c-016f-5b10-0dd2-abaa303824c5%40verizon.net.

Re: more books on quantum foundations

2021-03-10 Thread 'scerir' via Everything List

> 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > [scerir] But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a 
> > language, nothing more  than a language. Efficient?
> > 
> > > [Bruno] If it is a language, the question is what does that 
> > language refers too, and what or who does the conversation (in that 
> > language). 
> 

I would mean: A general, natural "syntax" (or "operating system" maybe?). What 
does that "syntax" refers to? Good question.

Well, I think that "something" for sure exists. Something knowable. I'm a 
realist. Everett III was a realist. At least, his interpretation was realist. 
Schroedinger thought his waves were real.

So, I think that the supposed "syntax" could refer to real things, let us say 
"states" or Ur-objects or physical informations or knowable relations, or 
something else.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00676265

But are those "states" real? David Finkelstein wrote: "In quantum theory we 
represent actual operations and the relations among them, not a hypothetical 
reality on which they act." Right. But isn't that - precisely - a "syntax"? And 
can Finkelstein exclude the very existence of that "hypothetical reality" on 
which operators act?

-- 
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/1132548789.189923.1615396769469%40mail1.libero.it.

Re: more books on quantum foundations


> On 9 Mar 2021, at 16:58, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yes, d'Espagnat (with Jammer) was one of my very best, in the 70s.
> 
I agree. Max Jammer book “Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics” is very good too.
His book “Einstein and Religion” is quite excellent too, in a related subject...


> But - since then - I'm in trouble. Maybe 'Quantum' is a language, nothing 
> more  than a language. Efficient?
> 
If it is a language, the question is what does that language refers too, and 
what or who does the conversation (in that language). 

The notion of language is too much general. You have the language, the theory, 
and the models of the theories.
The logical notion of Model (and thus in the logicien sense) models (in the 
physicist sense) the notion of reality.
A model of a theory T is a structure which satisfies the axioms and theorems of 
that theory. A group (in algebra) is a model of a theory of group, for example. 

Having said this, the quantum can be seen as a language. A sublanguage of the 
quantum is the language of biochemistry, and in that case, you and me are words 
in that language, making us into sort of divine hypotheses!
Similarly, you can see all numbers as words, and the whole (sigma_1) arithmetic 
as a sort of conversation, but eventually, we can test if we are words/numbers 
by looking at the (startling consequences) like the interference of the many 
histories, and do experimental metaphysics (like Shimony said).

Bruno





>> Il 09/03/2021 14:50 Bruno Marchal  ha scritto:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 15 Feb 2021, at 07:29, 'scerir' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I hope these links work
>>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.it/Conceptual-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0198844697/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=barrett+foundations=1613369653=8-1
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> I thought it was the book by Bernard d’Espagnat, with the same title. 
>> Barrett is usually rather good, but I would recommend the older book by 
>> d’Espagnat which is very good.
>> The book by David Albert, (“Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Harvard”) 
>> despite being wrong on Everett is a very good introduction too, especially 
>> for non-mathematicians.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Reality-Meaning-Mechanics-Theories-ebook/dp/B0851R2FY7/ref=sr_1_4?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613369882=8-4
>>>  
>>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.it/Foundations-Quantum-Theory-Classical-Concepts/dp/3319847384/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=klaas+landsman=1613370027=8-1
>>>  
>>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.it/Quantum-Cookbook-Mathematical-Foundations-Mechanics/dp/0198827865/ref=sr_1_15?__mk_it_IT=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91=1=baggott=1613370234=8-15
>>>  
>>> 
>>> https://www.amazon.it/dp/3030400670/?coliid=I3FFGMO91H2EV4=Y8V6GY7TI2R8=1_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it_im
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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/1842812156.87609.1613370581432%40mail1.libero.it
>>>  
>>> .
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/38CEE2A0-2221-4E58-AB3C-9A8884D20191%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> .
>>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 03:00, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well Bruno, for me, even a more profound concept is from astrophysics


Astrophysics is very interesting, but it cannot be deep if we assume 
Descartes-Darwin-Turing, in the sense that the laws of physics emerge from 
arithmetic, when assuming Mechanism.




> and not from Platonic/Computational physics. That being, if we ride the back 
> of cosmic inflation, if it is indeed fact, then what is lost beyond our 
> optical event horizon? Let us presume that the cosmos expanded since the Bang 
> at a rate of 6 times faster than light, so what information is undetectable 
> beyond this light cone? (a tip o' the hat to Minkowski!). We are not 
> referring to a cyclic cosmos Atticus Greek style, nor Turok-Penrose style, 
> but simply within earlier renditions of this universe. Just hot plasma? 
> Middle Earth? A grand Platonic computer performing a power-on and self test? 


A universal machinery is all you need, and all theories in physics assumes much 
more than that.

I don’t assume a physical universe, and I give the reason why: that theory is 
not part of physics, and in metaphysics it requires some very strong 
non-mechanist theory of mind, and that is far too much speculative for me.

There are simply no evidence at all that there is a physical universe “out 
there”, and that assumption is what makes consciousness apparently intractable, 
if not eliminated.

The many evidences that there is a physical reality should not be confused with 
some evidence that the physical reality would be the fundamental 
(ontologically) reality. The arithmetical explanation is much more simple, and 
get quanta and qualia, where physicalism (not physics) need a theory of mind 
which does not yet exist. Penrose made a good try, but does not use it to even 
address the mind-body problem, so it is hardly convincing. At least he is aware 
that his theory of mind has to be a non)computationalist theory of mind, which 
is coherent, at least..

Bruno




> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 8:29 am
> Subject: Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why
> 
> 
>> On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark > > wrote:
>> 
>> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why 
>> 
>> 
>> John K Clark
> 
> 
> My comment there:
> 
> <<
> Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of 
> elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal machine 
> can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the machine looks 
> below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution level, she has 
> to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". The only problem 
> is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of machine 
> self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 1970s, but 
> I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware that the 
> physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory of 
> everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that we 
> get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately not 
> well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate this, 
> as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.
> >>
> 
> We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence 
> that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that we 
> have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but 
> arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and digital) 
> Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical science).
> 
> 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/CAJPayv3X6qaRJecTGkBq596HR_dhHLnpR5M_o6VJcYF%2BLGK%3DRg%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
>

Re: Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why

> On 9 Mar 2021, at 20:06, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Feb 2021, at 20:27, John Clark >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here’s Why 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> John K Clark
>> 
>> 
>> My comment there:
>> 
>> <<
>> Why to assume even one universe? We know since the 1930s that all models of 
>> elementary arithmetic execute all computations, and that no universal 
>> machine can know which computations  support it, and indeed that if the 
>> machine looks below at itself (and environment) its Mechanist Substitution 
>> level, she has to see the statistical impact of the "parallel computation". 
>> The only problem is that the wave itself must be explained by the logics of 
>> machine self-reference mathematics, and that is what I did (already in the 
>> 1970s, but I took it as an argument against Mechanism, as I was not aware 
>> that the physicists were already there. The advantage is a simpler "theory 
>> of everything" (elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent), but also that 
>> we get very naturally the qualia/quanta distinctions. This if unfortunately 
>> not well known, and of course physicalist or materialist philosophers hate 
>> this, as physics become reducible to pure arithmetic/computer science.
>> >>
>> 
>> We do have evidence for a physical reality, but we don’t have any evidence 
>> that the physical reality if the fundamental reality, and I can argue that 
>> we have a lot of evidence that the fundamental reality is not physical, but 
>> arithmetical. We have even a proof once we assume the (indexical and 
>> digital) Mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science (not in the physical 
>> science).
>> 
>> 
> 
> Whatever explains every possibility, fails to explain anything at all.

That is how Deustch refuted Schmidhuber, perhaps, but it does not refute 
mechanism and its consequences, and indeed, the theory explains what we 
observe, and discard what we don’t observe, and this not just for the 
observable but also the sensible, the justifiable, etc.

You might critique all theories of everything, as they explain everything, but 
that is interesting only if we can make prediction, both positive and negative, 
like physical laws. But with mechanism we have an explanation of where the 
physical laws come from, and why they give rise to sharable quanta, and non 
sharable qualia.

Physics fails. Not only it has not yet any unique theory of the universe, but 
two contradicting theories, but it does not address at all the question of 
consciousness, for good reason: it fails on this. It uses an identity thesis 
incompatible with Mechanism, used already in Darwin and in Molecular Biology. 
That is why strict materialist believer come up with the idea that 
consciousness is an illusion (but that is non-sensical), or just eliminate 
persons and consciousness altogether, which is not really satisfying…

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/e386a89d-c7e6-136e-be96-d2be0682e31d%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/D85A8911-5DBA-4295-89DD-95D42853FC82%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 10:18, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 6:40:51 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 3:52 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 12:29:07 AM UTC+1 Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/9/2021 3:03 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>> The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which 
>>> is identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly 
>>> existing object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and 
>>> hence all possible objects exist, necessarily.
>> 
>> So everything that does not exist is something that cannot possibly exist.  
>> But does that mean in the future or just now.  If it means just now then 
>> it's a trivial tautology, equivalent to "It is what it is." and has no 
>> useful content.  But if it means now and the future, even confined to the 
>> near future, it's false.
>> 
>> 
>> When you talk about something you must define it. The temporal position of 
>> an object is part of its definition (identity). So when object X can exist 
>> at time t, then it must exist at time t. It's trivial, just an example of 
>> the law of identity. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked 
>>> in front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car 
>>> would be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object 
>>> that obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would 
>>> be a contradiction, a violation of the law of identity, and hence 
>>> impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a different 
>>> possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and not 
>>> really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that 
>>> other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a 
>>> proof that it doesn't exist.
>> 
>> c.f. Russell's teapot.
>> 
>> c.f. Granny's glasses - when she can't find them, they don't exist
>> 
>> The question is what is the difference between a possibly existing object 
>> and a "really" existing object? The fact that you don't see something 
>> doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
> 
> That you can put it's name in a sentence doesn't mean it does exist either. 
> Or even that it's (nomologically) possible.
> 
> I am not saying that something exists. I am not even saying that something is 
> possible (identical to itself). I am just saying that if something is 
> possible then it exists, because I don't see a difference between possible 
> and "real" existence.


That is close how logicians relativise existence, in some theory, to existence 
in a model of that theory. 

Now, by using both Gödel completeness (a theory has a model iff the theory is 
consistent) and incompleteness theorem (no theory can prove all arithmetical 
truth), we get that no machine can prove the existence of a model satisfying 
its theorem, and that is why all machine get mystical, as they do experience a 
reality without being able to justify its existence.

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/9f078e70-f8f1-4519-a1f7-6aa4c9be8150n%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/FD66C985-C99B-4362-83D1-6D6813002788%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 2:30 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
>> If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” 
>> (Parmenides).
> 
> Yeah, but what has he published recently?

According to Simplicius, Moderatus of Gades attributed the five “hypostases” 
(that he talk about well before Plotinus) to Parmenides, making him still far 
in advance on humans, but not on the arithmetically sound universal machine, 
which lives in arithmetic (as we know or should know since Gödel’s 1931 paper + 
Church-Thesis, that Gödel missed, as he explained himself.

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/fb65d718-309e-0bff-f002-5aa6566d1474%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/84A172AD-DDCD-4992-81E9-3A4207D83D24%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:19, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 2:00 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 6:00 AM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:41 AM Lawrence Crowell 
>> mailto:goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by 
>> having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness 
>> does not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the 
>> antithesis of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.
>> 
>> There is a strange and paradoxical sort of identity between nothing and 
>> everything, particularly as it relates to information theory. Insofar as the 
>> total set of all possibilities has zero information content.
> 
> Even if it tells us what is not possible?  I think you're getting in over 
> your head.  What kind of "possible" to you mean?  Simple not 
> self-contradictory?  Nomological?  Or what?
> 
>> 
>> 
>> A random message string can contain zero information, but still exist -- 
>> written on a piece of paper, for example.
> 
> I agree with your basic point, but a random string carries maximum 
> information, per Shannon.  That's why maximally compressed string looks 
> random; although you can't really define random in the information theoretic 
> sense for finite strings.


You can define randomness for finite strings, up to a constant. Most universal 
machine will agree on some large string being random, but can differ on strings 
shorter than themselves, say. See the book by Calllude on the randomness of 
finite string.
This is usually defined first, and then an infinite sequence is said to be 
random if almost all his initial segments are.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> This idea that zero information equates to 'nothing' is just an elementary 
>> confusion of categories.
>> 
>> This is the main subject of Russell Standish's book: Theory of Nothing: 
>> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> That is why Russell got so many things wrong in this book.
>> 
>> 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/CAFxXSLTXSHt%3DASkdBiA%2Bh_-4d3FCAHMX7puXWq9_1tG%3DnjbXSg%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/60facf25-7c8b-1cd6-a1fc-f20d80406479%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/386FCCCB-5232-4ED9-87DB-8A6C4EFD2E0A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:03, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> The law of identity determines what can possibly exist, namely that which is 
> identical to itself. But what is the difference between a possibly existing 
> object and a "really" existing object? I see no difference, and hence all 
> possible objects exist, necessarily.

But what is an object? I agree that Unicorn can exist, in the mind of some 
people, or in a dream, but most would say that Unicorn do no exist, because 
being fictional is part of their definition. Or take a square circle, or a dog 
which is also a cat…

The interesting things is what is the minimal amount of things that we have to 
assume in a theory so that we can derive the existence of all appearances, and 
of the laws to which they obey? How to get consciousness, how to get the 
appearance of matter and of physical laws. Assuming Mechanism, it can be proved 
that any Turing universal machinery will do the job, and that makes Mechanism 
testable: drive physics and compare with the observation.

What must be searched is to relate the different notion of existence that we 
are willing to make sense of.

> 
> To which someone might say something like: "But there is a red car parked in 
> front of my house. Isn't it possible that, at this moment, a blue car would 
> be parked there instead? Then the blue car would be a possible object that 
> obviously doesn't exist." Um, no. A red car can't be blue; that would be a 
> contradiction, a violation of the law of identity,

Why? A red can which is blue can be identical with itself. All odd natural 
number solution to 2x = x + 1 are equal to itself, despite not existing. Your 
self-identity criteria is too weak for being a criteria of existence.

> and hence impossible. A blue car might be parked in front of my house in a 
> different possible world but then we are talking about a different world, and 
> not really about my house either but rather about a copy of my house in that 
> other world - and the fact that you can't see that other world is not a proof 
> that it doesn't exist.

OK with this.

Bruno

> 
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 at 6:34:51 AM UTC+1 Jason wrote:
> I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?"
> 
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/ 
> 
> 
> I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references 
> included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly 
> expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the 
> past decade.
> 
> I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding 
> anything written.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jason
> 
> -- 
> 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/9d5489a4-9c5b-42d4-b8cd-12386afcef88n%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/DB5E2695-2032-4425-84B6-CE2860495B94%40ulb.ac.be.

RE: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread Philip Benjamin

[Brent Meeker]
“Yeah, but what has he [Parmenides] published recently?”
[Philip Benjamin]
   Facetious? A modern Parmenides will be one of the (late or alive) 
physicists who arbitrarily BELIEVE (not reason) in particle-wave duality and 
self-creating quantum world etc. Wave-likeness ≠ Waviness. Calculations based 
on both wave-likeness and waviness will be alike, just the same way as 
Geocentricism (from primitive astrology to Ptolemaic astronomy that was 
naturally defended by Ecclesiastical establishment) will yield verisimilar 
mathematical results as heliocentrism. Self-creation of anything is 
oxymoronic-something has to exist before it exists!! That is against all laws 
of logic!! No physics is ever against laws of logic. “Quantum vacuum” is no 
vacuum at all. Moreover one cannot ignore 95% of the missing (dark) matter as 
trivial or unreal. If 5% of the visible light-matter has chemistry, then 95% of 
invisible (dark) matter also has chemistry necessarily.   No Parmenides can 
deny that. Dark-matter chemistry cannot but yield a dark-twin along with the 
light-twin from the moment of conception.
The entire acade-media (in fact, the whole world) can be divided into 
two and only two fundamental groups: 1. Pagan with un-awakened consciousness’ 
2. Non-pagan with awakened consciousness.
  The Western hemisphere was ‘once upon a time’ pulled out from the ethos 
of the pagan into that of the non-pagan thanks to the “instant  transformation” 
of the 4 th  Century Augustine. Today paganism in the West is the prevalent 
culture everywhere including the pulpits and the pews, thanks to the 
indoctrinations in the educational systems from KG through the highest levels.
Philip Benjamin
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


On 3/9/2021 2:30 PM, Philip Benjamin wrote:
If nothing ever existed, nothing can exist today. “Ex nihilo, nihil fit” 
(Parmenides).

Yeah, but what has he published recently?

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/fb65d718-309e-0bff-f002-5aa6566d1474%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/SA0PR11MB47040A05A687BF7A881F1D3BA8919%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 9 Mar 2021, at 16:41, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> Nothingness is a paradoxical thing. Does nothingness exist? If so, then by 
> having existential properties it is not pure nothingness. If nothingness does 
> not exist then there must exist something. In a sense God is the antithesis 
> of nothingness and in a sense shares the same paradoxical issue.

There are as many notion of “nothing” than there are notion of things. Nothing, 
when thinking of numbers, can be played by the number 0 (not to confuse with a 
set containing 0).
In set theory, nothing is given by the empty set. Note that the unary 
intersection (the intersection of the elements of a set), when applied to the 
empty set, gives the class of all sets (something too much big to be a set).

Obviously, the quantum nothingness might be well played by the quantum vacuum; 
which we know to be full of things and happenings.

Some might try a notion of absolute nothingness, but I have no idea what that 
could be.

The empty theory has all possible models, and so is trivially satisfied in all 
models, and is thus not interesting. Adding axioms can lead to genuine theory 
of everything, but it can be shown that adding more axioms than the one 
required to have a universal machinery leads to contradiction, unless they are 
particular axioms to described local phenomenologies.

Using arithmetic for the universal base, we have a clear notion of existence, 
as most people agree on the “standard model of Arithmetic (the set {0, 1, 2, …} 
+ the usual laws learned in school. Then the physical existence and the 
psychological, and theological existence are provided in the internal 
phenomenologies imposed by incompleteness (to any arithmetically sound 
machines). That is testable, and the discovery of the “many-histories” in 
quantum physics confirmed the “many-world/histories interpretation of 
arithmetic on which all universal machine converge, soon or later (in the 
universal dovetailer “number-of-step”).

Bruno 





> 
> LC
> 
> On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 11:34:51 PM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
> I wrote up my thoughts on the question of "Why does anything exist?"
> 
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/ 
> 
> 
> I thought members of the list might appreciate some of the references 
> included in it. My thinking on this question has of course been greatly 
> expanded and influenced through my interactions with many of you over the 
> past decade.
> 
> I welcome any feedback, thoughts, corrections, or questions regarding 
> anything written.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Jason
> 
> -- 
> 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/b2812fb2-d496-4630-b534-f49c27569b9cn%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/F2E129B2-8F99-4DA5-9F51-E2F210C0DAD0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 14:08, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 5:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British 
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the 
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program. 
> One may ask, running on what?
> 
> 
> I agree that thought is in a sense, more fundamental (existing prior to) the 
> observed. Of course the next question is what explains the origin of this 
> thought? This is the answer I now tell myself (I welcome 
> revisions/improvements):
> 
> If one accepts the independent existence of mathematical truths, like "2 + 2 
> = 4" then, due to Turing universal equations, one must also accept truths 
> like "The 1,829,735th step of program #789 contains a bit string "01011101".
> 
> We can keep going, and extend this to say, programs that describe computable 
> physical worlds, and relate the bit strings representing those generated 
> states to facts about these computable realities
> 
> It therefore becomes a mathematically provable fact that "there exists a 
> universal equation that includes an encoding of this very e-mail, written by 
> a computational version of a person just like me, who exists as part of a 
> computed physical reality which looks just like our observable universe."
> 
> So if 2+2=4, then thoughts exist.

Indeed :)

Bruno


> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones > > wrote:
>> What was there before there was nothing?
>> 
>> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, 
>> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of 
>> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define 
>> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a 
>> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: 
>> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation 
>> 
> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws, 
> number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.  The 
> logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any sensible 
> discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different 
> meanings.
> 
> Hi Brent,
> 
> You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".
> 
> I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types, or 
> modes of existence: 
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence 
> 
> 
> Jason
> 
> -- 
> 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/CA%2BBCJUhz5QF90QwoJfbF-u76tuYr%2B61fY5%3D%2BbkhjLZMxxqrqEA%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/1268362286.989763.1615333541353%40mail.yahoo.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/CA%2BBCJUg5zZT%2BnX2oWtTOobPBnx_C_vOLQ%3D7-6rsnOTm1VZX6BA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
>

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?


> On 10 Mar 2021, at 13:05, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British 
> > astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the 
> > cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great 
> > Program. One may ask, running on what?
> 
> 
> There's only one thing it could be running on, the laws of physics. 


This cannot work.

Years ago, I would have said “this cannot work unless you defend an 
ultra-finitist (and fictionalist) theory of machine, but eventually I have 
shown that even such a weird conception of machine cannot help to escape the 
necessity to reduce physics to a finitist (but non ultrafinitist) theory of 
mind. 

When we assume Mechanism, we can no more invoke an ontological commitment 
richer than “very elementary arithmetic”. The Aristotelian God (Matter, with a 
big M to say that it is not reducible to simpler) cannot exist, in fact cannot 
make any sense.

Bruno




> 
>  John K Clark   See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv1RmwztO04e3ZhnkRtAN%3DVJLC2TZ1xDo41H8Rpmhhdrtg%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/34D44DD4-9B4F-43D9-8ADF-76326F2DB884%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

> On 10 Mar 2021, at 00:45, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British 
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the 
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great Program. 
> One may ask, running on what?
> 
> 

IF you are willing to bet, like Darwin did implicitly, that life is Turing 
emulable, so that for example, you can survive with an artificial digital brain 
(and there are evidences for this, if only the success of Darwin’s type of 
explanation in biology),
Then, the “Great program” are given any Universal Turing Machinery. More 
precisely, any Model (in the sense of Logician) of any Turing-complete theory 
would do the work. As the elementary arithmetic that we all learn in primary 
school is a universal machinery, we need only to believe in the truth of 2+2=4 
& Co.

Now, you might ask where does that arithmetical reality come from?

Answer: any other universal machinery can explain this. You can derive the 
Robinson Axioms of Arithmetic from the simple theory of combinators, which has 
only two axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz) together with three simple identity 
axioms(*). I did it explicitly on this forum (search “combinators”). 
So, all we need is to assume one Universal machinery, whichever you want.

Now, you might ask where does that “first” universal machinery comes from?

Answer: It is impossible to derive a universal machinery from something which 
is not already a universal machinery. So, a universal machinery is a needed to 
even just define the notion of machine and machinery.

(In case people have forgotten: a universal machinery is given by all programs 
in some Turing universal system, or the partial computable functions associates 
with those programs, the phi_i. A universal machine/number is a number u such 
that
phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is called the computer, x is called the program, and 
y is called the data. (x, y) is supposed to be a number (coding the two numbers 
x and y).

Note that when you have a universal number, you can define a universal 
machinery associated with it, and all universal machinery contains (infinitely 
many) universal numbers.

Once we assume/believe/bet-on Indexical Digital Mechanism (yes doctor + the 
Church Turing thesis), physics is reduced to a statistics on all (relative) 
computations going through our computational mental states, and that statistics 
is given by the modal logic of the “observable” variant of Gödel’s beweisbar 
predicate. 

A believer in an ontological physical universe must abandon Mechanism, or 
abandon rationality.

I got the "many-world” aspect of physics from this in the 1970, and it took 30 
years to get quantum logic for the observable, and quantum intuitionist logic 
for the sensible.

I recall you the 8 modes of self-reference imposed by incompleteness. P 
represents sigma_1 arithmetical proposition. 

p (truth)
[]p (justifiable)   (splits in two along G*/G)
[]p & p (knowable)
[]p & <>t (observable)  (splits in two along G*/G)
[]p & <>t & p (sensible)(splits in two along G*/G)

G* proves them all equivalent, but G cannot prove any of those equivalences. It 
means that the machine sees the same truth, but from 8 very different 
perspective obeying 8 very different mathematics.

Bruno

(*) the full basic theory of combinators is:

RULES:

1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
2) If x = y then xz = yz
3) If x = y then zx = zy

AXIOMS:

4) Kxy = x
5) Sxyz = xz(yz)

> 
> 
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones > > wrote:
>> What was there before there was nothing?
>> 
>> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather, 
>> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of 
>> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define 
>> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a 
>> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See: 
>> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation 
>> 
> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws, 
> number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.  The 
> logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any sensible 
> discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has several different 
> meanings.
> 
> Hi Brent,
> 
> You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".
> 
> I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021, 5:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great
> Program. One may ask, running on what?
>

I agree that thought is in a sense, more fundamental (existing prior to)
the observed. Of course the next question is what explains the origin of
this thought? This is the answer I now tell myself (I welcome
revisions/improvements):

If one accepts the independent existence of mathematical truths, like "2 +
2 = 4" then, due to Turing universal equations, one must also accept truths
like "The 1,829,735th step of program #789 contains a bit string "01011101".

We can keep going, and extend this to say, programs that describe
computable physical worlds, and relate the bit strings representing those
generated states to facts about these computable realities

It therefore becomes a mathematically provable fact that "there exists a
universal equation that includes an encoding of this very e-mail, written
by a computational version of a person just like me, who exists as part of
a computed physical reality which looks just like our observable universe."

So if 2+2=4, then thoughts exist.

Jason



--
> On Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Jason Resch 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:37 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/9/2021 12:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:57 AM Kim Jones  wrote:
>
> What was there before there was nothing?
>
>
> I don't believe reality was ever a state of absolute nothingness. Rather,
> there are things that exist necessarily: logical laws, truth, properties of
> numbers, etc. Some of these truths and number relations concern and define
> all computational histories, and the appearance of a physical reality is a
> result of these computations creating consciousness observers. See:
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#A_Story_of_Creation
>
>
> But you're casually confounding different sense of "exist".  Logical laws,
> number, etc are derivative on language.  They don't "exist" physically.
> The logicians meaning of exist is just to satisfy a predicate.  Any
> sensible discussion of "exist"needs to start with recognizing it has
> several different meanings.
>
>
> Hi Brent,
>
> You are right there are various senses of the word "exists".
>
> I dedicate a section specifically to this issue, and define three types,
> or modes of existence:
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Three_Modes_of_Existence
>
> Jason
>
> --
> 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/CA%2BBCJUhz5QF90QwoJfbF-u76tuYr%2B61fY5%3D%2BbkhjLZMxxqrqEA%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/1268362286.989763.1615333541353%40mail.yahoo.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/CA%2BBCJUg5zZT%2BnX2oWtTOobPBnx_C_vOLQ%3D7-6rsnOTm1VZX6BA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?

2021-03-10 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:45 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> I kind of side with Canadian philosopher John Leslie, as well as British
> astronomer, James Jeans on this question. Both Leslie and Jeans see the
> cosmos as a Great Thought. I formalize their conjectures as a Great
> Program. One may ask, running on what?*
>

There's only one thing it could be running on, the laws of physics.

 John K Clark   See what's on my new list at  Extropolis


>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1RmwztO04e3ZhnkRtAN%3DVJLC2TZ1xDo41H8Rpmhhdrtg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Why Does Anything Exist?