Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/30/2021 7:15 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
This is manifested in denial arguments seen around the world. The 
second Amendment was drafted in order to allow militias to put down 
slave rebellions.



I think that's nonsense.  The U.S. had just been formed by taking up 
arms, without an army, to revolt against the British Empire.  They 
didn't want the expense and difficulty of maintaining a standing army. 
So it is perfectly rational, slaves or not, that they would have written 
the 2nd Amendment as a personal freedom and as an alternative to a 
national army.  Without it there would still have been no obstacle to 
putting down slave rebellions.  It did nothing to enhance states and 
local governments power to do so.  And note that the two times that 
national militias were actually formed to put down rebellions, The 
Whisky Rebellion and Shays Rebellion, they had nothing to do with slavery.


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/a2d88071-b879-f9d6-0c05-eda0052d11a2%40verizon.net.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[John Clark]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:38 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Godel's theorems are our friend. It is even a friend in physics. With
> physics I think it is a "sieve" that conforms physical principle to have
> horizon conditions, whether uncertainty principles or event horizons in GR,
> that conform physical reality to fit within the Church-Turing thesis.
>

Some claim Godel proved that the human mind is more than just a Turing
Machine, but I disagree. Godel found a way to use numbers to write a
sentence that talks about itself, it says "I am not provable in this formal
system", and the operations of a particular Turing Machine are analogous to
a formal system; however a human being can look at that sentence and see
that it is true even though the machine itself could never produce it,
therefore the human mind can do something the Turing machine can't.
However, what Godel proved is that an operating system powerful enough to
perform arithmetic THAT IS CONSISTENT cannot be complete, and he says no
operating system can prove its own consistency. But when human beings are
not doing formal logic exercises but just living everyday lives their
operating system is most certainly not consistent, they can have two
logically contradictory opinions at the same time, a brief glance at
politics shows it is very common. And humans can be absolutely positively
100% certain about something, (that is to say they have proven it to their
own satisfaction), and still be dead wrong. Godel's biography illustrates
this point, he refused to eat and died of starvation because he was
absolutely positively 100% certain that his food was being poisoned.

So we are inconsistent Turing machines.  And even today we could easily
make a machine that could answer any question, provided you don't mind if
it sometimes gave an answer that was wrong or even idiotic.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv03O5S9JbCwO1c3rckWEeL%3D6i%3DZH8o1pwvG8GmpBB_eSg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 May 2021, at 15:58, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> The Boltzmann brain is only really a problem if the vacuum or spacetime of 
> the observable universe is "eternal." It probably is not, and in fact there 
> are reasons to suspect the vacuum of the universe has phantom energy. This 
> will force the universe into a big rip in 10 trillion years or so. This is 
> based on data with Hubble constant discrepancy. SN1 data with H = 
> 74km/sec-Mpc and CMB data with H = 68km/sec-Mpc, So the entire observable 
> universe may be ripped asunder down to and beyond quarks and leptons long 
> before a BB is statistically possible.


With Mechanism, there is no universe, and thus no Boltzman brain per se. But 
there are a sort of equivalent in arithmetic.
Yet, they don’t play any role in the measure on all computational histories, 
although the details for proving this are rather tricky, and again involves the 
full theology of the universal machine (the provable and non provable (by a 
machine) consequence of Löb’s theorem for itself). Maybe I will send some 
summary, or a copy of some of my post on Facebook.

Bruno




> 
> LC
> 
> On Monday, May 24, 2021 at 4:56:31 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> My view is that Big BB has a unique viewpoint that crystalizes its view as 
> the Prime Observer, and nudges things from arithmetic into reality. How this 
> hocus pocus occurs (cause and effect) is more than a bit above my 
> consciousness, the specific mechanics of this. With theorists like Sean 
> Carroll, the Boltzmann Brain is a troubling thing, because there would be a 
> plenitude of observers arising like virtual particles (photons) out of the 
> true vacuum flowing. I figured there may in all of these Brahma-cycles (not 
> an Indian motorbike), one grand observer. But, I could be wrong and I am not 
> looking for research funds to prove this theology wrong. Meanwhile here is an 
> ancient magazine article in Discover from years ago, celebrating the Bruno 
> explanation for reality. 
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/everything-in-the-universe-is-made-of-math-including-you
>  
> 
> this includes all Boltzmann Brain, but they have no special role at all,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/f679dc48-07ee-48d1-b306-0b0caedff774n%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/775ABD06-6BDE-4F25-89CE-6D1E57A78C92%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 May 2021, at 23:56, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> My view is that Big BB has a unique viewpoint that crystalizes its view as 
> the Prime Observer, and nudges things from arithmetic into reality.


Which reality? 

When we do theology or metaphysics, we cannot invoke “reality”, nor “god”, nor 
“truth” without adding much precision, and what we assume, and what is supposed 
to be derived.

There is no other big BB than elementary arithmetic. That follows immediately 
from the fact that the notion of computation is an arithmetical notion. A 
physical computer is an immaterial, arithmetical, computer implemented in some 
subset of the physical laws.


> How this hocus pocus occurs (cause and effect) is more than a bit above my 
> consciousness, the specific mechanics of this. With theorists like Sean 
> Carroll, the Boltzmann Brain is a troubling thing, because there would be a 
> plenitude of observers arising like virtual particles (photons) out of the 
> true vacuum flowing. I figured there may in all of these Brahma-cycles (not 
> an Indian motorbike), one grand observer. But, I could be wrong and I am not 
> looking for research funds to prove this theology wrong. Meanwhile here is an 
> ancient magazine article in Discover from years ago, celebrating the Bruno 
> explanation for reality. 
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/everything-in-the-universe-is-made-of-math-including-you
> this includes all Boltzmann Brain, but they have no special role at all,
> 


This cannot really works, as I have explained. Mathematicalism is less wrong 
than physicalism, once we assume mechanism, but even for the quanta, you need 
the full mechanist theology (G1*). I might come back on this if people are 
interested. Tegmark has progressed by using computationalism, but is still not 
aware that the physical reality is in the head of all universal numbers, as a 
by-product of incompleteness. 

Bruno




> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, May 24, 2021 4:10 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
> released on April 1st)
> 
> 
>> On 20 May 2021, at 04:24, spudboy...@aol.com  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Heh! Your dissertation reminded me of a very old Hindu tale of a Sadhu who 
>> advised the great Raja about life being nothing but an illusion (maya). They 
>> were mounted on an elephant when it bucked them off, and charged them. The 
>> Raja said, "Ha! the elephant kicked us off! The Sadhu replied, "that was an 
>> illusion your highness." The Raja's eyes narrowed and he said, "Yes, but 
>> then the beast charged and you ran from him!" The Sadhu responded, "That 
>> too, was an illusion your majesty."
>> 
>> For me, I am treating the world as real because it's simpler that way.
> 
> 
> The physical world? Me to. In fact, mechanism makes the physical world 
> arguably more real than physics. Indeed, physicist extrapolate both its 
> reality and its laws by extrapolation, where mechanism derives it from 
> arithmetic.
> 
> The reality of the physical reality is never put in doubt. Only the idea that 
> the physical reality is fundamental, i.e. the god (what need to be assumed 
> and is judged to be not explainable by anything else)  is put in doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The idea of it being all platonic and thus, untestable outside the platonic 
>> realm which is everywhere, makes things complex.
> 
> Complex? I don’t think so. There is only two equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = 
> xz(yz), which a kid can understand in less than 5 minutes, because (unlike F 
> = ma = GmM/r^2) it is literal K 4 5 = 4 (K is just a projection of a first 
> coordinate, and S is just simple combination). F = ma requires to assume much 
> more, and need a bit of calculus to be exploited.
> 
> Anyway, My point is that if we want save even just an atom of explanation 
> power in Darwin, we need digital mechanism (implicit in Darwin), and all what 
> I say is derived from mechanism. Any other theory requires to postulate a 
> physical universe (which is what I am skeptical about) and actual infinities 
> in it (and to abandon basically all current science, as for example, quantum 
> mechanics (without collapse) is (up to now) implying mechanism (not just a 
> consequence).
> 
> And then, with mechanism, we get the first person, consciousness, and the 
> precise and testable relation between Quanta.
> I derived the necessary many-world aspect of physics from logic and mechanism 
> well before I discover that some physicists were already there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In fact if it is all real as most believe, then that also makes things very 
>> complex, but eventually measureable.
> 
> 
> Mechanism explains why some number are measurable. My whole point is that 
> mechanism is testable, and indeed, quantum mechanics was the prediction, and 
> the confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
>> Again, 

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 24 May 2021, at 23:39, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well, Bruno, as Freeman Dyson commented long ago, the better scientists 
> devise and implement better equipment, the more likely fundamental 
> discoveries will be found.  A radio telescope on earth or low earth orbit is 
> capable and wonderful, but  a series of gigantic radio telescopes at the edge 
> of the solar system is even better and we'd learn new things and refine out 
> knowledge. 


Do you think physics is necessarily the fundamental science? That is 
incompatible with the minimal amount of Mechanism we need to attribute any 
explanation power to Darwin or molecular biology, or QM (without collapse).

Then revised equipment can help, to refute or confirm the Mechanist hypothesis. 
Given that the many histories is the simplest startling prediction of 
mechanism, We could already said a long time ago that Nature confirms 
Mechanism. Today we can say more because this is also confirmed for the formal 
quantum logical nature of the observable.

There has never been any evidence that the physical reality is the ontological 
reality. Unfortunately, we have lost rigour in the fundamental science, and 
many people confuse the physical reality and the fundamental reality, without 
knowing that this confusion is a string hypothesis in the fundamental science.

Bruno


> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, May 24, 2021 4:10 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
> released on April 1st)
> 
> 
>> On 20 May 2021, at 04:24, spudboy...@aol.com  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Heh! Your dissertation reminded me of a very old Hindu tale of a Sadhu who 
>> advised the great Raja about life being nothing but an illusion (maya). They 
>> were mounted on an elephant when it bucked them off, and charged them. The 
>> Raja said, "Ha! the elephant kicked us off! The Sadhu replied, "that was an 
>> illusion your highness." The Raja's eyes narrowed and he said, "Yes, but 
>> then the beast charged and you ran from him!" The Sadhu responded, "That 
>> too, was an illusion your majesty."
>> 
>> For me, I am treating the world as real because it's simpler that way.
> 
> 
> The physical world? Me to. In fact, mechanism makes the physical world 
> arguably more real than physics. Indeed, physicist extrapolate both its 
> reality and its laws by extrapolation, where mechanism derives it from 
> arithmetic.
> 
> The reality of the physical reality is never put in doubt. Only the idea that 
> the physical reality is fundamental, i.e. the god (what need to be assumed 
> and is judged to be not explainable by anything else)  is put in doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The idea of it being all platonic and thus, untestable outside the platonic 
>> realm which is everywhere, makes things complex.
> 
> Complex? I don’t think so. There is only two equations Kxy = x and Sxyz = 
> xz(yz), which a kid can understand in less than 5 minutes, because (unlike F 
> = ma = GmM/r^2) it is literal K 4 5 = 4 (K is just a projection of a first 
> coordinate, and S is just simple combination). F = ma requires to assume much 
> more, and need a bit of calculus to be exploited.
> 
> Anyway, My point is that if we want save even just an atom of explanation 
> power in Darwin, we need digital mechanism (implicit in Darwin), and all what 
> I say is derived from mechanism. Any other theory requires to postulate a 
> physical universe (which is what I am skeptical about) and actual infinities 
> in it (and to abandon basically all current science, as for example, quantum 
> mechanics (without collapse) is (up to now) implying mechanism (not just a 
> consequence).
> 
> And then, with mechanism, we get the first person, consciousness, and the 
> precise and testable relation between Quanta.
> I derived the necessary many-world aspect of physics from logic and mechanism 
> well before I discover that some physicists were already there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> In fact if it is all real as most believe, then that also makes things very 
>> complex, but eventually measureable.
> 
> 
> Mechanism explains why some number are measurable. My whole point is that 
> mechanism is testable, and indeed, quantum mechanics was the prediction, and 
> the confirmation.
> 
> 
> 
>> Again, perhaps wrongly, Bruno, suspect the universe got its start as a one 
>> in an Octillion -th, Boltzmann Brain, as opposed lots Boltzmann Brains 
>> popping into existence all over the place.
> 
> 
> Not at all. Reread the derivation. The universe is what emerge from all 
> programs in arithmetic, this includes all Borltzman Brain, but they have no 
> special role at all, and in fact might have no role at all. The physical 
> universe is explained by elementary arithmetic. It is derivable from the 
> general first person indeterminacy, but it appears already in the soul. 
> Quantum logic 

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 May 2021, at 13:30, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> An old warning and piece of advice is in order. Never try to teach a pig to 
> sing. If you do you get covered in mud and you just really piss off a pig.

Really? We might discuss one day if the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs 
have wings, ha ha…

All universal machine can understand, pig includes. If they don’t, it is a 
symptom of prejudices, brainwashing, …

Bruno



> 
> LC
> 
> On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:51:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 16 Apr 2021, at 04:36, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Have you considered that you are limiting the capability of the cosmos to 
>> change and adapt?
> 
> … change and adapt to what? With Mechanism, we cannot invoke our personal 
> ontological commitment, especially when doing Metaphysics.
> 
> No, I agree that there is an apparent cosmos, a persistent illusion, and it 
> might or not be seen as adapting itself to the reality of the number 
> relations. It has not much choice in this “matter”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> It may have a feature that may have fooled Turing, until Turing caught on, 
>> because given enough time and health, Turing is adaptable too?
> 
> To be sure Turing was a naturalist. He missed the contradiction with (weak) 
> materialism. But if you meant the Church-Turing thesis; I tend to think that 
> this is a very serious thesis. I would need some solid argument to tell it 
> refuted. Then, Mechanism itself is my working hypothesis, although I can 
> argue that there are many evidence, and none for materialism, like the greek 
> already understood less formally.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal > >
>> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> 
>> Sent: Wed, Apr 14, 2021 6:16 am
>> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
>> released on April 1st)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 12 Apr 2021, at 04:44, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> How about this article and embedded paper, from some physicists employed by 
>>> Microsoft?
>>> 
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Basically, that the cosmos is really a self-learning computer is a 
>>> conclusion that suggests that laws are hard to pin down because the 
>>> "Operating System," (Blessed, be He-She-It-Them) is always coming up with 
>>> new understandings? 
>> 
>> 
>> The physical universe cannot be a computer, because  that implies Mechanism, 
>> but Mechanism makes the physical universe into a non computable statistics 
>> on all (relative) computations, which cannot be emulated by any computer.
>> 
>> If “I” am a machine, Reality is not Turing emulable, and the physical 
>> reality too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing 
>> emulable.
>> 
>> In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not a 
>> thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + Turing…).
>> 
>> 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/e53d20bb-ed2f-481f-b7a6-c3b1d69d8768n%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/BB4F6467-7C85-4AF0-BFF9-5670CC672FC1%40ulb.ac.be.