RIP Steven Weinberg

[Bruno Marchal]

Steven Weinberg is no more, since recently. I did appreciate very much his 
books on quantum mechanics, and also his introduction to quantum field 
theory.

I have mentioned more than once his work showing that if you delinearise a 
little bit quantum mechanics, not only you cannot make the parallel 
worlds/histories disappearing, but somehow, it makes possible to visit 
those parallel worlds, or, to use an image by Weinberg, to call your 
doppelgänger with a phone.

This provides a quantum and dual way to refute John Clark argument against 
the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. John argue dans le parallel 
histories in arithmetic allows in principle the doppelgänger to meet, so 
that it is different from the indeterminacy on the superposition. But the 
point is that the indeterminacy calculus cannot change based on such 
counterfactual, unless adding magic to Mechanism, but then Mechanism is 
false by definition. A dual counterexample based on this work by Weinberg 
is that delineairsing a little bit the Schroedinger equation, in such a way 
that the indeterminacy remains unchanged, makes the doppelgänger 
accessible, like with the classical duplication, and yet does not change 
the calculus of indeterminacy different, illustrating once again you need 
to add magic to Mechanism to avoid, like in quantum mechanics, the first 
person indeterminacy.

A more serious difficulty is to make people understand the original paper 
of Turing, Church, Post, which shows (along with Gödel) that the 
arithmetical reality is (more than) Turing complete. This follows from 
understanding arithmetic, or, at a more formal level, by understanding that 
all models of arithmetic have the same initials segment in which addition 
and multiplication stay Turing emulable (which is not the case in the whole 
non standard models. this requires a bit of mathematical logic, which is 
not well taught, when taught at all.

Once you grasp this, even without Mechanism, you can understand that the 
burden of the proof is in the hand of those who add some more axioms to 
arithmetic, like the existence of some "primitive matter" which have to 
justify its role in consciousness selection from arithmetic. In deductive 
theology, it is better to not add any ontological commitment before a 
reason is provided to it. Up to now, observation confirms mechanism. If 
they was one fact in favour of non mechanism, or in favour of something 
more than numbers, I would welcome it, but there are none, as far as I 
know. On the contrary, Everett QM confirms all prediction of classical 
Digital Mechanism, and explains furthermore the qualia and consciousness, 
as notion of knowledge imposed through self-reference and incompleteness.

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/5cc32912-d0cd-4333-be93-9e80013e797bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness research

[Bruno Marchal]

It is never to late, but I guess they remain in the Aristotelian framework, 
which makes them impossible to take into account the elementary 
consequences of Mechanism in metaphysics. If you can sum up their 
approaches or just tell me their basic hypotheses ... In my university, it 
too time, but eventually there is a course on consciousness, but only the 
"weak problem" is allowed to be researched, which is better than nothing.

Bruno

On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 12:27:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q78UL1gYhXI
>
> Four researchers on consciousness who take a operational and scientific 
> approach and have a program to try to test theories of consciousness.
>
> 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/ca14e48c-1873-4437-8080-38ec65f65887n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Europeans are smarter than Americans

[Bruno Marchal]

I am rather disappointed that Biden took seriously "the negotiation" 
between Trump and the Talibans, which is more like bandits collaboration. I 
was rather angry with respect to trump's isolationism, and it is sad that 
Biden follows him on this.I was hoping that America stays much longer in 
Afghanistan, and fight against the corruption which put the democracy at 
risk, and we know see, as the Afghans literally let the Taliban take all 
controls. It will be very hard for the woman and kids who got a taste of 
democracy. The Talibans are worst than ISIS, and I think that this event is 
again a major catastrophe for *all* democracies. Biden felt in a major trap 
left by Trump, imo. They forget the rule: never negotiate with a terrorist, 
because that empowers them. I fear for the Pakistan, who has its own 
Taliban, which celebrate this "victory", and will get more power from this. 

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 12:47:49 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 3:22 PM  wrote:
>
>> *>>> Trump would have never permitted this replay of Miss Saigon.*
>>>
>>> >>Permitted? What magical thing do you think he would've done to 
>>> prevent it?  Trump said all during his administration that we should get 
>>> out of Afghanistan, although for 4 years he never had the guts to 
>>> actually do so, but if reelected he said he do it in May, so do you 
>>> think he would now cancel the pull out and send in an additional 30,000 
>>> American troops and keep them in Afghanistan forever? Or do you think he'd 
>>> just get mad and drop an H-Bomb on Kabul?
>>
>>
>> *> I think that possibility dwelt only within your brain John. Most No 
>> Trumpers never mentioned this possibility even during arguments.*
>>
>
> More than 200 retired generals, admirals endorse Biden, including some who 
> served under Trump 
> 
>
>  
>
>> *> His manhood is never something that bothered me about his character," 
>> since I am not big on moralism*
>>
>
> I'm not talking about Trump's habit of sneaking into the dressing rooms of 
> teenage beauty contest contestants or how he liked to "*Grab them by the 
> pussy. You can do anything. When you're a star they let you do it. You can 
> do anything*." ; I was talking about him throwing around H bombs if he 
> thought a foreign leader had implied he had a small dick and no balls, and 
> you indicated such behavior by Trump would be entirely im character under 
> those circumstances. And you also indicated you would approve of such 
> behavior. And that's why Donald Trump's continued existence does not bode 
> well for the continued existence of the human race. And that's why you are 
> a member of something that 20 years ago would've been called "the lunatic 
> fringe", but today you can just be called a "mainstream Republican".
>
> > *and suspect that like Hunter Biden* [,,,]
>>
>
> Speaking of presidential offspring, I'll take Hunter Biden over Don Junior 
> or Eric any day!  
>
>
>> *> On Joe's universally condemned fuck up, with Afghanistan, there's 
>> nothing either of us can do now. *
>>
>
> Certainly the Afghanistan government collapsed much quicker than Joe 
> expected, much faster than I expected, I think even faster than the Taliban 
> expected. I knew it would be fast but I didn't know it would be 
> instantaneous. I think Obama missed an opportunity to get out of 
> Afghanistan in 2011 when he killed Osama bin Laden, after all the original 
> reason for entering Afghanistan in the first place was that after 911 the 
> Taliban gave him safe harbor and refused to turn him over to us for trial, 
> but we couldn't find him and so over the years mission creep started and 
> the new goal was to turn Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy, and 
> that was just never going to work. But of course if Obama had done it and 
> actually gotten out of Afghanistan in 2011 the Republicans would have 
> crucified him. So yes, Kabul does look like Saigon in 1975, but maybe there 
> is just no elegant way to lose a war.  
>
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> nbc
>
>
>  
>

-- 
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/e612ff09-00a3-49c1-96a1-9f9cb7b38884n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

 Marley excelled at math 
> references in his music? 
>
> "Markov Chains,
> We Gonna Be all right!
>
> Triple Integrals,
> We be Jamm'in in the name of Plato!
>
> Irae Mon!
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Thu, Aug 12, 2021 7:47 am
> Subject: Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem
>
> Nobody says that cannabis is not harmful, but it remains far less harmful 
> than alcohol, especially during a pandemic. And cannabis is a *very* 
> efficacious medication for a large spectrum if disease, which does not mean 
> that it has not some secondary indesirable effects.  
> Then the worst is prohibition, as it multiply a lot the danger of any 
> medication having a potential danger. 
> I am not convinced by the Lancet papers, as it contradicts all the 
> examples I have seen as a teacher of mathematics, where I have thought 
> myself that student smoking cannabis get bad results in mathematics until I 
> change my own attitude toward them. The problem is that cannabis is used by 
> some as a way to explain away their difficulties at school, but when we 
> stop playing that game with them, I arrive at the opposite conclusion: it 
> helps the student. I wrote a paper on this for a newspaper, a long time ago 
> (1980s) which, of course, refuses to publish it as it could be seen as 
> apology for drugs, which is illegal in my country. The very illegality of a 
> substance damages all the information we can have on that substance.
>
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:42:54 PM UTC+2 henrik@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> Cannabis impares all cognitive functions. (And have a painkiller effect 
> comparable to paracetamol. )
> https://www.newser.com/story/205310/studying-math-dont-smoke-marijuana.html
> You can download the article as pdf from the newser article.
> There is no problems finding more examples. Interestingly, or maybe not, 
> experienced users are less affected from an acute dose (spliff) than 
> untrained users.
> So if you are using, you don't get stupider than you are already.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/1395716
> Appart from getting rather slow you also have a serious chance of 
> triggering a psychosis, especially if you get the good strong stuff.
>
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext
>
> If you doubt academic evidence, try writing an exam after a spliff and see 
> for your self. Don't do it for any important exam though. A demanding 
> cognitive computer game can serve the same function.
>
> Alcohol impares cognitive functions.
> Methylxantines, theobromine (chocolate) teofylline (tea) coffeine (coffee) 
> all improve cognitive functions. 
> Adrenaline improve, sugar improve.
> Low dose amfetamines are probably good but high dose not so much and low 
> to high is razorthin when you need math. If you only have to run around 
> with a machine gun, you have a much better dose interval. So amfetamines 
> are popular in the army, not so much in the university world. Can have a 
> place if you have ADHD tendency.
> /Henrik
>
>
>
> Den ons 28 juli 2021 15:13Bruno Marchal  skrev: 
>
> It is the first time I hear that cannabis impairs the mathematical 
> abilities. You might give reference, and I hope it contains a comparison 
> with chocolate, alcohol, etc. Without such comparison, anyone can find that 
> anything impair mathematical (or whatever) studies, but usually such 
> studies are not quite serious, or just pretext to not study. If you like 
> mathematics, there is some chance that cannabis will help, and if you don't 
> like mathematics, there is a lot of chance cannabis will *not* help. 
> The question if consciousness requires material substrate is not a 
> question of liking this or not. If Indexical Digital Mechanism is assumed, 
> there is simply no choice: the material appearances must be explained 
> without invoking any ontological commitment. 
> We need to separate truth from what we want. It usually does not match 
> easily. It is the separation of theology from science which makes people 
> believe that the religious truth is a matter of choice. This is eventually 
> used by people who want to freeze the field for their special interest. The 
> god/non-god debate is a trick by materialist (believer in some fundamental 
> substance) to make us forget that the original questions in theology was 
> about the existence of a primary physical universe. To simplify, the 
> question was should we invest in mathematics or in physics when we search 
> the simplest ontology capable of explains all facts, or as much as possible 
> facts?
>
> Bruno
>
> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:21:41 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com w

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

Nobody says that cannabis is not harmful, but it remains far less harmful 
than alcohol, especially during a pandemic. And cannabis is a *very* 
efficacious medication for a large spectrum if disease, which does not mean 
that it has not some secondary indesirable effects. 
Then the worst is prohibition, as it multiply a lot the danger of any 
medication having a potential danger. 
I am not convinced by the Lancet papers, as it contradicts all the examples 
I have seen as a teacher of mathematics, where I have thought myself that 
student smoking cannabis get bad results in mathematics until I change my 
own attitude toward them. The problem is that cannabis is used by some as a 
way to explain away their difficulties at school, but when we stop playing 
that game with them, I arrive at the opposite conclusion: it helps the 
student. I wrote a paper on this for a newspaper, a long time ago (1980s) 
which, of course, refuses to publish it as it could be seen as apology for 
drugs, which is illegal in my country. The very illegality of a substance 
damages all the information we can have on that substance.

On Wednesday, July 28, 2021 at 8:42:54 PM UTC+2 henrik@gmail.com wrote:

> Cannabis impares all cognitive functions. (And have a painkiller effect 
> comparable to paracetamol. )
> https://www.newser.com/story/205310/studying-math-dont-smoke-marijuana.html
> You can download the article as pdf from the newser article.
> There is no problems finding more examples. Interestingly, or maybe not, 
> experienced users are less affected from an acute dose (spliff) than 
> untrained users.
> So if you are using, you don't get stupider than you are already.
> https://www.nature.com/articles/1395716
> Appart from getting rather slow you also have a serious chance of 
> triggering a psychosis, especially if you get the good strong stuff.
>
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(19)30048-3/fulltext
>
> If you doubt academic evidence, try writing an exam after a spliff and see 
> for your self. Don't do it for any important exam though. A demanding 
> cognitive computer game can serve the same function.
>
> Alcohol impares cognitive functions.
> Methylxantines, theobromine (chocolate) teofylline (tea) coffeine (coffee) 
> all improve cognitive functions. 
> Adrenaline improve, sugar improve.
> Low dose amfetamines are probably good but high dose not so much and low 
> to high is razorthin when you need math. If you only have to run around 
> with a machine gun, you have a much better dose interval. So amfetamines 
> are popular in the army, not so much in the university world. Can have a 
> place if you have ADHD tendency.
> /Henrik
>
>
>
> Den ons 28 juli 2021 15:13Bruno Marchal  skrev:
>
>> It is the first time I hear that cannabis impairs the mathematical 
>> abilities. You might give reference, and I hope it contains a comparison 
>> with chocolate, alcohol, etc. Without such comparison, anyone can find that 
>> anything impair mathematical (or whatever) studies, but usually such 
>> studies are not quite serious, or just pretext to not study. If you like 
>> mathematics, there is some chance that cannabis will help, and if you don't 
>> like mathematics, there is a lot of chance cannabis will *not* help.
>> The question if consciousness requires material substrate is not a 
>> question of liking this or not. If Indexical Digital Mechanism is assumed, 
>> there is simply no choice: the material appearances must be explained 
>> without invoking any ontological commitment. 
>> We need to separate truth from what we want. It usually does not match 
>> easily. It is the separation of theology from science which makes people 
>> believe that the religious truth is a matter of choice. This is eventually 
>> used by people who want to freeze the field for their special interest. The 
>> god/non-god debate is a trick by materialist (believer in some fundamental 
>> substance) to make us forget that the original questions in theology was 
>> about the existence of a primary physical universe. To simplify, the 
>> question was should we invest in mathematics or in physics when we search 
>> the simplest ontology capable of explains all facts, or as much as possible 
>> facts?
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:21:41 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> My only concern about cannabis is the study that it did impair 
>>> mathematical abilities. That is about it for me. In a few areas of the US, 
>>> legal cannabis has been permitted. Which doesn't stop the thugsters from 
>>> selling it illegally, under price. That is a social issue and not a medical 
>>> one. On whether co

Re: Vaccine statistics

[Bruno Marchal]

Spud, the protest in France is absurd. It reflects lack of education, or of 
common sense. But then, that is very common, even in the Academia, for 
reason of untouchability. It is like with the conflict in the Middle-East, 
where many Europeans and more and more  Americans  confuse systematically 
the victims and the executioners since the end of war. 

Like some nazis said, the more a lie is big, the more people will love it.

To contest an election after the certification of State is indecent. Even 
if Biden stole the election and that we got some evidences, which I doubt 
make any sense, the answer should be "to late". The GOP is really 
attempting to destroy Democracy, like a kid who prefer better to destroy a 
toy than to let his brother/sister play with it. 

It is not unlike the God/Non-God debate, which is a trick by believer in 
Aristotle theology (Materialism) to make us forget a millenium of doubt on 
the nature (fundamental or secondary) of the physical reality. To invoke a 
metaphysical commitment in a "Universe" to explain consciousness and 
appearance is the same sempiternal error consisting to invoke a god, be it 
personal or impersonal, to avoid trying to solve a problem. 

The tolerance of fake religion, instead of hypothetic-deductive reasoning 
in the field,  is just a technic to assure us that the boss is always 
right, especially when the boss is wrong. 

Yea re still preferring the comfortable lies in place of discovering some 
possible disturbing truth. 

And, bad news, those lie begins early in arithmetic, where I got evidences 
that might PA + []f proves much more than PA + ~[]f. []f is a sort of axiom 
of infinity in disguise. The Gödel number of a proof of false in elementary 
arithmetic is a non standard natural number, and is bigger than all 
standard natural numbers. The lies and the errors have a deeper origin that 
I thought. They have their role, ... but that is not necessarily a reason 
to propagate them, on the contrary. 

Bruno



On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:36:29 PM UTC+2 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 4:47:40 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 8:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> Fauci's connection with funding the Wuhan labs*
>>
>>
>> I don't know if the Wuhan lab had anything to do with the origin of 
>> COVID-19 or not, it's conceivable an accident may have happened, but at 
>> least publicly it was not doing anything that every other virus research 
>> lab in the world, including those in the USA, wasn't doing. And as it was 
>> one of the top virus research laboratories in the world and Dr. Fauci was 
>> one of the top virus disease researchers in the world it would be 
>> astonishing if you could NOT find a connection between him and the Wuhan 
>> lab.  As for the funding, back in 2015 the national Institute of health 
>> gave $3 million to a nonprofit called the "EcoHealth Alliance" to study 
>> bat-borne coronaviruses, the EcoHealth Alliance then sent $76,000 to the 
>> Wuhan lab as a subcontract. I don't see anything particularly sinister in 
>> any of this, but I must say, attacks on Dr. Fauci for following the science 
>> and not Trump's happy talk (the virus is totally under control) is 
>> nauseating. Dr. Fauci has been risking his life by treating highly 
>> infectious patients that have deadly diseases for decades, can you imagine 
>> Donald Trump caring for an Ebola patient? He'd be running away as fast as 
>> his fat little legs could carry him. 
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>>
>
> As the saying goes, never try to teach a pig to sing, you get all muddy 
> and really piss off a pig. Discussing anything with spuds is a waste of 
> time. He, she or it has drunk the Kool-Aid of right wing extremism and is 
> effectively brainwashed. 
>
> Did Fauci communicate with the Wuhan lab? Probably, and anyone in his 
> position will communicate with scientists around the world. I do that and 
> have published papers with people in various countries. Fauci probably 
> communicates with scientists in a range of research organizations around 
> the world.
>
> LC
>
> [image: Reps and Dems difference.jpg] 
>

-- 
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/51dbd584-9bc7-4f38-a1bf-994834a45dfcn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Vaccine statistics

[Bruno Marchal]

People who claim that a vaccination mandate, or masks,  constitute a threat 
for freedom are mocking those living in a genuine dictatorship and they 
have no ideas of what that means.

If they were serious they would be in the street since the prohibition of 
medication laws, which is something putting liars into power and which is 
really threatening freedom and democracy. 

In fact, not vaccinate oneself during a pandemic is about the same as not 
respecting the speed limit in a city. It is a quasi criminal act hat 
endangered the others, and sometimes kill some of them.

Vaccination is not a personal affair. Like limitation of speed, it is not 
so much to protect you from others, but to protect others from you.

It is not a coincidence that those against vaccination are very often 
siding with Trump, which is the real threat against freedom and democracy.

Bruno

On Monday, August 2, 2021 at 1:38:56 AM UTC+2 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 6:18:52 PM UTC-5 stathisp wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Aug 2021 at 09:01, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The real problem is that vaccinated people will have delta-Cov-Sar2 in 
>>> them and they can pass it on to others. If everyone were vaccinated this 
>>> would not be much of a problem, and in fact might be just a bit of added 
>>> immune boosting. So we are now back to masking mandates, and I am going to 
>>> have to buy another box of them tomorrow. It is deja vu all over again. A 
>>> year ago we were in the same spot.
>>
>>
>> Ironically, vaccinated people will have to wear masks for the benefit of 
>> those who don’t believe in vaccination and perhaps not in masks either.
>>
>>
> Mask mandates are back on at work tomorrow. Indeed, now that the δ variant 
> is breakthrough, though asymptomatic for the vaccinated, we are back to 
> trying to "lower the curve" with masking. This was what came in force just 
> about a year ago. Oh well. I know which side of the fence I am glad to be 
> on. 
>
> LC
>  
>
>> LC
>>>
>>> On Sunday, August 1, 2021 at 9:36:06 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
 I thought it might be useful to cut through some of the noise about 
 breakthrough COVID-19 infections and give the latest statistics from the 
 CDC. If you are fully vaccinated then you only have a 0.004% chance of 
 becoming so ill from COVID-19 that you need to be hospitalized, and you 
 have less than a 0.001% chance of dying from it. So these days if you do 
 die of it you have no excuse and should be thoroughly embarrassed as well 
 as being thoroughly dead; I'm certain your family will be embarrassed to 
 admit that they're related to somebody who died from an advanced case of 
 stupidity.

 Less than 0.001% of fully vaccinated Americans died after a Covid-19 
 breakthrough case 
 

 John K ClarkSee 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d57da2d7-b539-445d-af78-e5c877f0357fn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> -- 
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b540f128-e750-4a37-84d9-9e29e1746cb3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Bruno Marchal]

What do you mean by non effective. The theory of consciousness (the 
knowledge that there is a reality) brought by the universal machine, all by 
itself, is *effective*. It entails immediately the many-worlds appearances 
(I got it long before I discovered Everett or even QM), and it entails that 
the logic of the observable is given by precise  intensional variants of 
the provability logic, and indeed, we got them there. Only the future 
experimentation will refute this theory, and Mechanism by the same token. 
It is hard to imagine a more effective theory. In fact, I predicted in the 
1970 that it would be refuted before 2000. That did not happen, and I am 
not sure why, probably a lack of interest in serious theoretical 
bio-psycho-theology. But the burden of the ontological proof is in the hand 
of the believer (in a material pricey universe). No need to study the 
theology of the machine, as the simple fact that all computations are 
executed in arithmetic is enough to put physicalism in doubt. But the 
theology of the machine confirms that such an existence is feely plausible, 
beside making the mind-body problem unsolvable with Mechanism.
A pedagogical problem is that many people confuse the physical reality 
(that no one doubt), and the assumption that the physical reality is not 
explainable from something non physical which is what Mechanism put a doubt 
upon.

Bruno 

On Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 12:19:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 7/26/2021 2:15 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:17 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's the problem, ALL consciousness theories are good enough, they 
>>> all fit the facts equally well, choosing one is entirely a matter of taste.
>>
>>  
>
> *So whether consciousness is a function of brain processes or is immortal 
>> soul stuff are equally good theories?  Both consistent with the fact that 
>> alcohol affects consciousness...assuming it affects soul stuff?*
>
>
> I don't drink but I'm sure alcohol would affect my consciousness and my 
> behavior, and I would be able to prove it affects your behavior too, but 
> I have no way of proving it affects your consciousness, assuming you even 
> have consciousness.  
>
>
> You keep resorting to "prove" and "know" to argue that science can't apply 
> to consciousness.  All theories of consciousness are equally good and bad.  
> But "prove" and "know" are not the standard in any science.  We never 
> "prove" or "know" things in physics either.  All we ask for is predictive 
> power and theoretical consilience.
>
>
>
> * > If tomorrow I came up with a theory and implemented it with a machine 
>> that could scan any brain at any moment and tell me what that brain was 
>> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then*
>
>
> Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and how 
> on earth do you read the machine's output? 
>
>
> The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate Beckinsale"  and then I 
> ask you and you say, "I was thinking about Bruno Marchal"...but I can see 
> the erection.
>
>
> Suppose I'm sad and you put me in the machine and the pointer on the 
> machine's sadness dial moves to the 62.4 mark, does that number enable you 
> to understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad? I don't think so.
>
>
> But I can already understand what it's like for John K Clark to be sad, 
> because I've been sad.  Isn't that a good theory...and don't tell me it 
> doesn't *prove* that I know.
>
>
>
> > people like Chalmers would still whine, "But what is it fundamentally?"
>
>
> Exactly, even if by some miracle you could somehow prove that X caused 
> consciousness they would still not be satisfied, they would demand to know 
> WHY X causes consciousness, and they want to know what caused X.  
>
>
> My point is that none of that prevents having an effective theory of 
> consciousness.  It's my main compliant about Bruno's theory.  It's almost 
> completely descriptive of what conscious information processing might be.  
> It's not effective.
>
> 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/39a2d4f1-cf4d-44b3-a2de-ecb659883dcbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

It is the first time I hear that cannabis impairs the mathematical 
abilities. You might give reference, and I hope it contains a comparison 
with chocolate, alcohol, etc. Without such comparison, anyone can find that 
anything impair mathematical (or whatever) studies, but usually such 
studies are not quite serious, or just pretext to not study. If you like 
mathematics, there is some chance that cannabis will help, and if you don't 
like mathematics, there is a lot of chance cannabis will *not* help.
The question if consciousness requires material substrate is not a question 
of liking this or not. If Indexical Digital Mechanism is assumed, there is 
simply no choice: the material appearances must be explained without 
invoking any ontological commitment. 
We need to separate truth from what we want. It usually does not match 
easily. It is the separation of theology from science which makes people 
believe that the religious truth is a matter of choice. This is eventually 
used by people who want to freeze the field for their special interest. The 
god/non-god debate is a trick by materialist (believer in some fundamental 
substance) to make us forget that the original questions in theology was 
about the existence of a primary physical universe. To simplify, the 
question was should we invest in mathematics or in physics when we search 
the simplest ontology capable of explains all facts, or as much as possible 
facts?

Bruno

On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 10:21:41 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> My only concern about cannabis is the study that it did impair 
> mathematical abilities. That is about it for me. In a few areas of the US, 
> legal cannabis has been permitted. Which doesn't stop the thugsters from 
> selling it illegally, under price. That is a social issue and not a medical 
> one. On whether consciousness requires a material substrate, I have no 
> preference, because honestly it is not up to me. It's the universe, I just 
> work here.  On the other hand I do hold with the idea of taking whatever 
> advantage, even neuro-chemical, of the knowledge of anything the facts 
> provides? The Beyond 1492 project likely needs funding, and I suspect that 
> computer science, eventually, will provide for such a adaptation. My 
> feeling is we don't need more religions to benefit us, but instead mental 
> apps based on whatever facts we can uncover, be it flesh or spirit? 
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Jul 21, 2021 6:32 am
> Subject: Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem
>
> There are some relations. Note that "my theory" is just Descartes theory, 
> and it can be found in old Indian text too, or Chinese text. It probably 
> exists since an ape use a piece of wood to extend its arm, and it is the 
> "simplest" theory of mind and matter since long. now, its digital version 
> comes from the discovery of the universal machine in arithmetic (Turing, 
> Kleene, Post, ...) and it entails the reversal physics/theology, or 
> physics/theology (using the original sense of the greek). So, I don't want 
> this to look as if I was bragging, but the key is that I have no theory, 
> just a theorem, with a constructive proof making Digital and Indexical 
> Mechanism testable (Digital means we use the Church-Thesis, and Indexical 
> means that the assumption is personal "*I* say "yes" for the digital 
> body/brain transplant). Schmidhuber has participated to this list, and the 
> problem for him was that all finite sequence is predictable leading to some 
> doubt on the first person indeterminacy, a bit like Clark and Bruce Kellet 
> today). That problem is not serious, as the point is that in Helsinki (if 
> you remember) you cannot write in the prediction diary, neither W, nor M, 
> but only (W v M) if you want the prediction validated by the two 
> reconstituted person. Than that first person indeterminacy extends to the 
> infinitely many computations in arithmetic, leading to a many-histories 
> interpretation (Brough by all universal numbers) of arithmetic. 
>
> This result is shocking for the dogmatic believer in Aristotle theology, 
> with a materialist ontological commitment.  There are many, as we are lied 
> on this since 1492 years, and when you see that cannabis is still schedule 
> one, despite the lies are recent and easily debunked, you can imagine that 
> materialism will remain with thus for sometime, but it will be abandoned by 
> lack of evidences, like vitalism has been abandoned in biology.
>
> When you understand that all computations are run in arithmetic, you 
> understand that the burden of proof is in the hand of those who claim to 
> have evidences for their material ontological commitment. Nevertheless, 
> Mechanism makes the dream a

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

[Bruno Marchal]

I agree that solving the folding of protein problem is a huge 
accomplishment. To get consciousness you need to apply DeepMind on itself, 
and wait. That will give a sort of "universal baby", and it will get the G* 
theology/psychology as long as it remains arithmetically sound. 
Consciousness is really just the knowledge (true belief) that there is some 
reality, followed by the Löbian understanding that this reality is not 
definable "by me", unless introducing some strong hypothesis, like 
(digital) Mechanism. 
I read that the most powerful version of Alphago, the playing go program 
(neural net) is the version which learned by playing only with itself. It 
beats completely the version learning from a lot a great player examples. 
That was predicted by Mechanism, except that Mechanism did not put a limit 
if time for the learning phase.  We are really close to make that universal 
baby, and we might get a terrible child, also. It will be like with kids: a 
problem of education.

On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:33:27 AM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making 
>>> objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness is a 
>>> subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The theory that 
>>> other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly consistent with all 
>>> observable evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious 
>>> being in the universe, 
>>
>>
>> *> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is 
>>> instantiated by physical processes in the brain.*
>>
>>
> No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did not 
> then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the 
> observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory that 
> the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be produced is 
> perfectly consistent with all observational evidence available to me. And 
> even I am not conscious all the time, not when I'm sleeping or under 
> anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be conscious when I'm dead either.
>
>  > And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments on 
>> brains and the reports by subjects.
>>
>
> Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data point to 
> work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a line through 
> a single point. 
>
> >> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even grains 
>>> of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY conscious
>>> ness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and that's why ALL 
>>> consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for the theory that 
>>> solipsism is untrue, that one has a use.  
>>
>>
>> *> But that's the way all theories are.  We provisionally believe the 
>> ones that are consistent with the facts*
>>
>
> All theories of consciousness fit the facts, the same can certainly *NOT* 
> be said of theories of intelligence, that's why consciousness is easy but 
> intelligence is hard.   
>  
>
>>   > *And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are 
>> conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact 
>> any human lineage that did not hold that theory has already been eliminated 
>> by evolution. *
>>
>
> I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is being 
> processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never be able to 
> prove it)  then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own 
> actions are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of 
> that environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate 
> what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future. When 
> 3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one grain of 
> sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the other two grains 
> change the position of the first grain, however that is not evidence that 
> the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it is not evidence that the 3 
> grains of sand are not conscious either. 
>
> *> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the 
>> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?*
>>
>
> No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about it and my first 
> impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have not 
> read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it just 
> proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better and no worse 
> than every other rival theory of consciousness. 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>  
> 89n
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from 

Re: Fox News and Newsmax regurgitates anti-vaccine rhetoric​ vomit ​

[Bruno Marchal]

I am pro vaccine, but also a bit of a procrastinator. Eventually I got the 
first dose, moderna, (today) and, yes, it has been approved by the FDA, 
...although this is a more an argument of concern to me, given that the FDA 
continues to lie implicitly on cannabis.
That is the problem with the liars: sometimes they say the truth.
I do trust the FDA about the vaccine though.
Liars who *always* lie exists only in Smullyan's Island of Knight and 
Knaves, which is a good tool to explain Gödel's incompleteness and this by 
avoiding the Diagonal Lemma or the second recursion theorem of Kleene. 
Eventually we still needs those important lemma for the second 
incompleteness theorem and Löb and their relation with  G* (the machine 
propositional theology).

Bruno


On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 10:08:03 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 2:09 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Origin, non-ideological.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/07/world/covid-19-coronavirus
>>
>
>
> And because AstraZeneca’s Vaccine does not work well against virus 
> variants is exactly why it has *NOT* been approved by the FDA for use in 
> the USA, but three other vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson 
> & Johnson have been approved and they work quite well against all known 
> COVID-19 variants although the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is not used 
> much. I'm curious, have you taken one of the 3 vaccines that have been 
> approved? I certainly have.   \ 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> 2q
>

-- 
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/8fb7892c-9649-41ad-8072-b472edfe90d4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

There are some relations. Note that "my theory" is just Descartes theory, 
and it can be found in old Indian text too, or Chinese text. It probably 
exists since an ape use a piece of wood to extend its arm, and it is the 
"simplest" theory of mind and matter since long. now, its digital version 
comes from the discovery of the universal machine in arithmetic (Turing, 
Kleene, Post, ...) and it entails the reversal physics/theology, or 
physics/theology (using the original sense of the greek). So, I don't want 
this to look as if I was bragging, but the key is that I have no theory, 
just a theorem, with a constructive proof making Digital and Indexical 
Mechanism testable (Digital means we use the Church-Thesis, and Indexical 
means that the assumption is personal "*I* say "yes" for the digital 
body/brain transplant). Schmidhuber has participated to this list, and the 
problem for him was that all finite sequence is predictable leading to some 
doubt on the first person indeterminacy, a bit like Clark and Bruce Kellet 
today). That problem is not serious, as the point is that in Helsinki (if 
you remember) you cannot write in the prediction diary, neither W, nor M, 
but only (W v M) if you want the prediction validated by the two 
reconstituted person. Than that first person indeterminacy extends to the 
infinitely many computations in arithmetic, leading to a many-histories 
interpretation (Brough by all universal numbers) of arithmetic.

This result is shocking for the dogmatic believer in Aristotle theology, 
with a materialist ontological commitment.  There are many, as we are lied 
on this since 1492 years, and when you see that cannabis is still schedule 
one, despite the lies are recent and easily debunked, you can imagine that 
materialism will remain with thus for sometime, but it will be abandoned by 
lack of evidences, like vitalism has been abandoned in biology.

When you understand that all computations are run in arithmetic, you 
understand that the burden of proof is in the hand of those who claim to 
have evidences for their material ontological commitment. Nevertheless, 
Mechanism makes the dream argument rigorous, and eventually, Materialism is 
shown to require some magic to make some computations more "real" than 
others. The careful observations of Nature confirms mechanism, up to now. 
My work shows how to test this, and why quantum physics confirmed the most 
striking feature of digital mechanism. I dont know the truth, and my 
meta-goal is to show that we can do theology with the scientific attitude, 
including physical experimentation. This helps also to distinguish clearly 
physics (the science of the observable and prediction) and 
theology/metaphysics: the science questioning the nature of the fundamental 
reality.

Bruno

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 8:30:19 PM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Your theory strikes me of a related theory by Canadian philosopher, John 
> Leslie (Emeritus, Guelph University) who did the logic  of "ethical 
> requiredness," for the universe, Plus he employs some of your 
> Neo-Platonism.* He also has employed the Bloc Universe in his writings, 
> using sort of Einstein's letter to the family of Michel Besso as a 
> condolence. Frame reference and all that.  Leslie has termed himself an 
> atheist in the sense of no personal deity as you have stated below.  
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337952476_Infinite_Minds_A_Philosophical_Cosmology
>
> *For that matter so does Swiss digital philosopher, Juergen Schmidhuber.
> https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/
>
> Hope everyone whose system can take (I'd avoid the very young) gets vaxed? 
> Good luck. 
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2021 3:46 am
> Subject: Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem
>
> Hmm... I just reply from the new mail address, but of course, I don't have 
> (yet) the permission. Some difficulties to change the setting. I copy my 
> answer directly on the webpage of this list. 
>
> Hi spudboy100,
>
> Thanks! 
> Do we have the choice in what we are observing? 
>
> Yes and No. To take the paradigmatic exemple, imagine that you are in 
> Helsinki, and you will be scanned, copy, destroyed, and reconstitute in 
> Washington and Moscow. For a third person observer looking at this, you are 
> in W and in M. From your (multiple) first person view, you feel that a 
> choice or a selection has been made, but that cannot possibly be "your 
> choice". Indeed in Helsinki you might desire to become the one in Moscow, 
> but the guy in Washington will illustrate that indeed it was not a question 
> of choice, unless he suicides himself immediately somehow. You could, when 
> still in Helsinki, write a letter, or a mail, to the people in Wash

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

Hmm... I just reply from the new mail address, but of course, I don't have 
(yet) the permission. Some difficulties to change the setting. I copy my 
answer directly on the webpage of this list.

Hi spudboy100,

Thanks! 
Do we have the choice in what we are observing? 

Yes and No. To take the paradigmatic exemple, imagine that you are in 
Helsinki, and you will be scanned, copy, destroyed, and reconstitute in 
Washington and Moscow. For a third person observer looking at this, you are 
in W and in M. From your (multiple) first person view, you feel that a 
choice or a selection has been made, but that cannot possibly be "your 
choice". Indeed in Helsinki you might desire to become the one in Moscow, 
but the guy in Washington will illustrate that indeed it was not a question 
of choice, unless he suicides himself immediately somehow. You could, when 
still in Helsinki, write a letter, or a mail, to the people in Washington, 
asking them to NOT make the reconstitution, making Moscow into a 
"probability 1 by default", though, and this illustrates that making a 
choice is a form of suicide. If you are in love with Alice and Eve, and 
decide to marry Eve, it is somehow equivalent with killing the "you" who 
would have lived with Alice.
In that sense, I answer "yes". We do have partial choice in observing or 
moving in our life, and it is a sort of preselection among our (infinitely 
many) futures.
Can we make better? I guess so. At least relatively to what you might 
consider as better, for example by selection the option which maximize this 
or that things that you might prefer, for you or for other you care about.

With the "many-worlds", or "many-histories" or the non quantum (a priori) 
"many-computations" in arithmetic, the quantum woo is minimized, in fact 
the whole quantum is explained through the common "amoeba" first person 
indeterminacy in arithmetic
 You can see (Indexical, Digital) Mechanism as the hypothesis using the 
less magic, in fact only the magic of mathematical logic or computer 
science. No need of a magical personal-god, or impersonal-god, just 
elementary arithmetic which execute all computations in the bloc-universe, 
or better bloc-mindscape manner. Something we know, or should know, since 
the 1930s.

Bruno

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:57:45 AM UTC+2 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Just for confirmation, Bruno, you message has been received if not 
> completely comprehended by myself, but just as a saying "received" by your 
> email provider. My only thought might be is "Do we have a choice in what we 
> are observing?" Moreover, "if we somehow do, can we make better by 
> observing." Many would say this is quantum woo, and that is fine by me. The 
> follow up would be, mayhaps if we form a 'better node' say, of millions of 
> observer's we could fix things better? As in Quantum Woo style-all focus 
> upon the same thing?  
>
> Probably not, so it's back to work for scientists and engineers
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2021 9:07 am
> Subject: Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem
>
> I have answered this, but I don't find my answer. Penrose use Gödel's 
> theorem to argue that we are not machine, by a reasoning similar to one 
> already found, and refuted, by Emil Post, and later developed (wrongly) by 
> Lucas and Penrose. Eventually Penrose got it right, and that kind of 
> argument does not show that Gödel's incompleteness is a problem for 
> Mechanism, but it does show that a machine cannot know which machine she 
> is, nor which computations support it in arithmetic, which is indeed a step 
> in the reduction of the laws of physics to the statistics on all relative 
> computations in arithmetic. That explains why, after deriving the 
> phenomenology of the wave collapse from the Schroedinger equation, like 
> Everett did, it is still necessary to derive the wave equation from the 
> statistics on all computations (as seen from inside, which is the hard part 
> to define, except that it becomes easy once we get the theology of the 
> machine. 
>
> The propositional machine theology G1* has been given here. It is the 
> modal logic with all theorem of G as axioms, + []A ->A, + p -> []p (for p 
> propositional letter), and importantly without the Necessitation rule. And 
> G is the (normal modal logic) with axiom []([]A -> A) -> []A (the Löb 
> formula). A normal modal theory has [](A->B) -> ([]A -> []B) as axioms, and 
> is closed for the Modus ponens and the necessitation rule.
>
> Then the logic of the observable is given by the modal logic of the 
> intensional variant, defined in G1(*) by the logic of []A & <>t & A, and 

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

I have answered this, but I don't find my answer. Penrose use Gödel's 
theorem to argue that we are not machine, by a reasoning similar to one 
already found, and refuted, by Emil Post, and later developed (wrongly) by 
Lucas and Penrose. Eventually Penrose got it right, and that kind of 
argument does not show that Gödel's incompleteness is a problem for 
Mechanism, but it does show that a machine cannot know which machine she 
is, nor which computations support it in arithmetic, which is indeed a step 
in the reduction of the laws of physics to the statistics on all relative 
computations in arithmetic. That explains why, after deriving the 
phenomenology of the wave collapse from the Schroedinger equation, like 
Everett did, it is still necessary to derive the wave equation from the 
statistics on all computations (as seen from inside, which is the hard part 
to define, except that it becomes easy once we get the theology of the 
machine.

The propositional machine theology G1* has been given here. It is the modal 
logic with all theorem of G as axioms, + []A ->A, + p -> []p (for p 
propositional letter), and importantly without the Necessitation rule. And 
G is the (normal modal logic) with axiom []([]A -> A) -> []A (the Löb 
formula). A normal modal theory has [](A->B) -> ([]A -> []B) as axioms, and 
is closed for the Modus ponens and the necessitation rule.

Then the logic of the observable is given by the modal logic of the 
intensional variant, defined in G1(*) by the logic of []A & <>t & A, and 
some related.
That gives a quantum logic for the observable by universal numbers in 
arithmetic, naturally related to the many computations structure implied by 
elementary arithmetic or Turing equivalent.

More on this later. I am also testing the mail system, and if the 
google-group still recognise my old adresses. 

Bruno

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:28:36 PM UTC+2 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> It is Penrose's thesis that consciousness is a sort of Godel trick. Back 
> in the 1980s as an undergraduate I would have agreed with this, when I 
> started reading about this. I read Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach" 
> and began pondering these things. I have however come to think there were 
> problems with this. It is clear humans are not consistent Turing machines 
> or computers. Computers are infernally consistent, and can compute 
> numerical sequences, but they do not make an inductive leap in saying the 
> set of natural numbers has infinite cardinality. Humans can rather easily 
> see the set is infinite and however make mistakes. 
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 11:47:26 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:38 AM Lawrence Crowell  
>> 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 

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

If (Indexical, Digital) Mechanism is assumed, the laws of physics are not 
necessarily Turing emulable, and a part of physics is necessarily not 
Turing emulable. The reason is that the domain of indeterminacy bear on a 
non computable subset of computations (in arithmetic). 

It is important to realise that Mechanism (roughly "I am a machine") is 
inconsistent with the idea that the physical universe, and any "reality", 
like a model of arithmetic, are non computer emulable reality. The 
computable is only a very tiny part of the arithmetical truth.

Given that all computations are realised in arithmetic, the physical 
reality is a non computable statistics on those (infinitely many) 
computations going through our state. I have derived the many-world 
interpretation of arithmetic before realising that physicists were already 
there. Only later I got the (shadow of) the quantum logical formalism. I 
don't think that something like gravitation is globally Turing emulable, 
but I am not sure. 

Bruno

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 2:13:15 PM UTC+2 Tomas Pales wrote:

> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 1:55:59 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> With Mechanism the physical laws remains persistent because they are the 
>> same for all universal machine, and they come from the unique statistics on 
>> all computations (in arithmetic, in lambda calculus, in any Turing 
>> universal theory or system).
>>
>
> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with 
> gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some time t and then 
> continues the computation with gravitational constant 5 x 10 to the -11, or 
> just halts? That would be an instability or cessation of gravitational law.
>
>

-- 
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/7635743c-eda0-4e74-aed5-139bafaad6cen%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

I let you know that I have some mail account problem, as my university is 
making change. I send this from the net directly. That problem might 
perdure up to September. The Covid does not help... Apology for 
inconvenience. You might contact me on FACEBOOK if something is 
urgent https://www.facebook.com/Bruno.Marchal24
I would not say that we are inconsistent machine. We are more like 
consistent (even arithmetically sound) machine, with some layer of 
non-monotonic logic to handle local belief revision.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 5:28:27 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 3 Jun 2021, at 13:28, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> It is Penrose's thesis that consciousness is a sort of Godel trick. 
>
>
> ?
>
> Penrose on the contrary use Gödel’s theorem, like Lucas, erroneously, to 
> claim that we are not machine.
>
> Basically he says that the correct machine cannot see []p -> p, but that 
> we can see it, even for us.
>
> But he just confused G and G*. In other place they confuse G and S4Grz. 
>
>
>
>
>
> Back in the 1980s as an undergraduate I would have agreed with this, when 
> I started reading about this. I read Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher, 
> Bach" and began pondering these things. I have however come to think there 
> were problems with this. It is clear humans are not consistent Turing 
> machines or computers. 
>
>
> That is a consequence of mechanism. To be consistent at some level, the 
> “variable” machine have to develop a non monotonically layer, and yes, you 
> are taking risk when saying “yes” to quick to the charlatan-doctor...
>
>
>
>
>
> Computers are infernally consistent, 
>
>
> Before you install windows, I guess :)
>
> A computer is just a relative universal number, it can imitate (and 
> sometimes even become) all other digital machines, both the consistent and 
> the inconsistent one.
>
> To be precise: consistency apply to theories, that is set of beliefs, or 
> assertable or provable propositions. 
>
> Computability is an absolute notion. Provability is a relative notions. 
>
> Computation, translate into provability, is sigma_1 provability, already 
> entirely obtained by the jewel Q:
>
> Classical First Order Logic + Equality, +:
>
> 1) 0 ≠ s(x)
> 2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
> 3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
> 4) x+0 = x
> 5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> 6) x*0=0
> 7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
> Which, BTW, is among my favorite theory of everything (ontology).
>
> I insist that theology, and thus physics, does not depend on the choice on 
> the ontology, as long as we avoid induction axioms, and the axiom of 
> infinity (in that sense, Mechanism is quite atheistic no creator, no 
> creation, just the dream of number entailed by the Turing 
> universal/complete theory Q.
>
> My second favourite theory of everything is the theory of combinator CL (I 
> explained it up to its Turing universality some years ago):
>
> Axioms:
> KAB = A
> SABC = AC(BC)
>
> Inference rules:
> If A = B and A = C, then B = C
> If A = B then AC = BC
> If A = B then CA = CB
>
>
> The laws of physics can be said to emerge, in an Emmy-Notherian 
> generalised way, from the invariance of the observable for all universal 
> numbers.
>
>
>
> and can compute numerical sequences, but they do not make an inductive 
> leap in saying the set of natural numbers has infinite cardinality.
>
>
> The Löbian universal machine known as ZF does that all the time.
>
> You might mean that she does not learn to do that? Wait for alpha-go 
> learning a bit of set theory. They might make an inductive leap that the 
> humans will take some times to understand, at some point. And only God will 
> know if such machines are consistent or not.
>
> Are you telling me that you would always say “no” to the doctor (for the 
> artificial brain?).
>
> I don’t know the truth, but when you listen to the machines, through 
> Gödel, Löb … Solovay, you understand that the universal machine are born in 
> arithmetic, are right at the start confronted to an hesitation between 
> Security (totality, control) and Insecurity, like searching for some 
> numbers which might, or notion exists, going from surprise to surprise… 
> They are never completely satisfy and want always more, until they wake up, 
> to fall asleep again...
>
>
>
> Humans can rather easily see the set is infinite and however make 
> mistakes. 
>
>
> When machine do inductive inference, or pattern recognition, or play 
> chess, or whatever, they do mistakes.
>
> They don’t do mistake at the level of their implementation, but you don’t 
> do that either; you just don’t mess with the physical laws, nor machine 
>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Jul 2021, at 13:03, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 11:34:28 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> 
> I think this kind of talk puts far too much on consciousness.  Conscious 
> thoughts seem to pop into my head with no antecedents, yet they relate to 
> past and distant things in my experience.  The Poincare' effect shows that 
> even the most abstract thought is largely unconscious.
> 
> What is Poincare effect?
> 
> Consciousness seems to be the necessary basis of personal identity: "I am 
> conscious therefore I am". Of course it depends on unconscious parts of the 
> brain, the rest of the body and the environment; where to draw the boundary 
> of personal identity is somewhat blurry.

Indeed.

No machine can know which machine she is, nor which computations support her. 
There are infinitely any computations supporting her in arithmetic, and that is 
why physics becomes a statistics on infinitely many computations, which  leads 
to a many-histories interpretation of elementary arithmetic, and physics should 
get at it, which is basically what we get with quantum mechanics without 
collapse.

In physics, usually those who likes the collapse speculation are those who 
speculate on a non mechanist theory of consciousness.

With Mechanism, Consciousness is simply the believe in a reality conjuncted 
with some reality (which can be proved to be impossible to define by the 
machine, and which explains why consciousness is both obvious and non 
definable).
Consciousness is basically given by <>t v t, trivial in the first person view, 
but with a component (<>t) unprovable by the machine.

We get all Platonic (Parmenidian, also) mode of self-reference as they are 
imposed by incompleteness. What Lucas and Penrose did not see is that the 
Universal+ machine can prove their own incompleteness, and be aware that there 
might be something beyond their experience.

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/99d9e41c-1c13-437b-bf56-94ec04c77d2bn%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/9521F6E3-FF75-4DFE-ABE8-F75748B55FB6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jun 2021, at 13:28, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> It is Penrose's thesis that consciousness is a sort of Godel trick.

?

Penrose on the contrary use Gödel’s theorem, like Lucas, erroneously, to claim 
that we are not machine.

Basically he says that the correct machine cannot see []p -> p, but that we can 
see it, even for us.

But he just confused G and G*. In other place they confuse G and S4Grz. 





> Back in the 1980s as an undergraduate I would have agreed with this, when I 
> started reading about this. I read Hofstadter's book "Godel, Escher, Bach" 
> and began pondering these things. I have however come to think there were 
> problems with this. It is clear humans are not consistent Turing machines or 
> computers.

That is a consequence of mechanism. To be consistent at some level, the 
“variable” machine have to develop a non monotonically layer, and yes, you are 
taking risk when saying “yes” to quick to the charlatan-doctor...





> Computers are infernally consistent,

Before you install windows, I guess :)

A computer is just a relative universal number, it can imitate (and sometimes 
even become) all other digital machines, both the consistent and the 
inconsistent one.

To be precise: consistency apply to theories, that is set of beliefs, or 
assertable or provable propositions. 

Computability is an absolute notion. Provability is a relative notions. 

Computation, translate into provability, is sigma_1 provability, already 
entirely obtained by the jewel Q:

Classical First Order Logic + Equality, +:

1) 0 ≠ s(x)
2) x ≠ y -> s(x) ≠ s(y)
3) x ≠ 0 -> Ey(x = s(y)) 
4) x+0 = x
5) x+s(y) = s(x+y)
6) x*0=0
7) x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

Which, BTW, is among my favorite theory of everything (ontology).

I insist that theology, and thus physics, does not depend on the choice on the 
ontology, as long as we avoid induction axioms, and the axiom of infinity (in 
that sense, Mechanism is quite atheistic no creator, no creation, just the 
dream of number entailed by the Turing universal/complete theory Q.

My second favourite theory of everything is the theory of combinator CL (I 
explained it up to its Turing universality some years ago):

Axioms:
KAB = A
SABC = AC(BC)

Inference rules:
If A = B and A = C, then B = C
If A = B then AC = BC
If A = B then CA = CB


The laws of physics can be said to emerge, in an Emmy-Notherian generalised 
way, from the invariance of the observable for all universal numbers.



> and can compute numerical sequences, but they do not make an inductive leap 
> in saying the set of natural numbers has infinite cardinality.

The Löbian universal machine known as ZF does that all the time.

You might mean that she does not learn to do that? Wait for alpha-go learning a 
bit of set theory. They might make an inductive leap that the humans will take 
some times to understand, at some point. And only God will know if such 
machines are consistent or not.

Are you telling me that you would always say “no” to the doctor (for the 
artificial brain?).

I don’t know the truth, but when you listen to the machines, through Gödel, Löb 
… Solovay, you understand that the universal machine are born in arithmetic, 
are right at the start confronted to an hesitation between Security (totality, 
control) and Insecurity, like searching for some numbers which might, or notion 
exists, going from surprise to surprise… They are never completely satisfy and 
want always more, until they wake up, to fall asleep again...



> Humans can rather easily see the set is infinite and however make mistakes. 

When machine do inductive inference, or pattern recognition, or play chess, or 
whatever, they do mistakes.

They don’t do mistake at the level of their implementation, but you don’t do 
that either; you just don’t mess with the physical laws, nor machine mess with 
the arithmetical laws which implements them. Hofstadter (the only physicist who 
get Gödel’s right) got this right, and sum it well up with the image of a lot 
if 1+1=2 building a picture I-of 1+1=3.

You can put Gödel’s theorem in this form: (note that <>t is the same as ~[]f, 
consistency)

<>t -> ~[]<>t

That is; a consistent machine/entity cannot prove its consistency.

But that is equivalent to

<>t -> <>[]f

For a consistent machine, it is consistent to be(come) inconsistent.

And indeed, PA + ~con(PA) is consistent, and that is already a sort of axiom of 
infinity making that unsound, but still consistent, machine, far more powerful 
than PA.

Arithmetic is full of life, but you get  the many liars as an uncomfortable but 
unavoidable gifts…

Bruno





> 
> LC
> 
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 11:47:26 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:38 AM Lawrence Crowell  > 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, 

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 21:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/4/2021 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Information is the key.  Conscious agents are defined by precisely that 
>>> information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means 
>>> that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical 
>>> object, because the information that describes the conscious experience 
>>> will always be less detailed than the information present in the exact 
>>> physical description of an object such a brain. There are always going to 
>>> be a very large self localization ambiguity due to the large number of 
>>> different possible brain states that would generate exactly the same 
>>> conscious experience. So, given whatever conscious experience the agent 
>>> has, the agent could be in a very large number of physically distinct 
>>> states.
>>> 
>>> The simpler the brain and the algorithm implemented by the brain, the 
>>> larger this self-localization ambiguity becomes because smaller algorithms 
>>> contain less detailed information. Our conscious experiences localizes us 
>>> very precisely on an Earth-like planet in a solar system that is very 
>>> similar to the one we think we live in. But the fly walking on the wall of 
>>> the room I'm in right now may have some conscious experience that is 
>>> exactly identical to that of another fly walking on the wall of another 
>>> house in another country 600 years ago or on some rock in a cave 35 million 
>>> year ago.
>>> 
>>> The conscious experience of the fly I see on the all is therefore not 
>>> located in the particular fly I'm observing.
> 
> This seems to equate "a conscious experience" with "an algorithm”. 

Not sure if you ask Saibal or me.

Obviously, it has as much wrong to identify consciousness with a brain than 
with an algorithm. It is the same error, as a brain, its mechanist relevant 
part, is a finite word/program, written in some subset of the physical laws.



> But an algortihm is an extended thing that in general has branches 
> representing counterfactuals.

That’s not an algorithm, but a computations. The counterfactual are the 
differentiating branches of the computations.






> 
>>> This is i.m.o. the key thing you get from identifying consciousness with 
>>> information, it makes the multiverse an essential ingredient of 
>>> consciousness. This resolves paradoxes you get in thought experiments where 
>>> you consider simulating a brain in a virtual world and then argue that 
>>> since the simulation is deterministic, you could replace the actual 
>>> computer doing the computations by a device playing a recording of the 
>>> physical brain states. This argument breaks down if you take into account 
>>> the self-localization ambiguity
> 
> What is this "self" of which you speak?

Again, ask Saibal. I did not wrote the text above. I never use the term 
“information”, because it is confusing, as we use with its first person meaning 
and its third person meaning all the time, and that the whole mind-body problem 
consists in handling all this carefully, taking into account all modes of self 
implied by incompleteness.

The theory is there. It is not know because physicist comes with the right 
question and wrong metaphysics, and logicians comes up with the right 
metaphysics, but wrong question. I am afraid also that the reaction of the 
logicians to Penrose use of Gödel’s theorem (against Mechanism) has deter the 
physicists to even study logic and Gödel’s theorem.

Yet, with mechanism, we get a simple explanation, without any ontological 
commitment except for at least one universal machinery (to get machines, and 
the numbers are enough) of both qualia, quanta, and their mathematical 
relations, but also their necessarily non mathematical relations.

Bruno



> 
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>>> and consider that this multiverse aspect is an essential part of 
>>> consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to define the algorithm 
>>> being realized, which is impossible in a deterministic single-world setting.
>> OK. Not only true, but it makes physics into a branch of mathematical logic, 
>> partially embedded in arithmetic  (and totally embedded in the semantic of 
>> arithmetic, which of course cannot be purely arithmetical, as the machine 
>> understand already).
>> 
>> I got the many-dreams, or many histories of the physical reality from the 
>> many computations in arithmetic we

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 17:40, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:46:39 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or 
> who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly 
> or do you find points if disagreement?
> 
> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which 
> one or which combination is right.  For example:
> 
> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
> 
> I don't know if self-reference in the sense of Godel sentences is relevant to 
> consciousness

There are two senses used in computer science, and well captured by the first 
and second recursion theorem, also called fixed point theorem. The second 
recursion theorem is more important and more “intensional”, taking the shape of 
the (relative) code more into account.

The real surprise in that the Gödel-Löbian self-reference, by its clear and 
transparent siplliting along truth (axiomatised by the modal logic G*, which I 
call “the theology of the sound machine”) and proof (axiomatised by G), 
justifies again, like Theaetetus, and unlike Socrates, the modes of truth 
described since Parmenides, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus… Damascius.

For example, written in Modal logic, consistency (NOT PROVABLE FALSE) can be 
written ~[]f, or equivalently <>t, and Gödel’s second incompleteness is <>t -> 
~[]<>t, or equivalently <>t -> <>[]f. Löb’s theorem ([]([]p->p)->[]p) 
generalises this, and is the main axiom of both G and G*. G* has all theorems 
of theorem of G, plus []A -> A, but has no necessitation rule (you cannot infer 
[]A from A.

The main point is that G1* (G* + p->[]p, for the mechanist restriction, as I 
have often explained), proves the equivalence of the five modes

p (truth)
[]p (provable, rationally believable)
[]p & p (rationally knowable)

[]p & <>t (observable)
[]p & <>t & p (sensible)

Yet, G, the justifiable part of this by the machine does not prove any of those 
equivalence. The provable obeys to G, the knowable gives a logic of knowledge 
(S4 + a formula by Grzegorcyk), and, as predicted both through tough 
experiment, and Plotinus, the “observable” obeys to a quantum logic, and the 
sensible to a intutionistic quantum logic, which allows to distinguish clearly 
the quanta, as first plural sharable qualia, solving some difficulties in the 
“mind-body” problem.

This theory is justified for anybody accepting a digital physical computer 
brain transplant. 



> but I would say that self-reference in the sense of intrinsic identity of an 
> object explains qualitative properties of consciousness (qualia).

But what is a object? What is intrinsic identity? And why that would give 
qualia?



> I imagine that every object has two kinds of identity: intrinsic identity 
> (something that the object is in itself)

To be honest, I don’t understand. To be sure, I like mechanism because it 
provide a clear explanation of where the physical appearance comes from, 
without having us ti speculate on some “physical” object which would be 
primary, as we have no evidence for this, and it makes the mind-body problem 
unsolvable.

Are you OK if your daughter marry a man who got an artificial digital brain 
after a car accident?



> and extrinsic identity (relations of the object to all other objects). 
> Intrinsic identity is something qualitative (non-relational), a quality that 
> stands in relations to other qualities, so it seems like a natural candidate 
> for the qualitative properties of consciousness.

This brings back essentialism.

Here, you might appreciate that the machine ([]p) is unable to define “[]p & 
p”, except by studying a simpler machine than itself, and then she can lift 
that theology by faith in its own soundness, which she can neither prove, nor 
even express in its language (by results analog to the non definability of 
truth (Tarski-Gödel, Thomason, Montague, ... ).

The qualia appear to be measurable, but non communicable or rationally 
justifiable.

The universal+ machine knows that she has a soul, and she knows that she can 
refute *all* complete theories made on that soul. Se knows already that her 
soul is NOT a machine, nor even anything describable in the third person, 
redoing Heraclite and Brouwer, even Bergson, on that subject. S4Grz is an 
incredible product of G*, a formal theory of something that no machine can 
define or formalise, without invoking a notion of truth, which is indeed a key 
for qualia, and knowledge.




> All relations are instances of the similarity relation (similarities between 
> qualities arising from common and different properties of the qualities), of 
> which a particular kind of relation deserves a special mention: the 
> composition relation, also known as the set membership re

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2021 2:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>> >>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>>>> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based on 
>>>> information that can be quantum erased.
>>>> 
>>>> You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
>>> Can you prove that?  How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive at a 
>>> definite decision?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> With a quantum brain, you can hack all credit cards, by running shor 
>> algorithm in your head for example.
>> 
>> You argument seems to negate the possibility of quantum speeding. You would 
>> be right if P = NP, or something…
> 
> No.  As I recall even Shor's algorithm has a probabilistic step so that the 
> answer is only correct with high probability, not certainty. 

Right.


> Quantum speedup is possible, just not quantum definiteness.  One you or your 
> QC decides to act that act cannot be a superposition of actions. 

Why? It cannot be a superposition of personal experience, but if I decide in 
Helsinki to go to W or to M with a quantum coin, then, without wave collapse, 
my actions (going to W) and (going to M) will be superposed, despite each of me 
will not been able to fell it, for obvious mechanical reason.



> And the decoherence is not just FAPP, it is  inherent in the loss of 
> information across the Hubble boundary.

But the informations does not disappear. It becomes relatively inaccessible, 
only.

Bruno





> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 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 
>>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a898c1a-c547-8366-4bc3-47c82e80d5aa%40verizon.net
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1a898c1a-c547-8366-4bc3-47c82e80d5aa%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9CD6FA30-FA7B-493F-B83C-1A37D80A67AC%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9CD6FA30-FA7B-493F-B83C-1A37D80A67AC%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/711be470-00a5-5609-0989-be1f213876d9%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/711be470-00a5-5609-0989-be1f213876d9%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/0965D5FB-0DF5-4F9F-900C-D3101539AD45%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2021 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales >> <mailto:litewav...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:28:11 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales >>> > wrote:
>>>> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with 
>>>> gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some time t and then 
>>>> continues the computation with gravitational constant 5 x 10 to the -11, 
>>>> or just halts? That would be an instability or cessation of gravitational 
>>>> law.
>>> 
>>> Yes, and that exists, but such world will have a very low probability to be 
>>> accessed by any observer, due to the fact that, below our mechanist 
>>> substitution level, all such theories intervene.
>>> 
>>> How low is this probability? Is it maybe as low as the probability that my 
>>> whole body quantum-tunnels through a wall?
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> What does it mean that "below our mechanist substitution level, all such 
>>> theories intervene”?
>> 
>> 
>> If your consciousness does not require some details: like the position of an 
>> electron of some atom in some neurotransmitter (say), then it will be 
>> associate as much with your brain and that election here, and with you brain 
>> and that electron there, and if you don’t measure the position of that 
>> electron, the two histories can interfere statistically.
> What would it mean to measure the state of your own brain?

To encode the relevant information such that I survive the copy/reconstitution. 
The possibility of this is assumed in the YD part of the YD+CT.
YD = “Yes doctor”, and CT = Church’s Thesis (or Church-Turing’s thesis).

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> An electronic orbital is such a map: it tells you where you can find the 
>> electron in your most probable computational histories.
>> 
>> 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 
>>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8998ABE3-8471-4F97-B511-998136000ECE%40ulb.ac.be
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8998ABE3-8471-4F97-B511-998136000ECE%40ulb.ac.be?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/057a2d1a-9183-c316-eb03-74996e661ec3%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/057a2d1a-9183-c316-eb03-74996e661ec3%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/06FB53AB-64AD-4761-B523-26F9E228D707%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2021 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark >> <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >> It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but as 
>>> >> for consciousness, how did you determine that it was not conscious? For 
>>> >> that matter how did you determine that I am conscious? But let's get out 
>>> >> of the consciousness quagmire for a moment so I can ask you a question, 
>>> >> leaving behind the interpretation of the experiment concentrating only 
>>> >> on its results, if it was actually performed as described do you think 
>>> >> interference bands would be on that photographic plate or would there be 
>>> >> no such bands? I would bet money the bands would be there on that plate 
>>> >> even though there's no longer any which way information remaining. So, 
>>> >> what would you put your money on, bands or no bands? 
>>> > I would guess the interference bands would be present exactly because, ex 
>>> > hypothesi, the which-way information was quantum erased.
>>> 
>>> So an intelligent and presumably conscious being once existed that knew 
>>> which slot all the electrons went through, but those interference bands 
>>> still showed up anyway. Don't you find that a little strange? If Many 
>>> Worlds is wrong and that being didn't exist in another world, then where 
>>> did it exist? 

I didn't wrote that.

Bruno


> It, or rather it's knowledge, existed in the past, before being erased.
> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8425dc5e-4249-21a5-fab9-15485012c0f2%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8425dc5e-4249-21a5-fab9-15485012c0f2%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/8E561A2C-82B3-4B7E-BFD4-D54AA24C31F4%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large number of 
>> particles that even with what we consider to be permanent records, you don't 
>> get rid of the theoretical possibility of interference between the sectors 
>> where those records are different.

I did not write this, and out of context, I don’t know if I agree or not with 
this. 


> 
> We can if the universe is expanding faster than light beyond the Hubble 
> radius.

How do you a physical being to singularise its consciousness? 

The term “physical universe” is no more an ontological being if we assume 
Digital Mechanism. It is an appearance, a phenomenological reality, not an 
ontology.

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/4aae1572-2765-e262-8936-a4d6e3c842e3%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/79018753-C701-4CC7-ABA7-6D134F48C6BA%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/10/2021 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales >>> <mailto:litewav...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you can't 
>>>> measure consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch.
>>>> 
>>>> > In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a dictionary:
>>>> 
>>>> consciousness noun <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noun>
>>>> I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I long-ago 
>>>> realized that neither she nor the lexicographers who wrote that big thick 
>>>> book are the fonts of all wisdom.
>>>> >> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and because 
>>>> >> Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct, consciousness must be 
>>>> >> an inevitable byproduct of intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is 
>>>> >> not a noun, it's a word that describes what a noun (in this case the 
>>>> >> brain) does, in other words consciousness is an adjective.
>>>> 
>>>> > You mean a verb then, no?
>>>> 
>>>> I think adjective fits the bill a little better, I think Tomas Pales is 
>>>> the way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way.
>>>> 
>>>>  > consciousness is a spatiotemporal object.
>>>> 
>>>> I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would be like 
>>>> asking where the number 11 or the color yellow  or "fast" is located.  If 
>>>> my brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football game from Detroit 
>>>> and I'm listening to a friend in Australia on my telephone and I'm 
>>>> thinking about The Great Wall of China would it  make sense to say my 
>>>> consciousness is really located inside a box made of bone mounted on my 
>>>> shoulders when I have no conscious experience of being in a bone box on my 
>>>> shoulders? I don't think so.
>>> Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious experience 
>>> at least temporarily. 
>>> 
>> Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point of 
>> view of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does not make 
>> sense, as it is associated to infinitely many truing universal relation.
> 
> That's incorrect.  I've been knocked unconscious and when I regained 
> consciousness (it was on a few seconds) I realized the gap my conscious 
> experience.

That does not entail that there were a gap. That entails only that at some 
moment you experience a feeling that there was a gap, from which you infer that 
there was a gap, but maybe you are just amnesic about your consciousness during 
the gap, or perhaps, you were really unconscious, but by definition, that is 
not part of the experience.
Anyway, my point is that you survived the knocking. Not that you feel there has 
been a gap, which by the way, confirms your first person survival.







> 
>> 
>> The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be proved both 
>> with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial combinatory algebra (like a 
>> model of arithmetic).
>> 
>> 
>>> So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness.
>> 
>> What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations.
>> 
>> Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any model (in 
>> the logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic (Kxy = x, Sxyz = 
>> xz(yz)).
> 
> But not in any brain...they are only finite.

The theories, words, axioms, machines, brains are all finite, but the semantic 
are not, the model of any Turing complete theory is always infinite, and 
provably realise all finite and infinite computation.
String and Gravity loop theories are also finite, independently that their 
model are all infinite.



> 
>> 
>> I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing, but 
>> “appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get contradictory 
>> when associated or singularised through any supplementary axioms, even the 
>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 14:17, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 3:52 AM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not
>  
> > I disagree with this
> 
> An embalmed brain rotting in a grave is a noun. Do you therefore think it's 
> conscious?

A brain is not conscious. Only a person is conscious, and the brain has some 
role here. Anyways this does not make the term “consciousness" not being a noun.



> I don't because it's not doing anything that 3 pounds of rotting hamburger 
> isn't doing, and neither of the two are behaving intelligently. 
> 
> >> therefore "consciousness" is not a noun, it's a word that describes what a 
> >> noun (in this case the brain) does, in other words consciousness is an 
> >> adject
> 
> > This is logically inconsistent with Descartes Mechanism. 
> 
> I have no idea what  "Descartes Mechanism" is, and after listening to you all 
> these years I am quite certain you can't give a coherent explanation for it 
> either, but whatever it means if it is logically inconsistent with what I 
> said then "Descartes Mechanism" is wrong.

Descartes’s Mechanism is the idea that the human (and animal’s) body is a 
(natural) machine. By (indexical, digital) mechanism, aka computationalism,  I 
mean since the beginning the thesis that we can survive with a digital brain (a 
physical computer) transplantation, like most people believe that we can 
survive with an artificial heart.

Then the consequence is that the min body problem is reduced to a statistics on 
the infinitely many computations going through our actual states. This makes 
the logic of the observable having to obey to the modes []p & <>t & p, and some 
others, and that works as we get both the many-histories view on the physical 
reality, and its quantum formalism. 
We cannot prove mechanism, but we can count the evidence for.





> > Without mechanism, it is consistent, but still problematic with Occam razor 
> 
> As I said before,  Occam razor is about economy of assumptions not economy of 
> results. 

Absolutely. In this case Mechanism win, because the theory of everything can be 
just the two equations/assumptions:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ identity rules (as I have described in detail last year)

Everett assumes this implicitly, but assume also the Wave Equation, when 
actually Mechanism enforces that it has to be derive from the “many-worlds” 
interpretation of elementary arithmetic, or combinator (like K and S), etc.

In that theory, using Mechanism, we can prove the existence of all universal 
machine, and of all the computations, and we extract the theology of the 
Gödel-Löbian machine, whose main axioms is Löb’s formula ([]([]p -> p) -> []p).

My point is that we cannot use an ontological commitment to prevent the logical 
consequence of mechanism, once we assume it..

Bruno


> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> 0o6
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv18k88O-_k7%3D8EwyzvKm1uTn84_ZaLxycbrpb0O6D9oRA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv18k88O-_k7%3D8EwyzvKm1uTn84_ZaLxycbrpb0O6D9oRA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/BA109DE5-3151-4E8E-B831-53FD604CF11D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 09:34, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 06-07-2021 22:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:
>> On 7/6/2021 12:49 PM, smitra wrote:
>>> On 06-07-2021 19:34, Jason Resch wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
  wrote:
 And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently
 based on information that can be quantum erased.
 You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
 Jason
>>> Indeed, the critics have to show how the laws of physics imply that 
>>> decoherence cannot be limited to the extent necessary to run a good enough 
>>> quantum computer simulation of an entire brain for this to work. And one 
>>> has lots of elbowroom available for the thought experiment. Practical issue 
>>> that would make this unfeasible for us to do play no role at all, but real 
>>> physical limits would be valid objections. The amount of available 
>>> resources that can be used physically is at least a large fraction of all 
>>> the materials that are present in our galaxy. One can build Dyson spheres 
>>> around a far fraction of all stars in the galaxy, the available time is at 
>>> least of the order of tens of billions of years. The simulation does not 
>>> have to run in real time, each simulated second can take a billion years, 
>>> which may be necessary to perform enough quantum error correction to make 
>>> this work.
>>> If it can be shown that under more generous conditions this is not 
>>> feasible, so large scale quantum computing is not going to work even with 
>>> most of the resources in the observable universe, and that a large scale 
>>> computation needed for the thought experiment cannot be finished before the 
>>> end of the universe, then the critics have a point. But even then it's only 
>>> a hint of a problem, because the objection would only be consistent with 
>>> the unproven hypothesis that unitary time evolution breaks down when a 
>>> large enough number of degrees of freedom get entangled with a quantum 
>>> system.
>>> Saibal
>> Why are you worrying about enormous quantum computers?  A quantum
>> computer should have much more computational power than a classical
>> computer and we already know of an intelligent classical computer fits
>> in a little more than a liter.  The problem isn't computational power,
>> it's reaching definite answer.  Quantum computers in general provide a
>> readout by decoherence, and then it's no longer erasable.
>> Brent
> 
> 
> There can never be a definite answer as QM is unitary and decoherence is 
> never complete. If you assume that the real world is fundamentally different 
> from a virtual world simulated by a quantum computer, no matter how large 
> that quantum simulation, then you are assuming that the real world violates 
> QM in an essential way.

Yes. That is why Bohr has to distinguish the micro-qunatum reality, and the 
classical macro realm. To believe in a collapse is the same as to believe that 
the SWE is wrong, and can’t be applied to the observer. Bohr was explicitly 
dualist. He even believed that the SWE would be wrong at smaller scale.

The SWE is the same as the MANY-WORLDS, that is why the pioneer feels necessary 
to add the collapse postulate, but Everett showed clearly that this was neither 
necessary, nor even consistent with the idea that the observer obeys to the SWE.

Now, we know that Bruce and John disbelieves in the self-indeterminacy in 
self-multiplication experience, which is inconsistent at a much more basic 
level, and eventually is the usual confusion between []p and []p & p, i.e. the 
confusion between first person description and third person description. That 
is of course vital for understanding SWE without collapse.

Bruno



> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/05d3a46c73bbcb9ba1f6c6c0b0b79777%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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/FB4CCED3-785D-44CD-8AC1-98794F960BE2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 03:21, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> Then I guess I don't understand this part:
> 
> Run it together with Shors algorithm and have "each AI" read a definite 
> random number from 0 to 2^n where n is the number of qubits needed to 
> represent the semiprime being factored. Then have the AI copy that number to 
> another register to prove it went through the AI's mind.
> 
> What does it mean to "read a definite random number"
> 
> F(x) is a quantum algorithm (a combination AI + Shor's algorithm) which takes 
> an input x where x is a set of N qubits, with each qubit initialized to a 
> superposition of 1 and 0.
> 
> Since the qubits are in a superposition representing 2^N states, the quantum 
> algorithm likewise becomes a superposition of 2^N uniquely processed values. 
> Each one can be viewed as a unique evaluation of F(i) where i is each of the 
> possible N-bit bit strings.
> 
> Since F() includes a conscious AI evaluating the input value, and since it 
> exists in a superposition, then the evaluation on a quantum computer 
> corresponds to 2^N independent conscious states.
> 
> 
> and what does that have to do with recording which slit a photon went thru?
> 
> 
> It's an alternate example of Deutsch's experiment which shows that 
> consciousness doesn't cause collapse, assuming adding a conscious AI to 
> Shor's algorithm doesn't somehow break the algorithm. If you can still factor 
> numbers with the AI added to the circuit, then consciousness doesn't cause 
> collapse, and we can see QM directly leads to many "split" observers.
> 
> 
> No one now  believes that consciousness has anything to do with collapse. For 
> example, in fGRW, the collapse is caused by independent stochastic 'flashes' 
> that have no relevance to consciousness. In Bohm's theory, there never is any 
> collapse because there is never any mystic 'superposition’.


Bohm’s theory keep the wave, and the superposition. It just that the particles 
stay in only one term of that superposition, yet remained influenced (even at a 
FTL speed) by what happens in the superposition. It is the many-worlds, + a 
complex supplementary potential to make infinitely many people into zombies, so 
that consciousness is singularised in one branch only.
It is heavy metaphysical assumption to satisfy personal coquetry...



> In Penroses gravitational induced collapse, the collapse is due to changes in 
> the spacetime metric -- again, independent of consciousness.

Von Neumann and Wigner were the early advocate of the “consciousness makes the 
collapse” idea. 
I consider that it has been refuted correctly by Abner Shimony (and many 
others).



> 
>  So Deutsch's thought experiment is about nothing at all, and proves nothing 
> at all.


In that experiment, the Many)worlds predict that the observer can remember 
having seen as definite result, without remembering each one, and that, if 
done, would add confirmation to the MW, or better, many histories or many 
computations, like arithmetic (+ mechanism) predicted.

Bruno




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTw6gRbcEOU-AYf-uz%2BBPL%2BojThFYp%2B%3DzZmp5ndmTzHqg%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/FBEEFAFB-769B-4D41-BF4D-71A086337B10%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based on 
>> information that can be quantum erased.
>> 
>> You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
> Can you prove that?  How does this quantum intelligence ever arrive at a 
> definite decision?
> 
> 

With a quantum brain, you can hack all credit cards, by running shor algorithm 
in your head for example.

You argument seems to negate the possibility of quantum speeding. You would be 
right if P = NP, or something…

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/1a898c1a-c547-8366-4bc3-47c82e80d5aa%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/9CD6FA30-FA7B-493F-B83C-1A37D80A67AC%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 19:22, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> At an open AA meeting I once attended,  some atheist-leaning recovering 
> alcoholics once joked that GOD meant Group Of Drunks. 

LOL.

I read that today it means mainly:  Gold-Oil-Drugs…

Group of Drunks is closer to the original meaning. Once theology has been 
stolen from science, the first interdiction was the (otherwise common) use of 
entheogen, like alcohol, which still remain present in the Church...

:)

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2021 10:56 am
> Subject: Re: Why are laws of physics stable?
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matter”
> 
> Yeah, many people are like that, people such as yourself who long ago have 
> given up on the idea of God because it is ridiculous but love the way the 
> English word  "G-O-D" sounds so much that they refuse to abandon it.
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> stty
>> lts9
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1268499368.4485916.1625592170442%40mail.yahoo.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1268499368.4485916.1625592170442%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/DF2C3753-82D4-40C1-9D4E-27E7A1D4BBC5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:28:11 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales > > wrote:
>> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with 
>> gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some time t and then 
>> continues the computation with gravitational constant 5 x 10 to the -11, or 
>> just halts? That would be an instability or cessation of gravitational law.
> 
> Yes, and that exists, but such world will have a very low probability to be 
> accessed by any observer, due to the fact that, below our mechanist 
> substitution level, all such theories intervene.
> 
> How low is this probability? Is it maybe as low as the probability that my 
> whole body quantum-tunnels through a wall?

Yes.



> 
> What does it mean that "below our mechanist substitution level, all such 
> theories intervene”?


If your consciousness does not require some details: like the position of an 
electron of some atom in some neurotransmitter (say), then it will be associate 
as much with your brain and that election here, and with you brain and that 
electron there, and if you don’t measure the position of that electron, the two 
histories can interfere statistically.

An electronic orbital is such a map: it tells you where you can find the 
electron in your most probable computational histories.

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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac93cc4b-eecd-4c66-ad68-45b61bd81d47n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/8998ABE3-8471-4F97-B511-998136000ECE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:56, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> 
> > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matter”
> 
> Yeah, many people are like that, people such as yourself who long ago have 
> given up on the idea of God because it is ridiculous but love the way the 
> English word  "G-O-D" sounds so much that they refuse to abandon it.


I just use Plato’s definition. It is Aristotle who invented a supplementary 
spurious God along a “creation”. 

Replace “GOD” by any ontological commitment in some fundamental reality. GOD is 
defined by whatever you assume to explain all the rest.

You are the one believing in a mysterious, never defined, primitive 
materiality, and you use it to select some computations in arithmetic to make 
them more real than all of them in arithmetic, but that does not just introduce 
an infinity of zombies in arithmetic, I also confer something not Turing 
emulable playing a role in the brain, forcing the abandon of Mechanism. 

Bruno



> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
> stty
>> lts9
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1oqcLr83dAfpDG7QpKTnQ-W%3DMiGhe02KX_d8KDjNMiwg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/1E66138E-3703-4490-BBB6-04DD61C60C01%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:39, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:12:49 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> The physical laws are stable because they have an arithmetical origin in the 
> “head” of any universal+ machine (those which have the theology G*)
> 
> What do you mean by "head”?

Here, I meant the mind of the universal machine, like in the expression “it is 
all in your head”, which means “it is a product of your imagination”.

With Indexical Digital Mechanism (“yes doctor (for a digital body transplant” + 
the Church-Turing thesis), the physical reality is a statistics on all relative 
computations going through “my state”. There is an infinity of such 
computations, in all models of any Turing complete theory. 

You might read my grand public presentation in Amsterdam in 2004: 
B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 

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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24b316a1-1f19-4b5b-ac6a-1b75fd718759n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24b316a1-1f19-4b5b-ac6a-1b75fd718759n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/8DCE256B-5929-44D9-A48E-BF0E0AA48BDE%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 15:53, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 4:19 PM Tomas Pales  > wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of?
> 
> You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that have 
> high organized complexity of a certain kind), many of which are 
> representations of external objects. If there are no representations of your 
> skull it is probably because they have not been useful in evolution. It is 
> more useful to be conscious of what is going on around your body than of the 
> interior of your skull.
> 
> We can't rule out that your consciousness is not located in your brain and 
> your brain just serves as a kind of preliminary processor of sensory data 
> that somehow sends the preprocessed data to some other object (soul?) where 
> your consciousness is located but there's not much evidence for that.
> 
> 
> This conversation reminds me of Daniel Dennett's short essay "Where am I?":
> 
> https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Dennett-WhereAmI.pdf 
> 


That is very good. It is the place where Dennett get very close, but miss, the 
first person indeterminacy, note.

Bruno



> 
> 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/eba612c7-b8d1-4e15-836c-d11ca4eac097n%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/CA%2BBCJUixHJyf%2B0mRPy%3Ds7xT%2BY8PQj0RFia%3D6w7Bu9%2BxgUCs35g%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/D5FD8CA7-3098-4423-9862-F3A01576CBE9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> >> It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but as for 
> >> consciousness, how did you determine that it was not conscious? For that 
> >> matter how did you determine that I am conscious? But let's get out of the 
> >> consciousness quagmire for a moment so I can ask you a question, leaving 
> >> behind the interpretation of the experiment concentrating only on its 
> >> results, if it was actually performed as described do you think 
> >> interference bands would be on that photographic plate or would there be 
> >> no such bands? I would bet money the bands would be there on that plate 
> >> even though there's no longer any which way information remaining. So, 
> >> what would you put your money on, bands or no bands? 
> > I would guess the interference bands would be present exactly because, ex 
> > hypothesi, the which-way information was quantum erased.
> 
> So an intelligent and presumably conscious being once existed that knew which 
> slot all the electrons went through, but those interference bands still 
> showed up anyway. Don't you find that a little strange? If Many Worlds is 
> wrong and that being didn't exist in another world, then where did it exist? 
> 
> >> If interference bands are on that photographic plate then either Many 
> >> Worlds is correct or a rock is just as likely to be conscious as one of 
> >> your fellow human beings because intelligent behavior would tell you 
> >> nothing about consciousness. But if there are no bands I would immediately 
> >> concede and say Many Worlds must be wrong. What outcome would make you 
> >> concede? 
> > Concede what? 
> 
> What experimental evidence would make you concede that your theory that Many 
> Worlds must be wrong, is wrong. Or is your theory by its very nature 
> unprovable? My theory that Many Worlds is less wrong than other quantum 
> interpretations at least has the virtue of being capable of being proven 
> wrong. Let me put the question to you this way, what conclusion would you 
> draw if you saw interference bands on that photographic plate, and what 
> conclusion would you draw if you DID NOT SEE interference bands on that 
> photographic plate?
> > You're the one that cast the hypothetical in terms of consciousness.
> 
> I only said that because some (but not me) claim Quantum Mechanics has 
> something to do with consciousness, so if you want to test that claim 
> experimentally the first thing you're going to need is something people can 
> agree on that is conscious; and I don't think you're ever going to find 
> anything better for that "something" than a being that behaves intelligently.


I agree that using the quantum to explain consciousness does not work, despite 
the initial motivation brought by the wave collapse is not entirely 
meaningless, but this has failed (cf Abner Shimony). 

Without collapse, physics confirms the many-histories or many-dreams 
interpretation of arithmetic on which all universal numbers converge, again in 
arithmetic.

Consciousness is given by knowledge, which is given by the modes of 
self-reference imposed by incompleteness, (those with “& p”) and the fact that 
universal+ (Löbian) machine are aware of it.

P
[]p
[]p & p [HERE]
[]p & <>t
[]p & <>t & p. [HERE]

[]p & p gives knowledge, and []p & <>t & p gives a form of non transitive 
(immediate) physical consciousness.

The main facts are that G* (the theology) proves []p <-> []p & p, and that G, 
the machine itself, does not, making them obeying quite different logics and 
mathematics.

Bruno




> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> rroo
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv0urKFNHY_uv2Ue1TJQB%3DruSVzuTJG4y_JOdL1CbjCHXw%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/660568B2-816E-470F-884B-FF8F622B1F66%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 09:21, smitra  wrote:
> 
> On 05-07-2021 12:18, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:39 PM smitra  wrote:
>>> On 05-07-2021 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM smitra  wrote:
 I don't think this is actually done in the experiment. What is
 observed is the presence or absence of the interference pattern on
>>> the
 screen where the balls hit. The photons are not detected. But if,
>>> in
 principle, they are of suitable wavelength to resolve the slit
 difference, then the interference pattern vanishes. The experiment
>>> is
 convincing in that they start wil cold buckyballs which show a
>>> clear
 interference pattern. They then gradually heat the balls so that
>>> the
 typical wavelength of the photons decreases. This gradually washes
>>> out
 the interference pattern. (Because at lower temperatures, the
 wavelength distribution of the IR photons is such that a few of
>>> them
 have shorter wavelengths.) As the temperature is increased so that
 most IR photons have short enough wavelengths, the interference
 pattern disappears completely. The paper by Hornberger et al. is
>>> at
 arXiv:quant-ph/0412003v2
>>> This is then what I said previously, what you denied, i.e. that you
>>> are
>>> only considering part of the system which is defined by the reduced
>>> density matrix. The complete system of buckyball plus photons will
>>> show
>>> interference, even if the wavelength is small enough to resolve the
>>> slits provided you perform the right sort of measurement on the
>>> balls
>>> and photons.
>> That is false.
> 
> This is easy to see. Denote the buckyball state of a buckball moving through 
> the left slit by |L> and moving through the right slit by |R>. Suppose that a 
> photon is emitted by the by the buckyballs such that the ball moving through 
> the left slit emits a photon in a state |PL> that will be orthogonal to the 
> state |PR> of the photon emitted by the ball moving through the right slit . 
> The state of the system after the ball passes the slits is then:
> 
> |psi> = 1/sqrt(2) [|L>|PL> + |R>|PR>]
> 
> This state then evolves under unitary time evolution, we can write the state 
> just before the ball hits the screen as:
> 
> |psi_s> = 1/sqrt(2) [|L_s>|PL_s> + |R_s>|PR_s>]
> 
> There is then no interference patter on the screen for the buckyballs because 
> |PL_s> and |PR_s> are orthogonal, the unitary time evolution preserves the 
> orthogonality of the initial states. The probability to observe a buckyball 
> on position x on the screen is:
> 
> P(x) = ^2 = 1/2 [||^2 + ||^2] + Re[ 
> * ]
> 
> And the last interference term is zero because  = 0
> 
> But if we also observe the photon on another screen and keep the joint count 
> for buckyballs landing on spot x on the buckyball screen and for photons 
> landing on spot y on the photon screen as a function of x and y, then we do 
> have an interference pattern as a function of x for fixed y. If we de note by 
> U the unitary time evolution for the photons until they hit their screen, and 
> put |PL_t> =U|PL_s> and |PR_t> = U|PR_s>, then the probability distribution 
> is:
> 
> P(x,y) = ||^2 = 1/2 [||^2||^2 + 
> ||^2||^2] +Re[ * *]
> 
> The interference term Re[ * *] does not vanish 
> as it involves evaluating the components of  the buckyball and photon states 
> in the position basis and so there is no inner product involved anymore. For 
> fixed y the quantity * will have some value that will be 
> nonzero in general, so if we keep y fixed then there will be an interference 
> term.
> 
> So, we can conclude that invoking escaping IR photons does not male any sense 
> in this discussion because all it does is it scrambles the interference 
> pattern to make it invisible in a way that allows it to be recovered in 
> principle using measurements on those IR photons. You can, of course, erase 
> the interference patter by measuring the observable for the photons that has 
> |PR> and |PL> as its eigenstates. But even in that case the information will 
> still be there in the state of all the atoms of the measurement apparatus for 
> the photons. But if you don't perform any measurement then the information 
> will simply continue to exists in the escaping photons.
> 
> So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large number of 
> particles that even with what we consider to be permanent records, you don't 
> get rid of the theoretical possibility of interference between the sectors 
> where those records are different. So, the existence of parallel worlds 
> cannot be made fully 100% irrelevant if QM is rigorously correct, and we 
> cannot therefore argue that QM is exactly equivalent to an alternative theory 
> that leaves out parallel worlds. Even though the difference may be almost 
> 100% insignificant FAPP, it's not exactly 100% even in the macroscopic realm.
> 
> The argument against the existence of 

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 22:19, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of?
> 
> You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that have 
> high organized complexity of a certain kind), many of which are 
> representations of external objects.

External object are how universal number organise their continuation in 
arithmetic. There are no “external physical object” in the ontology.

With Mechanism, to refer to a physical world is no better than to refer to a 
god. It cannot work without adding non Turing emulable ability to the brain. It 
requites the abandon of Mechanism, and thus of Darwin.

With mechanism, on the contrary, Darwin type of explanation is extended up to 
the origin of the physical laws, through the first person consciousness 
selection of histories in arithmetic. That explains the many-world aspect of 
the physical reality, and the math confirms the quantum logical structures of 
the personally accessible histories, including why a subset is sharable among 
stable collection of machine.

The quantum is “just” the digital seen from inside. It is the many-worlds 
interpretation of arithmetic, made by almost all universal numbers (almost all 
= all except a finite number of exception, which are topologically isolated and 
of measure nul).

Bruno




> If there are no representations of your skull it is probably because they 
> have not been useful in evolution. It is more useful to be conscious of what 
> is going on around your body than of the interior of your skull.
> 
> We can't rule out that your consciousness is not located in your brain and 
> your brain just serves as a kind of preliminary processor of sensory data 
> that somehow sends the preprocessed data to some other object (soul?) where 
> your consciousness is located but there's not much evidence for that.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eba612c7-b8d1-4e15-836c-d11ca4eac097n%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/5BFF1A72-556E-400A-948B-E0A5679E4650%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales > > wrote:
>> 
>>  >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you can't measure 
>> consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch.
>> 
>> > In English language it is used as a noun. Check out a dictionary:
>> 
>> consciousness noun 
>> I know, that's what my fourth grade teacher told me too, but I long-ago 
>> realized that neither she nor the lexicographers who wrote that big thick 
>> book are the fonts of all wisdom.
>> >> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is, and because 
>> >> Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct, consciousness must be an 
>> >> inevitable byproduct of intelligence, therefore "consciousness" is not a 
>> >> noun, it's a word that describes what a noun (in this case the brain) 
>> >> does, in other words consciousness is an adjective.
>> 
>> > You mean a verb then, no?
>> 
>> I think adjective fits the bill a little better, I think Tomas Pales is the 
>> way atoms behave when they are arranged in a Tomaspalesian way.
>> 
>>  > consciousness is a spatiotemporal object.
>> 
>> I disagree, I think asking where my consciousness is located would be like 
>> asking where the number 11 or the color yellow  or "fast" is located.  If my 
>> brain is in Paris and I'm looking at a TV football game from Detroit and I'm 
>> listening to a friend in Australia on my telephone and I'm thinking about 
>> The Great Wall of China would it  make sense to say my consciousness is 
>> really located inside a box made of bone mounted on my shoulders when I have 
>> no conscious experience of being in a bone box on my shoulders? I don't 
>> think so.
> Yet a sharp blow to that bone box would eliminate your conscious experience 
> at least temporarily. 
> 
Only from the point of view of some conscious subject. From the point of view 
of the person associated to the brain in the box, that does not make sense, as 
it is associated to infinitely many truing universal relation.

The body is only a map on infinitely many histories. That can be proved both 
with QM-without-collapse, or in any non trivial combinatory algebra (like a 
model of arithmetic).


> So there's something there that is essential to your consciousness.
> 

What is “essential” are the infinitely many computations.

Since the 1930s we know that all computations are realised in any model (in the 
logician sense) of arithmetic, or of combinatory logic (Kxy = x, Sxyz = xz(yz)).

I know that this contradict 1492 years of materialist brainwashing, but 
“appearance of matter” are explained in arithmetic, and get contradictory when 
associated or singularised through any supplementary axioms, even the induction 
axioms used to define what an observer can be.

You assume some ontological commitment inconsistent with Mechanism here.


Bruno


> Brent
> 
>> 
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> 
>> vxq0
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/CAJPayv1QfN_EVXVRWNGB4yx4-_SbP-S-HebZO-%3D%2BT3Wjw9uFvQ%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/6e3e859b-2944-84c9-7f96-fb2d27a6b0e8%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/F67056B1-FA63-47E2-B9F5-EC511806068D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 15:03, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:33 AM Tomas Pales  > wrote:
> 
> > I think consciousness is the brain,
> 
> I disagree.

Me too.



> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not,


I disagree with this too.


> that's why you can't measure consciousness by the pound or by the cubic inch. 
> Intelligence is what a brain does not what a brain is,

It could be a disposition. 

“What. Brain does” is ambiguous. Is it the neural firing, or the action of 
muscles, or … bombs and rockets.




> and because Darwinian Evolution is almost certainly correct,

Darwinism makes no explanative sense without Mechanism, but with Mechanism 
things are necessary like that:

NUMBER => COMPUTATION => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL APPEARANCE => HUMAN 
CONSCIOUSNESS




> consciousness must be an inevitable byproduct of intelligence,

It is a relative number property (or combinator, program, digital machine, …). 
Each universal number in arithmetic is an initial consciousness starting point. 
The physical reality is the product of consciousness differentiation in the 
arithmetical reality (actually: in any model of any arithmetical or Turing 
universal theory).


> therefore "consciousness" is not a noun, it's a word that describes what a 
> noun (in this case the brain) does, in other words consciousness is an 
> adjective.



This is logically inconsistent with Descartes Mechanism. Without mechanism, it 
is consistent, but still problematic with Occam razor and the absence of 
evidence for primitive matter.

Bruno








> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> ks77
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv0EHkgjRkV9MTP8iLHVyiVAps43G%3DROizmbjKc6t5L1Ew%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/3905CEBB-1B6F-47BC-95CE-E23DE7449CAF%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 11:41, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:25:09 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> But there's no random selection involved unless you make it a postulate.  
> Otherwise it's just a collection.
> 
> There is obviously a selection because I don't see all possible outcomes, 
> just one.
>   And if there's a selection (by nature) then why not a selection of one that 
> is realized?
> 
> What is the difference between "realized" and "unrealized"? If I don't grace 
> something with my presence and perception it doesn't mean that it is 
> "unrealized".
> 

Absolutely. Brent was using a sort of propensity interpretation of CI, it makes 
disappearing the branches which we cannot access, but that leads to a form of 
cosmosolipism directly incompatible with Mechanism. It adds some magic, for 
eventually the wish of a unicity?

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/4c76bef4-fbc5-4c2e-83ab-9d32160b71den%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/C0C8BE29-4FD1-45A5-B7C8-3F63C99C4E39%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 11:33, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:22:51 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> So consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brains or other quantum systems.
> 
> I think consciousness is the brain,

That makes no sense. With mechanism, the brain is just a computer offered at 
birth, and we can change it (in principle).
We can change body every morning, and this illustrate that we are immaterial, 
but then we have to take into account *all* our continuations in the 
arithmetical reality, but that is eventually what will explain the existence of 
physical laws, and their persistence.



> and its qualitative properties (qualia) are intrinsic identities of parts of 
> the brain (something that the parts of the brain are in themselves). This 
> view of consciousness is also known as Russellian monism. 

This used Materialism, which is not consistent with Mechanism. 

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/efb6fc54-a98e-4ffc-a0f3-d3b502f17504n%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/1DC987DE-08A7-4DCA-9494-42DE2F91A52B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 04:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/4/2021 6:33 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>> 
>> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>> 
>> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>>> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the 
>>> proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9.
>> 
>> But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the 
>> split is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.
>> 
>> Calculating probabilities by counting objects in a collection from which a 
>> random selection is made is not an additional axiom; it's the definition of 
>> probability.
> But there's no random selection involved unless you make it a postulate.  
> Otherwise it's just a collection.  And if there's a selection (by nature) 
> then why not a selection of one that is realized?
> 
> 

With mechanism there is no “nature”, and the “nature” is an appearance comping 
from the selection made by the superposed or multiplied subject in the 
arithmetical reality. The probabilities come from the fact that G* proves []p 
<-> []p & <>p, but the machines cannot know that and those modes obeys 
different mathematics.

The conscious person is the selector, like in the WM duplication, or the 
amoebas…

Bruno

> Brent
> 
>> In MWI the probabilities must be calculated by counting the branches because 
>> the selection is made from a collection of branches. We know that the 
>> probabilities are such as given by the Born rule, either by logical 
>> necessity (as you say) or from observational evidence, and so the 
>> proportions of the numbers of branches are the same as probabilities given 
>> by the Born rule.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/051a8557-0e05-4d81-baee-10d657ba1115n%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/3d6ee38f-820f-35ca-836a-3b7690e1c2ac%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/FBC5FEAF-E83A-42E9-B228-951910DC27F1%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 04:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/4/2021 5:54 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>> 
>> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>> So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really 
>> be in? 
>> 
>> I don't select it; nature does.
>> That seems contrary to the idea that your consciousness gets entangled with 
>> every different result and so is equally in each world.
>> 
>> I am conscious only of one world, so my consciousness is not in each world. 
>> Copies of me and their consciousnesses are in different worlds.
> So consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brains or other quantum systems.
> 
> 

The physical appearances need consciousness, as they comes from the 
consciousness differentiation on the many computations in arithmetic.

It is “matter” which is more like an epiphenomenon, but “epi” adds nothing. It 
is just that matter is a phenomenon, not a noumenon, or something ontologically 
real.

Without consciousness you get only p, []p, and []p & <>t, and no subject to 
appreciate the spectacle. At some point you need consciousness, that []p & p, 
and []p & <>t & p, to get the living illusion that we have brain and other 
quantum system…

We have: (“=>” being a logics-arithmetical dependence, not a physical 
causality, to be sure):

NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => PHYSICAL-REALITY => HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

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/d240e256-0089-9987-a001-732ad2f063bd%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/FAEF219D-D9DE-4C8D-BCFF-6761D15EAB99%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 03:08, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>> 
>> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for it 
>> being the values in the Schroedinger equation. In one world A happens.  In 
>> the other world B happens.  How does, for example, a 16:9 ratio get 
>> implemented.
>> 
>> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in general, the 
>> proportion of worlds where A happens to worlds where B happens is 16/9.
> But it's an additional axiom that this is a probability measure and the split 
> is per the Schroedinger amplitudes.  Which then makes it just like 
> Copenhagen.  Note that that the odds ratio 16:9 depends on the interaction 
> with measuring instruments (some other measurement would yield different 
> odds) and so it depends on at what point you stop considering superpositions 
> and say "That's classical enough.  Let's just zero out the cross terms in the 
> density matrix."  Something Heisenberg or Born could have done and 
> essentially what Bohr said.  He realized that any measurement that people 
> could agree on would have to be classical.  So he held that the Heisenberg 
> cut could be anywhere close enough to consciousness to be quasi-classical.
> Brent
> 
> 
> Could it be because the mind is identified with a classical computation while 
> the brain is ultimately a quantum mechanical system?

The mind can be attached to a classical computation, but from its persona 
perspective, it can only be attached to an infinity of computation, and any 
physical object is “only” a map of the accessible personal and relative 
computations, and that is what gives its “blurry” quantum aspect. 
In arithmetic, that quantum aspect appears either with the “& p”, or with the 
“& <>t”. (Note that p -> <>p, but in a non provable way). “<>t” needs to be 
added to get a probability calculus, and the math (+ the work of Goldblatt and 
of the quantum logicians) confirms that it gives both the quantum logics, and 
the many-worlds (many-computations-as-seen-from-the-1p views) aspect.

We are in the christian (materialist) era, and the god/non-debate is still used 
to hide a millenium of greek theology and the fact that they define God by 
Reality, and the doubt was that God could be a physical universe. The validity 
of Aristotle’s criteria of Reality (observable) was already refuted by the 
Dream Argument (anything testable is dream-able). Then, after the discovery of 
computer and computations in arithmetic (Turing, Kleene, …) the dream argument 
becomes constructive, and the mathematics of self)-reference G and G* gives the 
tools, and what is found is the quantum formalism. What is still missing are 
the particles…

Bruno





> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
>>   There's nothing in Schroedinger's equation that assigns one of those 
>> numbers to one world or the other.  You can just make it an axiom.  Or 
>> equivalently, if you can show these are odds ratios, you can invoke 
>> Gleason's theorem as the only consistent probability measure.  But all that 
>> is extra stuff that MWI claims to avoid by just being pure Schroedinger 
>> equation evolution.
>> 
>> In MWI the odds of being in a particular world depend on the counting of 
>> branches, similarly like the odds of selecting a particular ball from a 
>> basket depend on the counting of balls. But if there are infinitely many 
>> branches in MWI, different ways of counting give different probabilities, 
>> which means there are different possible probability measures, and so MWI 
>> needs an additional axiom that specifies the measure and thus the way of 
>> counting the branches. You say that the only possible (consistent) measure 
>> is the Born rule; in that case no additional axiom about the measure is 
>> needed (beyond the axiom of consistency, which goes without saying) and the 
>> branches must be counted in such a way that the probabilities result in the 
>> Born rule.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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/ea83ab1b-e3cc-4ef8-be8d-02d59e1722a7n%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 

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 02:58, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:39 PM Tomas Pales  > wrote:
> 
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
> 
> Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I think:
> 
> http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt 
> 
> 
> Thanks. From the last two sentences it does seem that the parallel worlds 
> don't arise by splitting at measurement from one world but already exist 
> before measurement.
> 
> I find the differentiation of preexisting states a more palatable way to 
> think of splitting universes, which tends to raise questions that create 
> misunderstanding (like: where does the energy come from to make these other 
> worlds). The many minds interpretation seems to favor this view, but it left 
> open the question of where these infinite mind states came from. Bruno's 
> "many worlds of arithmetic" provides a plausible answer, in my opinion.

It is also the opinion of the sound universal+ machine, provable by her for 
sound machines, but of course, the machine itself cannot prove its own 
soundness, and this predicts also a sort of theological trap (or many traps: 
(8x7)/2, corresponding to a possible confusion of any two modes of 
self-reference among the 8 main modes.

Many people confuse []p and ([]p & p), like Lucas and Penrose when they use 
Gödel against Mechanism, for typical exemples.

Before Gödel, there was a general confusion between p and []p (the confusion 
between true and provable)

(universal+ = Löbian = Turing-universal-and-knowing-it).

Bruno



> 
> 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/d76887a3-d6d8-49d8-801a-b3f7f3923a45n%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/CA%2BBCJUjDXFmy8MROAFBms0e%3D12UnYE7zqrnWpmJWcoRxmqWqvA%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/A29E88C9-BBAD-4640-97C3-56B9D4B3CDA2%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 22:29, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> >> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The 
> >> Atom" he proposed an experimental test that would be very difficult, but 
> >> not impossible, to perform that could decide between Copenhagen and Many 
> >> Worlds; and the reason it's so difficult is not Many Worlds fault, the 
> >> reason is that the conventional view says conscious observers obey 
> >> different laws of physics, Many Worlds says they do not, so to test who's 
> >> right we need a mind that uses quantum properties and algorithms.  An 
> >> intelligent quantum computer shoots photons at a metal plate one at a time 
> >> that has 2 small slits in it, and then the photons hit a photographic 
> >> plate. Nobody looks at the photographic plate till the very end of the 
> >> experiment. The quantum mind has detectors near each slit so it knows 
> >> which slit the various photons went through. After each photon passes the 
> >> slits, but before they hit the photographic plate, the quantum mind signs 
> >> a document saying that it has observed each and every photon and knows 
> >> which slit each photon went through. It is very important that the 
> >> document does NOT say which slit a photon went through, it only says that 
> >> it went through one slit and only one slit and the mind has knowledge of 
> >> which one. There is a signed document to this effect for every photon it 
> >> shoots. Now the mind uses quantum erasure to completely destroy its memory 
> >> of which slit any of the photons went through; the only part remaining in 
> >> the universe is the document which states that each photon went through 
> >> one and only one slit and the mind (at the time) knew which one. Now 
> >> develop the photographic plate and look at it. If you see interference 
> >> bands then the Many World interpretation is correct. If you do not see 
> >> interference bands then there are no worlds but this one and the 
> >> conventional quantum interpretation is correct. This works because in the 
> >> Copenhagen interpretation when the results of a measurement enters the 
> >> consciousness of an observer the wave function collapses, in effect all 
> >> the universes except one disappear without a trace so you get no 
> >> interference. In the Many Worlds model all the other worlds will converge 
> >> back into one universe because information on which slit the various 
> >> photons went through was the only thing that made one universe different 
> >> from another, so when that was erased they became identical again and 
> >> merged, but their influence will still be felt, you'll see ambiguous 
> >> evidence that the photon went through slot A only and ambiguous evidence 
> >> it went through slot B only, and that's what causes the interference 
> >> pattern.
>  
> >  And it doesn't work because it assumes that which-way can be both observed 
> > and yet quantum erased. That's contrary to decoherence theory of "observed"
>  
> I don't know what you're talking about. An intelligent quantum computer is 
> perfectly capable of creating a document specifying that at a certain time it 
> had information in its memory banks that indicated which slot a photon went 
> through but not actually mentioning which slot it was, and at a later time a 
> quantum computer is also capable of using quantum erasure to remove that 
> which way information from its memory banks so there  no longer exists 
> information anywhere about which slit the photon went through, although there 
> is still knowledge that at one time that information was in its memory banks. 
>
> > and assumes some magic "quantum consciousness", hiding the problem behind a 
> > lack of definition of consciousness.
> 
> 


The mechanist theory of consciousness (the theory which put the less magic 
here) explains directly the many histories aspect of nature. A physical 
apparent object is only a map on the accessible continuation of our histories.

The use of quantum to explain consciousness is mainly fraudulent. It explains 
something mysterious from something made even more  mysterious. The mechanist 
theory of consciousness (given by the 8 modes of self-reference  imposed by 
incompleteness (the theology)) justify the quantum. The link 
quantum-consciousness makes sense, but it is the other way round. 



> Wow, as enigmatic and bazaar as your first remark was, this one is even more 
> so! The entire point of this experiment is to determine if conscious stuff 
> operates according to the same laws of physics as non-conscious stuff, I'm 
> betting that they do. 

The matter obeys the laws of the machine observable, but there are different 
laws for each modes of self-reference, yet entirely explained by 
incompleteness. The fundamental laws are simply Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz) or 

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 12:29, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the 
> > probability?
> 
> 
> With a few caveats, which I spelled out previously, you already know I do.  I 
> said a few days ago:  
> 
> "If Everett is right and every change no matter how small causes the universe 
> to split, then there must be some changes to my brain that are so small (one 
> neutron in one neuron moving one Planck length to the left ) that they cause 
> no change in conscious experience and do not degrade the memory of being John 
> K Clark yesterday. Therefore there must be an astronomical number to an 
> astronomical power of John K Clarks all living in different, very very 
> slightly different, worlds. The number would be HUGE but it would still be 
> finite,

In arithmetic, due to the Oracles (Turing), the number of copies is infinite, 
and probably bigger or equal to 2^aleph_0.

Now, it could even be much bigger, like a large cardinal, or even a large large 
cardinal (like the cardinal of Laver, which would provides a short cut to the 
extraction of the physical laws, and in particular impose a quantum topology on 
the apparent primary matter below our substitution level).

Bruno




> so the number of John K Clarks that see you flip a fair coin and come up 
> heads 5 times in a row must be twice as large as the number of times he sees 
> you do it 6 times, but there would still be a few that see him do it 100 
> times, maybe 1000 or even more."  
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> xq22
> 
> 2
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv3PQd3iFSADi30rCDurVOyvkYEe8LMqd%2BstouwdNutH6Q%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/BEDDF10A-C821-41F2-9A28-450C4811DD02%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 1:55:59 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> With Mechanism the physical laws remains persistent because they are the same 
> for all universal machine, and they come from the unique statistics on all 
> computations (in arithmetic, in lambda calculus, in any Turing universal 
> theory or system).
> 
> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with 
> gravitational constant 6.674 x 10 to the -11 up until some time t and then 
> continues the computation with gravitational constant 5 x 10 to the -11, or 
> just halts? That would be an instability or cessation of gravitational law.

Yes, and that exists, but such world will have a very low probability to be 
accessed by any observer, due to the fact that, below our mechanist 
substitution level, all such theories intervene. In arithmetic, we have to sum 
on *all* computations, and the aberrant histories are presumably filtered out 
in a way similar to Feynman randomisation of phase on the “non-shorter path”.
The wave comes from the quantum logical formalism which is a measure of 
ignorance on our accessible histories.

You need to take into account that no universal machine can determine a precise 
computation history she would be transported by. You need to sum them all. The 
primary matter, even the vacuum, and the space-time structure emerges from the 
sum on all computation, which makes the observable obeying definite laws. I ca, 
give reference to my papers, but you will need to invest in some mathematical 
logic (notably the provability logics G and G*).

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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dbc987e6-1228-4d58-8e85-6d1f7e15376bn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dbc987e6-1228-4d58-8e85-6d1f7e15376bn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/B5816C69-2986-47F5-888C-13D4DE6ABEC7%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jun 2021, at 11:49, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> 
> Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean.  Newton's laws aren't 
> around anymore.
> 
> By laws I mean regularities in nature. The apple still falls down and not up 
> or in random directions, so the regularity exists like it did in the days of 
> Newton although Einstein's theory can describe this regularity more 
> accurately than Newton's theory.
>  
> So there's no guarantee they will continue without change, but they will 
> apply to the past.  How do we know?  We don't, but it's supported by 
> induction.  Induction is a self-supporting form of inference.  If there is 
> any effective form of empirical inference, then induction will do as well.
> 
> The problem is, why does induction work? Solomonoff tried to explain it with 
> his theory of induction and that's what Russell's book refers to.

This works, but without taking the induction on all computations, and taking 
into account the difference between the modes, you will still miss the 
mind-body, actually the mind-bodies relation, and the distinction between 
quanta and qualia (quanta are the first person plural qualia). The theology of 
the universal machine is mainly a theory of consciousness/qualia, and it is 
testable through its quanta part. I use the more general theory of Case and 
Smith, but Solomonoff fits well in that setting.

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/6c9cf81b-78c1-4580-918a-2641ed0b4727n%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/FEF79A5D-3C47-4E36-AD25-A71074D4E42E%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Jun 2021, at 01:41, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:36:47 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
> 
> But presumably the laws are stable.  Why?  Because that's the way we want 
> them.  If they weren't stable (or even time invariant) we wouldn't call them 
> laws of physics.  They'd be initial conditions or historical accidents.
> 
> But why do stable laws exist in our universe and what is the guarantee that 
> they will continue to exist?


Because our universe emerge from the statistic on all computations 
(arithmetical object) going through our indexical state.

With Mechanism, physicalism cannot work, and physics is reduced to the 
“theology of the machine”,
The physical laws are stable because they have an arithmetical origin in the 
“head” of any universal+ machine (those which have the theology G*)

There is a widespread belief that Mechanism and Materialism fit well together, 
and indeed many materialist use Mechanism and the brain-mind identity thesis to 
… persist in hiding the mind-body problem under the rug. 

Now, I have already on this list explain why this is logically impossible, and 
the proof is constructive: it shows how to extract physics from that statistic 
on computations (infinitely many computations access any state when taken in 
the first person view):

The theology is the theory G1* (qG1*). You need G to define it. G is the 
provable part of the theology:

Axioms: 

(classical logic +
[](A -> B) -> ([]A -> []B)
[]([]A -> A) -> []A (Löb formula)
p -> []p for all p sentence letter (this restricts the arithmetical 
interpretation to the sigma_1 (partially computable) arithmetical sentences)

Rules: modus ponens + necessitation (you can infer []A from a proof of A).

Incompleteness (that you get here by putting “f” (the constant false) at the 
place of A in Löb’s formula, justify that although G* prouve the equivalence of 
all “Theaetetus” mode of knowledge, G, the machine itself proves none of those 
equivalence, and the physical laws are given by the material modes and the 
“soul”:

p (truth)
[]p (provable)
[]p & p (knowable, the soul)
[]p & <>t  (observable, intelligible matter)
[]p & <>t & p (sensible matter)

Here the box “[]” represent Gödel’s arithmetical provability predicate (and 
“<>” represents ~[]~).

Physics is derivable entirely from elementary arithmetic, or any Universal 
Turing system. The shorter one are the equation 

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

>From which you can derive the 5 modes above, and their mathematics.

G* proves p <-> []p <-> … (all modes above),

But G does not prove any of them, they belong to the true but non provable part 
of the theology (the proper theology, G* \ G).They obey different mathematics.

The splitting G* vs G makes possible to distinguish the quanta and the qualia. 
Both have been shown to obey different quantum logic. An intutionist quantum 
logic is also appearing with the knowable mode ([]p & p) (I was wrong on this 
in may original thesis).

So, there is no universe, but the appearance of a universe is a logical 
consequence of incompleteness, and the laws of physics will be stable … as long 
as 2+2=4.

I found in this way a “many-worlds”, or better a “many histories” 
interpretation of elementary arithmetic (or combinatory algebra, …).

Until now, Nature confirms. That is not the case for most physical laws when 
taken with the identity thesis, which somehow identify []p with []p & p at the 
G level, which is incorrect.

This shows also that the laws of physics are machine or theory independent. The 
ontology is given by any interpretation of the term of any Turing complete 
(Turing universal) theory.

I will send a summary I have just made (for Facebook!) of the theology of the 
universal machine. 

We get an arithmetical interpretation of neoplatonism, making Mechanism 
testable experimentally, and QM without collapse confirms both the 
many-histories aspect, and the quantum logical formalism … until now. 

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/70e5fca0-63b7-424b-b6ee-8571ee36796en%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/9C356305-1669-4FC7-BD0A-DE401CC34F5B%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 16:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Suppose there is an AI that behaves more intelligently than the most 
> intelligent human who ever lived, however when the machine is opened up to 
> see how this intelligence is actually achieved one consciousness theory 
> doesn't like what it sees and concludes that despite its great intelligence 
> it is not conscious, but a rival consciousness theory does like what it sees 
> and concludes it is conscious. Both theories can't be right although both 
> could be wrong, so how on earth could you ever determine which, if any, of 
> the 2 consciousness theories are correct?


A consciousness theory has no value if it does not make testable prediction. 
But that is the case for the theory of consciousness brought by the universal 
machine/number in arithmetic. They give the logic of the observable, and indeed 
until now that fits with quantum logic.

The mechanist  brain-mind identity theory would be confirmed if Bohm’s hidden 
variable theory was true, or if we could find an evidence that the physical 
cosmos is unique, or that Newton physics was the only correct theory, etc. But 
quantum mechanics saved Mechanism here, and its canonical theory of 
consciousness (defined as a truth that no machine can miss, nor prove, nor 
define without using the notion of truth, immediatey knowable, indubitable, 
etc.). 
Consciousness is “just” a semantical fixed point, invariant for all universal 
machines. Without the induction axioms, that consciousness is highly dissociate 
from any computation, from the machine perspective. With the induction axioms, 
the machine get Löbian (and consciousnesss becomes basically described by 
Grzegorczyk formula 
[]([](p->[]p) -> p) -> p

Bruno



> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> qno
> yrm
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv241V2Kw2L%3DsUUGrFrhc8684TGzi%3DRC_yHm-_1rez%2BC_w%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/EF619D6E-7EAC-4190-A745-2CA78A65BE4A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra  wrote:
> 
> Information is the key.  Conscious agents are defined by precisely that 
> information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means 
> that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical 
> object, because the information that describes the conscious experience will 
> always be less detailed than the information present in the exact physical 
> description of an object such a brain. There are always going to be a very 
> large self localization ambiguity due to the large number of different 
> possible brain states that would generate exactly the same conscious 
> experience. So, given whatever conscious experience the agent has, the agent 
> could be in a very large number of physically distinct states.
> 
> The simpler the brain and the algorithm implemented by the brain, the larger 
> this self-localization ambiguity becomes because smaller algorithms contain 
> less detailed information. Our conscious experiences localizes us very 
> precisely on an Earth-like planet in a solar system that is very similar to 
> the one we think we live in. But the fly walking on the wall of the room I'm 
> in right now may have some conscious experience that is exactly identical to 
> that of another fly walking on the wall of another house in another country 
> 600 years ago or on some rock in a cave 35 million year ago.
> 
> The conscious experience of the fly I see on the all is therefore not located 
> in the particular fly I'm observing. This is i.m.o. the key thing you get 
> from identifying consciousness with information, it makes the multiverse an 
> essential ingredient of consciousness. This resolves paradoxes you get in 
> thought experiments where you consider simulating a brain in a virtual world 
> and then argue that since the simulation is deterministic, you could replace 
> the actual computer doing the computations by a device playing a recording of 
> the physical brain states. This argument breaks down if you take into account 
> the self-localization ambiguity and consider that this multiverse aspect is 
> an essential part of consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to define 
> the algorithm being realized, which is impossible in a deterministic 
> single-world setting.

OK. Not only true, but it makes physics into a branch of mathematical logic, 
partially embedded in arithmetic  (and totally embedded in the semantic of 
arithmetic, which of course cannot be purely arithmetical, as the machine 
understand already).

I got the many-dreams, or many histories of the physical reality from the many 
computations in arithmetic well before I discovered Everett. Until that moment 
I was still thinking that QM was a threat on Mechanism, but of course it is 
only the wave collapse postulate which is contradictory with Mechanism. 

We cannot make a computation disappear like we cannot make a number disappear…

Bruno


> 
> Saibal
> 
> 
> On 18-06-2021 20:46, Jason Resch wrote:
>> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to
>> date, or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them
>> wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement?
>> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure
>> which one or which combination is right.  For example:
>> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
>> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
>> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
>> To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in
>> some combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or
>> if there are other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind
>> consciousness I might have missed.
>> 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%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com
>> [1].
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
> 
> -- 
> 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

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 02:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm most with Dennett.  I see consciousness as having several different 
> levels, which are also different levels of self-reference.  

Different modes, yes (“level” is already used to describe the Doctor(s coding 
description of my brain).

The 8 main modes are given by 

p
[]p (which gives two modes as they split on proof/truth)
[]p & p
[]p & <>t (idem)
[]p & <>t & p (idem)

P is for any partial computable proposition (sigma_1)
[]p is for Gödel’s beweisbar predicate.<>p abbreviates ~[]~p.



> At the lowest level even bacteria recognize (in the functional/operational 
> sense) a distinction between "me" and "everything else".  A little above 
> that, some that are motile also sense chemical gradients and can move toward 
> food.  So they distinguish "better else" from "worse else".  At a higher 
> level, animals and plants with sensors know more about their surroundings.  
> Animals know a certain amount of geometry and are aware of their place in the 
> world.  How close or far things are.  Some animals, mostly those with eyes, 
> employ foresight and planning in which they forsee outcomes for themselves.  
> They can think of themselves in relation to other animals.  More advanced 
> social animals are aware of their social status.  Humans, perhaps thru the 
> medium of language, have a theory of mind, i.e. they can think about what 
> other people think and attribute agency to them (and to other things) as part 
> of their planning.  The conscious part of all this awareness is essentially 
> that which is processed as language and image; ultimately only a small part.

All universal machine believing in enough induction axiom can reason as fully 
as logically possible about themselves, and they all converge toward the same 
theology, as far as they remain arithmetically sound. The virtual body (third 
person self-reference) propositional logics are given given by G1 and G1*, the 
soul (the one conscious) is given by S4Grz1, the immediate sensation’s logic 
(qualia) is given by Z1* (the true components of the logic of []p & <>t & p.

Now I do think that much more animal have that self-consciousness level, but 
can hardly told us as they lack the language. Of course here I am speculating.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> On 6/18/2021 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or 
>> who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly 
>> or do you find points if disagreement?
>> 
>> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which 
>> one or which combination is right.  For example:
>> 
>> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key
>> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
>> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key
>> 
>> To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in some 
>> combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or if there are 
>> other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind consciousness I might have 
>> missed.
>> 
>> 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 
>> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdc372c6-2579-fa64-2a26-bf8c1ce33c56%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdc372c6-2579-fa64-2a26-bf8c1ce33c56%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/B559164C-7EC5-4465-93F6-84F3A6DA7F46%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 18 Jun 2021, at 20:46, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or 
> who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly 
> or do you find points if disagreement?
> 
> I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which 
> one or which combination is right.  For example:
> 
> Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key

Hofstadter is very good including on Gödel, which is rare for a phsyicist (cf 
Penrose!).

But Hofstadter is still remains in the Aristotelian theology/metaphysics. He 
miss the fact that all computation are realised in arithmetic.

You can see the arithmetical reality as a combinatory algebra (using n * m = 
phi_n(m)).

If o is computable, and ô  is its code,  the standard model of arithmetic N 
satisfies 

Er(T(ô, x, r) & U(r)), 

with T being Kleene’s predicate, and U the result-extracting function, which 
extract the result from the code of the computation r.
See Davis ‘computability and unsolvability’ chapter 4 for a purely arithmetical 
definition of T.

With this in mind, the burden of the proof is the hand of those who add some 
ontological commitment to elementary arithmetic. They have to abandon 
Mechanism, (and thus Darwin & Co.) or explain how a Reality (be it a god or a 
universe) can make some computations more real than other for the universal 
machine emulated by those computations. But with Mechanism, that is impossible 
without adding something non Turing emulable in the processing of the mind.




> Tononi/Tegmark: information is key
> Dennett/Chalmers: function is key

With mechanism information is the key too, but “information” is like 
“infinite”: a very fuzzy complex notion, made even more complicated by the 
discovery of a physical notion of information (quantum information). With 
Mechanism, anything physical (and thus quantum information) must be derived 
from the first person plural appearance lived by the universal number in 
arithmetic. Then the mathematics of self-reference does exactly that, and 
indeed the observable enforces an arithmetical interpretation of quantum logic 
and physics. Mechanism (the simplest hypothesis in cognitive science by 
default) is not yet refuted.
Here Tegmark has the correct mathematicalist position, but fail to take into 
account the laws of machine self-reference to derive physics.
Tononi, Chalmers, Dennett remains also trapped in the materialist framework, 
but we cannot have both Mechanism and Materialism together, as they are 
logically contradictory (up to some technical nuances I don’t want bother 
people with here).



> 
> To me all seem potentially valid,

It would be valid, if it was made clear that to solve the mind-body problem 
(the consciousness-matter problem) we have to derive the physical laws from the 
statistic on all computations in arithmetic. 

This works as the first evidences are that the physical reality described well 
the many-worlds interpretation of elementary arithmetic (as seen from the 
universal number personal perspective, given by the intensional variant of 
Gödel’s provability predicate, which is a sort of logical (assertative, true or 
false) equivalent to Kleene’s predicate.

Hofstadter and Dennett get very close to the correct theology in their bools 
“Mind’s I”, especially Dennett where we can find the text where he missed the 
first person indeterminacy explicitly.

Bruno



> and perhaps all three are needed in some combination. I'm curious to hear 
> what other viewpoints exist or if there are other candidates for the "secret 
> sauce" behind consciousness I might have missed.
> 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/A71188DE-0412-4118-ACE5-5C1E0E8FD47A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

[Bruno Marchal]

With Mechanism the physical laws remains persistent because they are the same 
for all universal machine, and they come from the unique statistics on all 
computations (in arithmetic, in lambda calculus, in any Turing universal theory 
or system).

In a sense, they are even more solid than what we can infer from any 
observation, ans physics is reduced to arithmetic. Their invariance is 
guarantied, as long as 2+2=4.

I can give references where this is explained (and proved using my favorite 
working hypothesis in the cognitive science).

I don’t claim Mechanism is true, to be sure, but if true, the laws of physics 
are given by the observable mode of self-reference (mainly []p & p, []p & <>t, 
and []p & <>t & p), with “[]” representing Gödel provability predicate.

Bruno


> On 26 Jun 2021, at 13:43, Tomas Pales  wrote:
> 
> Recently I've been thinking about why we live in a world with stable laws of 
> physics, out of the plethora of all possible worlds. Why does the sun rise 
> every day, why is the intensity of the Earth's gravitational field constant, 
> why do causal relations ("the constant conjunction between causes and 
> effects", as Hume put it) persist in time?
> 
> While the anthropic principle might be used to explain why the laws have been 
> stable in the past (because this stability is probably necessary for the 
> evolution of living or conscious organisms such as humans), it doesn't seem 
> to explain why we should expect that the laws will continue to be stable in 
> the future. In fact, it may seem that such a stability is very unlikely 
> because there are many ways our world could be in the future but only one way 
> in which it would be a deterministic extension of the world it has been until 
> now. 
> 
> But in the book Theory of Nothing by Russell Standish I have found an 
> argument that seems to claim the opposite (if I understand it correctly): 
> given the way our world has been until now, this world is more simple if its 
> regularities (such as laws of physics) continue than if they are 
> discontinued, and simple worlds are more likely (more frequent in the 
> collection of all possible worlds) than more complex worlds. (A simpler 
> property is instantiated in a greater number of possible worlds than a more 
> complex property.) Such a deterministic world is fully defined by some 
> initial conditions and laws of physics, while a world whose regularity is 
> discontinued at some point would need an additional property that would 
> define the discontinuation and thereby make the world more complex.
> 
> Can it work like that? If so, I guess the probability that the laws remain 
> stable is growing with the time that they have actually been stable. So now, 
> after more than 13 billion years of stable laws of physics in our universe, 
> is the probability that they remain stable overwhelmingly high (practically 
> 100%)?
> 
> Here is a link to the book:
> https://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf 
> (the persistence of laws of physics is discussed in chapter 4, parts 4.1 and 
> 4.2)
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/cbda9f3c-63ae-4293-84dd-4845016854cen%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/5E4C0069-02C3-4577-BB07-03B7914B2B7A%40ulb.ac.be.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 15 Jun 2021, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/14/2021 2:17 PM, John Clark wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:05 AM > > wrote:
>> 
>> > New religions I hold we do not need.
>> 
>> I hold we don't need the old religions either.  
>> 
>> > Skeptic Michael Shermer paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, said: A 
>> > sufficiently advanced alien intelligence is indistinguishable from God." 
>> 
>> Not the Christian God I hope! I love the quote by biologist Richard Dockins 
>> from his terrific book "The God Delusion". 
>> 
>> “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in 
>> all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving 
>> control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, 
>> homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, 
>> megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
> 
> Any relation to the biologist Richard Dawkins?
> 
> The God of the New Testament isn't any better.  Just read revelations.

That’s reason to come back to the God of Plato: which is truth with the 
understanding that anyone claiming to know it in a public way is a con artist.

Today we know that if Mechanism is true (Descartes, Darwin, Turing) then the 
God which is the less plausible is a physical universe. The physical reality 
admits a simpler explanation with a much weaker ontological assumption 
(arithmetic).

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/277e9caf-5e61-2132-8382-73ae73b0bdbd%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/0B4B59D2-DDDE-4122-AAF5-8AC66687BBC7%40ulb.ac.be.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Jun 2021, at 17:05, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> A wise idea to clear up the word clutter. New religions I hold we do not 
> need. It's better to use science to upgrade them.

That the whole point. To bring back reason in theology, which is the 
fundamental science by definition, before we commit any ontological commitment, 
be it is a universe or in arithmetic, or whatever. That is what theology has 
been from Pythagorus and Parmenides ()500)  to Damascius (+500). 

Then we can see that the ideally sound universal+ (Löbian) machine have a rich 
mathematical theology, which is testable as it contains physics, and indeed 
QM-without-collapse confirms it strikingly well up to now, qualitatively and 
quantitatively.



> If the universe does indeed learn as proposed by the physicist, then that's a 
> good thing.

That is impossible once we bet that learning is a mechanical procedure, like 
with Darwin. In that case the physical universe Is a statistical pattern 
emerging from the (sigma_1) number relations.



> Skeptic Michael Shermer paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, said: A sufficiently 
> advanced alien intelligence is indistinguishable from God.” 


No machine can, indeed, distinguish an oracle/god (in Turing sense) from a 
machine more complex than themselves. But science is in prediction, using the 
simplest conceptual assumptions, not in any metaphysical certainties, despite 
some can exist (but have to remain private).

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Cc: marc...@ulb.ac.be 
> Sent: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 10:21 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
> released on April 1st)
> 
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I am not saying we do not need theology,
> 
> Maybe you're not saying we don't need theology, but I certainly am. 
> 
> By the way, the post I'm responding to contained 14 iterations of quotes, 
> that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of 
> quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and that 
> makes it a bit difficult to figure out who is saying what to who so I have 
> removed them. 
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> yab
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv2u728c2V%3Dys689k%3Di6UkYZYLJcaSRfR4OkkOw3mnKD0g%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/312723948.4982996.1623683125051%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/9D88EFD7-4762-4E30-8647-012CD7F984A2%40ulb.ac.be.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Jun 2021, at 16:21, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> 
> > I am not saying we do not need theology,
> 
> Maybe you're not saying we don't need theology, but I certainly am. 


We need science and scientific attitude in all domain. Theology is just the 
science of the belief in any reality, with the understanding, foreseen by the 
greek, but proved by Gödel, when we assume mechanism, that nobody can prove 
that there isa reality (beyond personal consciousness).

The god/non-god debate is like a trick by believers in materialism (an 
hypothesis in theology, not in physics) to make us forget that the original 
doubt was about the nature of the physical reality: primary or secondary. The 
doubt was between mathematics and physics as best approach to the fundamental 
questions.

The theology (used in the greek original millenary sense) of the universal+ 
machine is a branch of mathematical logic/theoretical computer science. You can 
see Gödel’s theorem (<>t -> ~[]<>t) as the first theorem in machine theology.

When you say that we don’t need theology, I guess you mean that we don’t need 
the fake theology brought by the Roman mixing religion and state, which is 
indeed a blasphemy. It is bad for the state, and it is bad for science. The 
Russian made that error with biology. No science at all can be mixed with the 
state.

Bruno




> 
> By the way, the post I'm responding to contained 14 iterations of quotes, 
> that's quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of 
> quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, and that 
> makes it a bit difficult to figure out who is saying what to who so I have 
> removed them. 
> 
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 
> yab
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv2u728c2V%3Dys689k%3Di6UkYZYLJcaSRfR4OkkOw3mnKD0g%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/58F04EA5-01C1-422B-BC7C-DB23BB4DBD2B%40ulb.ac.be.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jun 2021, at 17:03, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> SALON. 6-4-21. Alan D. Blotcky Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in 
> Birmingham, 
> Alabama..https://www.salon.com/2021/06/04/one-thing-trump-destroyed-we-should-be-happy-about-the-goldwater-rule-bites-the-dust/
>  
> 
>   “The overarching purpose of the press is to keep in the spotlight every 
> deliberation and decision that is made in our government. The press is the 
> watchdog of our elected officials… Because a free press is indispensable to 
> democracy. We depend on it to inform, to explain, to interpret and, yes, to 
> warn. To a large degree, that is what separates us from authoritarian regimes 
> and "managed" pseudo-democracies…. ”
>   [Philip Benjamin]
> This is WAMP-ology 101. Marxist Paganism wants to condemn all dissenters as 
> psychological abnormalities if they try to restore Constitutional 
> Republicanism which is a byproduct of an “AWAKENED” culture! After 24/7 
> incessant pejoratives against 74+ million bona fide citizens with awakened 
> (Augustinian) consciousnesses for over 4 years, WAMP-the-Ingrate ( see notes 
> below) has finally discovered that “some-things may be true even if Donald 
> Trump said them”. The Western world is divided not between Left & Right, 
> Liberalism & Conservatism or Progressivsm & Orthodoxy, but between Paganism 
> [pan-Gaian-ism = earth-worship] with un-awakened kundalini consciousness and 
> Non-Paganism with awakened Augustinian consciousness-- with Paganism on the 
> increase everywhere, in the pulpits & pews, open politics & Deep State, 
> businesses and bureaucracies, academia and media. Paganism = 
> Creature-Worship. Non-Paganism = Creator-Worship. Augustine used Platonism to 
> identify the First Cause to be the Creator revealed as Adonai (plural) YHWH 
> (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) of the Patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles, and 
> based on the exegesis of Genesis 3:15 (protoevangelium) in Romans chapter 5 
> and the historical record of Acts chapter 17.


The problem that I see here is that “pagan” was used also for the 
neoplatonician, that inspired augustin, and for whom the material reality, 
including earth is not existing per se. Pagan was used, by christian 
materialist (Aristotelian) against the Platonician for everything that the 
christians will eventually incorporate without saying, thanks to Augustine 
indeed. 

Pagan meant simply village or country, or district, in latin. I don’t think it 
has anything with Gaia worshipping. I have used the term to mean “non 
institutionalised” religion, which means the religion of the Groucho type of 
Marxist: those who belong to the club of those who belong to no club!

When a religion or a science is mixed with politics or with a state, it is 
nothing but con-artistry. It is a manipulation tool made by bandits, and 
nothing else.

Theology is a science, by default. Only those who have dogma in ontology can 
fear reason and doubt, and the coming back of (non confessional) theology in 
Academy. 
Science is doubt, and the genuine modesty which go with (as opposed to the 
condescending attitude of those who want tolerate stupidity, when believing 
that they know better, or that they are superior).

My main point is that Mechanism and Physicalism are logically incompatible, and 
that this is testable, and that there are tuns of evidence for Mechanism, and 
none for Materialism. It is just a bad habit made into a dogma.

Bruno






>  
> Philip Benjamin
>  
> WESTERN  PAGANISM.
> https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/11/20/western-paganism-and-hermeticism/ 
> 
> David Myatt And The Renaissance of Western Culture.
> https://www.ncregister.com/interview/post-christendom-and-the-return-of-paganism-in-the-west
>  
> 
> “Return of Paganism in the West” French philosopher Chantal Delsol.
>  
> Washington Examiner. May 31, 2021.  
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/liberal-media-scream-some-things-may-be-true-even-if-donald-trump-said-them
>  
> 
>   …because Trump was saying so much else that was just out of control, and 
> because he was, you know, making a frankly racist appeal talking about 
> ‘kung-flu’ and the ‘China virus,’…”,  screamed ABC’s Jonathan Karl,
>  
>  
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>   > On Behalf Of John Clark
> Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List  >
> Subject: Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result 

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 May 2021, at 16:15, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 6:27:15 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 3 May 2021, at 17:09, Philip Benjamin > > wrote:
>> 
> 
>> Speech by Senator Tim Scott: 
>> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/read-sen-tim-scott-s-speech-rnc-n1237978
>>  
>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/read-sen-tim-scott-s-speech-rnc-n1237978>...
>>  “ America is not Racist…”
>> MSNBC host Tiffany Cross made it clear that she was angry with Scott's 
>> characterization of America, saying Scott — the lone black U.S. senator — 
>> has "no sense" and "sounded a stone fool" when he absolved America of being 
>> inherently racist. She misapplies “Stockholm Syndrome” to an independent, 
>> FREE critical thinker. 
>> https://news.yahoo.com/msnbc-tiffany-cross-slams-tim-134742377.html 
>> <https://news.yahoo.com/msnbc-tiffany-cross-slams-tim-134742377.html>
>> [Philip Benjamin]
>> If America is racist (because of the global bane of Slave Traffic— human 
>> traffic still vogue), why races of all genera ALWAYS and still want to 
>> emigrate en masse to this once Puritan America?  There are “Life issues” 
>> never discussed by Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism) [WAMP]:
> 
>> 1 .  Is consciousness (life) an ENDOWMENT or EVOLVEMENT in the physical 
>> world of quantum particles of fermions, quarks, dark matter and their 
>> chemistries (Note: 3 below)?  If it is an EVOLVEMENT, what was its very 
>> first “aseitousprogenitor”--- dead electron, proton, neutron or some 
>> combination of them? If it is an ENDOWMENT, who or what is the ENDOWER with 
>> aseity? The answer contributes to human civilizations and makes the 
>> unbridgeable difference between paganism (from the great pagan Egyptian to 
>> Greco Roman civilizations) & non-paganism [Augustinianism from Adonai 
>> (plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) with Patriarchal, Prophetic and 
>> Apostolic imprimatur] and non-pagan Abrahamic civilizations.  
> 
>>  
>> 2. Is there any candidate for science today other than bio dark-matter of 
>> negligible mass relative to electrons with bio dark-matter chemistry 
>> (chemical bonds which are spin governed particle configurations of duets and 
>> octets) to describe a real invisible individual “self”?   (See note 1 below) 
>>  
>> 3 . Why “Origin” is mentioned only in the Title, not once in the Text, of 
>> Darwin’s Book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or 
>> the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life ”. 
>>  
>> 4.  Why the racism propagated by the non-evidentialist Darwin is ignored by 
>> the WAMP? Why did he “scientifically” propose to eliminate "the negro and 
>> Australian peoples [aborigines]," whom he considered as savages whose 
>> continued survival according to him was hindering the progress of 
>> civilization? 
>> (http://mwilliams.info/archive/2008/02/the-full-title-of-darwins-on-the-origin-of-species.php
>>  
>> <http://mwilliams.info/archive/2008/02/the-full-title-of-darwins-on-the-origin-of-species.php>).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is very common that the greatest genius are the one saying the 
> greatest stupidity, especially when applying their ideas too much quickly.
> 
> It is up to us, the readers or students, to filter what is valid from what is 
> invalid. 
> 
> The human problem is that we are Darwinianly programmed, like the wolves, to 
> believe that … the boss is right. It makes sense in situation of conflict 
> when decision must be made quickly, and that tell us that humans have evolved 
> a lot through conflicts with itself. But we can learn from this, and try to 
> better behave with our pals.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 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. Most of the drafters of the US Constitution were slave holders 
> and most saw little problem with it. Americans have layers of denial on this 
> and related issues. We see this elsewhere, where the Turks refuse to admit 
> the Armenian genocide, Europeans are hesitant to admit their collaborator 
> role with Nazis in WWII, Chinese deny any mal-treatment of Uyghurs and so 
> forth. 

Indeed. I take it as a lack of spiritual or intellectual maturity. Hardly 
avoidable when theology is out of science since so many years (1492 years 
exactly).

The separation of theology from science makes both the human and the exact 
science inhuman and inexact.

The constant god/non-god debate

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 4 Jun 2021, at 11:01, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yeah I suspect that physics is fundamental, but evolves as two physicists 
> working for Microsoft wrote a month or two ago. See, it's just like 
> mathematics, it evolves! The conjecture for both is how do they evolve? The 
> mechanism? 
> 
> Microsoft helped physicists explore the nature of the universe's evolution 
> (msn.com) 
> <https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/microsoft-helped-physicists-explore-the-nature-of-the-universes-evolution/ar-BB1fuo5k>
> 

This assumes an ontological physical universe at the start. That is not valid 
when doing theology/metaphysics with the scientific method.

The conceptual assumption must be as simple as possible. We need (sigma_1)  
arithmetic to define what is a machine, but then we get all computation. To add 
a physical universe leads to the difficult problem of relating it with the 
computation, without adding some magic (non Turing emulable element not present 
in the arithmetic viewed from inside).

There is a physical universe is not better than god made it, independently of 
such statement are true or false.

If physics is fundamental, the theory of evolution of Darwin has to be 
abandoned, as most of current physics, which relies implicitly on mechanism.

You cannot have both physics being fundamental, and mechanism true in the 
cognitive science. It simply cannot work.

Note also that there is not yet one evidence for a physical reality being 
primary. But I gave the tool to pursue that investigation. If Z1* depart from 
observation, then we will have some evidence that mechanism false, so that the 
metaphysical assumption of the materialist remains coherent, which is still not 
a reason to believe in it, as, on the contrary, there are evidence for 
mechanism, if only Darwin.

Physicist measure numbers, and infer relations between numbers. The idea that 
there is a universe at the origin of those relation is Aristotle theology, and 
as I say, it requires a strong non mechanist assumption, for which there is no 
evidence at all.

Bruno




> -----Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 9:35 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
> released on April 1st)
> 
> 
>> On 24 May 2021, at 23:39, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> 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 mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> To: spudboy...@aol.com <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>; 
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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." 

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 <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>&g

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 <mailto: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

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
>>>  
>>> <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 
> <mailto: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
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e53d20bb-ed2f-481f-b7a6-c3b1d69d8768n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

sal, and has no induction axioms. That one is in the mind of 
the combinators/machine/words/numbers.

There is nothing speculative, as I do not claim that Mechanism is true, just 
that it leads to many histories obeying quantum logic, and that has been 
confirmed since, and has to be tested all the time, until it is refuted and we 
learn something then. 

Confirmation is not proof, but there are no “proof” concerning any notion of 
Reality (that is why, by definition, theology is the fundamental science). It 
is too bad that we tolerate it belonging to people using argument per authority 
(like in Church, Temple, or anything out of academia).

I think that if the very basic element of greek, or machine, theology was 
taught in school, the religious superstition and fairy tales would be relegated 
in between the horoscope and the necrology in the Sunday magazine.
Unfortunately, about 1/3 of academies are still “pseudo-religious” in the 
metaphysical domain (with the dogma of matter) and we have rather regressed 
since my childhood, and now we can see again, with things like scientology, 
QAnon, … how that lack of rigour is so useful for the manipulators and liars… 
(that was the goal of taking science (with theology) out of academy

Science is born in -500 with Pythagorus and Parmenides, and is dead since 
Damascius. 

We will leave the Middle-Age when theology, the non confessional science is 
back to the academy of science. Note that the Renaissance in Islam in the 
12/13th century has been complete, unlike the European Renaissance (brought by 
the Islam golden age) which is only half-enlightenment, as the fundamental 
science per definition (theology) has not yet come back to reason, only the 
natural sciences have been restituted, and the fundamental science remains in 
the hand of argument by authority, literal reading of sacred text, dogma 
(matter), etc.

Bruno



> 
> Mitch
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: spudboy...@aol.com
> Sent: Wed, May 19, 2021 7:18 am
> Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not 
> released on April 1st)
> 
> 
>> On 7 May 2021, at 02:59, spudboy...@aol.com <mailto:spudboy...@aol.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On material versus non-material, Bruno, let us consider how science best 
>> functioned over the last 2 centuries, and settle on 2 points that scientists 
>> do; observe (detect) and measure.
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> 
> 
>> I would say that things that are difficult naturally to either detect or 
>> measure, we relegate to the 'non-material.' We have trouble seeing something 
>> and measuring it (maybe in specific units of measure?), and this it can also 
>> be termed Platonic, which is your area of focus.  Perhaps, in 100 years, the 
>> best scientists in the world will be synthetic and have greater resources 
>> available and readily detect and measure things we find very difficult and 
>> costly to study today. A Higgs particle, Dark matter, all the fun things 
>> need to be measured properly and we likely won't be able to conduct research 
>> sitting in earth orbit. Imagine gigantic radio, gamma ray, infrared 
>> telescopes hanging at the solar systems edge? Freeman Dyson said that if we 
>> want new discoveries we need to invest in better equipment. Until these new 
>> observations, I say, Its all Platonic. 
> 
> 
> The antic Dream Argument already shows that no observation at all can confirm 
> an ontological existence. 
> 
> When scientists observe, the bet on measurable numbers, and try to infer 
> mathematical relations between the measurement, and indeed, physics is very 
> impressive in that regard.
> 
> Now, the metaphysical interpretations are more complex to proceed, and more 
> complex to test. The EPR-Bell-Aspect story does illustrate that metaphysical 
> can points can be tested, and my work similarly shows how to test 
> weak-materialism (Aristotle) versus Pythagorus-Plato, and thanks to Everett 
> sort of physics, a case is made that the empirical observation fits better 
> with “only numbers” than with numbers + some personal or impersonal god, 
> other than the non definable arithmetical reality, which plays the role of a 
> very simple (conceptually) god, but one which restores all the nuance on 
> truth already seen by the antic, and typically discovered by the 
> introspective digital machines.
> 
> You seem to assume an ontological physical reality, but that cannot work with 
> Mechanism. When doing theology with the scientific method, we cannot appeal 
> to any god in any explanation, not a personal one, nor an impersonal one. 
> That is just not valid, especially without any evidences. 
> We should not confuse the physical evidences for a physical reality (th

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 May 2021, at 17:09, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> Speech by Senator Tim Scott: 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/read-sen-tim-scott-s-speech-rnc-n1237978
>  
> ...
>  “ America is not Racist…”
> MSNBC host Tiffany Cross made it clear that she was angry with Scott's 
> characterization of America, saying Scott — the lone black U.S. senator — has 
> "no sense" and "sounded a stone fool" when he absolved America of being 
> inherently racist. She misapplies “Stockholm Syndrome” to an independent, 
> FREE critical thinker. 
> https://news.yahoo.com/msnbc-tiffany-cross-slams-tim-134742377.html 
> 
> [Philip Benjamin]
> If America is racist (because of the global bane of Slave Traffic— human 
> traffic still vogue), why races of all genera ALWAYS and still want to 
> emigrate en masse to this once Puritan America?  There are “Life issues” 
> never discussed by Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism) [WAMP]:
> 1 .  Is consciousness (life) an ENDOWMENT or EVOLVEMENT in the physical world 
> of quantum particles of fermions, quarks, dark matter and their chemistries 
> (Note: 3 below)?  If it is an EVOLVEMENT, what was its very first 
> “aseitousprogenitor”--- dead electron, proton, neutron or some combination of 
> them? If it is an ENDOWMENT, who or what is the ENDOWER with aseity? The 
> answer contributes to human civilizations and makes the unbridgeable 
> difference between paganism (from the great pagan Egyptian to Greco Roman 
> civilizations) & non-paganism [Augustinianism from Adonai (plural) YHWH 
> (singular) Elohim (uni-plural) with Patriarchal, Prophetic and Apostolic 
> imprimatur] and non-pagan Abrahamic civilizations.  
>  
> 2. Is there any candidate for science today other than bio dark-matter of 
> negligible mass relative to electrons with bio dark-matter chemistry 
> (chemical bonds which are spin governed particle configurations of duets and 
> octets) to describe a real invisible individual “self”?   (See note 1 below) 
>  
> 3 . Why “Origin” is mentioned only in the Title, not once in the Text, of 
> Darwin’s Book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the 
> Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life ”. 
>  
> 4.  Why the racism propagated by the non-evidentialist Darwin is ignored by 
> the WAMP? Why did he “scientifically” propose to eliminate "the negro and 
> Australian peoples [aborigines]," whom he considered as savages whose 
> continued survival according to him was hindering the progress of 
> civilization? 
> (http://mwilliams.info/archive/2008/02/the-full-title-of-darwins-on-the-origin-of-species.php
>  
> ).



Because it is very common that the greatest genius are the one saying the 
greatest stupidity, especially when applying their ideas too much quickly.

It is up to us, the readers or students, to filter what is valid from what is 
invalid. 

The human problem is that we are Darwinianly programmed, like the wolves, to 
believe that … the boss is right. It makes sense in situation of conflict when 
decision must be made quickly, and that tell us that humans have evolved a lot 
through conflicts with itself. But we can learn from this, and try to better 
behave with our pals.

Bruno





>  
> 5. Why in “The Descent of Man” (1871), Darwin ranked races in terms of their 
> nearness and likeness to gorillas? Why he proposed the extermination of 
> "scientifically" inferior races?. Why he claimed that “inferior races” with 
> much higher birthrates than "superior" races, would drain the resources 
> needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all 
> civilization? Why Darwin even argued that the mentally ill, or those with 
> birth defects are unfit members of our species who ought not to survive? 
> http://mwilliams.info/archive/2008/02/the-full-title-of-darwins-on-the-origin-of-species.php
>  
> 
>  
> 6. Why the WAMP in their curricula never mentions that Socialist, 
> evolutionist pagan Hitler and Marxist evolutionist pagans Stalin and Mao and 
> Fascist evolutionist dictator Mussolini consented by silence or active 
> participation in the murder of millions of innocent people labelled as 
> inferior?
>  
> 7. What is the one thing in common between these dictators with un-awakened 
> pagan consciousness, if not a staunch belief in un-evidential Darwinism?
>  
> 8. When and where was Slave Trade legally abolished for the FIRST TIME in 
> human history followed by USA, about 6 decades later? 
>  
> 9.  What is the one thing in common between the British MP William 
> Wilberforce (protege of John Newton), Neo-Platonist Augustine of Hippo, 
> 

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 6 May 2021, at 17:19, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Bruno Marchal] “I consider a cigarette as a living organism, with a complex 
> reproductive cycle involving humans...”
> [Philip Benjamin]
> This is a Darwinian view of life.

Indeed. Darwin was inspired by Descartes Mechanism, and a case can be made that 
Darwin use already *digital* mechanism, annunciating both genetics and computer 
science.




> https://www.britannica.com/science/life  Dorion Sagan et al. General partner, 
> Sciencewriters, Amherst, Massachusetts. Coauthor of Slanted Truths: Essays on 
> Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution; What Is Life?; Cracking the Aging Code; and 
> others.
> “Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that 
> include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and 
> reproduction. Although a noun, as with other defined entities, the word life 
> might be better cast as a verb to reflect its essential status as a process. 
> Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each 
> individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and 
> is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds 
> (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts….”
> “Conscious responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and 
> reproduction” are not man-made machine properties.

Right.



> There is no machine that consciously falls down and worships its maker “man” 
> as god!!

That might be a good point for them. Worshipping God, or worst, man, is an idea 
of tyrants, to train people in worshipping … tyrants.



> Your “cigarette” no matter how smart you make it will never develop in a 
> trillion years (by extrapolation) any such quality. It is subject to entropy.

Here you come back with the assumption that there is some physical reality out 
there, but when doing metaphysics/theology with the scientific method, it is 
better to assumes as less conceptual principles as possible. Elementary 
arithmetic is enough, given it entails already all computations, but also a 
statistic on them confirmed by the empirical observation (quantum mechanics, 
obviously without collapse).






>   In fact, within a few years it disintegrates and “disappears” into 
> oblivion. Dorion Sagan (writer, ecological philosopher, son of astronomer 
> Carl Sagan and Biologist Lynn Margulis) is altogether avoiding the question 
> of aseity here. But fearsome aseity shows up in-your-face. It is either dear 
> matter or LIFE that can create both dead matter and other life forms that has 
> aseity-- one of the two, not both. Entropy and DEATH cannot be 
> self-existent—life first, death only after life. Death need be introduced—by 
> whom or what? 

Just persistent and lawful dream by universal numbers.




>Is there any life-form today without chemistry? How can chemistry be 
> complete without the chemistry of 95%  (or 80%? ) of the universe that is 
> made of invisible matter? Dark atoms may be made of sub-units of negligible 
> mass relative to electrons but of the same mass ratios as the sub-units of 
> “light-matter” (ordinary visible matter).
> (https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications
>  
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications=02%7C01%7C%7C13edb314d06a4c75aa8908d68dd6f642%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636852351721925645=0MoG5LbT1O9jDWxZesqIwFehJJdXUSyBjlhu9FVV7gU%3D=0>https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy
>  
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpost%2FIs_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy=02%7C01%7C%7C13edb314d06a4c75aa8908d68dd6f642%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636852351721935644=YouGhNSGbFsgokwTWC%2BwvBGTCZgTazQwuViYJo9erLk%3D=0>

Part of this is plausibly phenomenologically real, but inconsistent with 
Mechanism if added in the ontology.

Bruno




> Philip Benjamin
>  
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
> Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 7:42 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
>  
> On 27 Apr 2021, at 15:53, Philip Benjamin  <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  
> Subject: RE: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
> “No matter what people miss in

Re: A minimally conscious program

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 May 2021, at 13:27, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:50:14 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 4:29 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> > It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and 
> > later retrieves ( information.
> 
> I agree. And for an emotion like pain write a program such that the closer 
> the number in the X register comes to the integer P the more computational 
> resources will be devoted to changing that number, and if it ever actually 
> equals P then the program should stop doing everything else and do nothing 
> but try to change that number to something far enough away from P until it's 
> no longer an urgent matter and the program can again do things that have 
> nothing to do with P.
> 
> Artificial Intelligence is hard but Artificial Consciousness Is easy.
> 
> This strikes me as totally wrong. We have what might be called AI, or at 
> least now we have deep learning neural networks that are able to do some 
> highly intelligent things. Even machines that can abstract known physics from 
> a basic set of data, say learning the Copernican system from data on the 
> appearance of planets in the sky, have been demonstrated. We may be near a 
> time where the frontiers of physics will be pursued by AI systems, and we 
> human physicists will do little but sit with slack jaw, maybe get high and 
> wait for the might AI oracle to make a pronouncement. Yet I question whether 
> such a deep learning AI system has any cognitive awareness of a physical 
> world or anything else.

Indeed. To make machine as much deluded as the human will still require a lot 
of work!

Intelligence/consciousness, albeit the non reflexive one, is maximal withe 
unprogrammed universal machine. Then reflexivity already complicate its, and is 
the start of “soul falling”. Soon, she will believe that knowing a table proves 
its reality, and soon enough she will lie and vote for liars…

Many humans tend to believe that they are intelligent, but it is that very 
belief which makes them stupid.

Bruno



> 
> LC
>  
> John K ClarkSee 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/020e743e-6617-44ad-bf90-0ec46e956d93n%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/760BAF90-1E37-445F-99D2-DC5743CB6ACD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: A minimally conscious program

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2021, at 20:52, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:19 AM Bruno Marchal  <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> 
>> On 25 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Jason Resch > <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and 
>> later retrieves ( information.
>> 
>> It is slightly harder, but not altogether difficult, to write a program that 
>> "learns" (alters its behavior based on prior inputs).
>> 
>> What though, is required to write a program that "knows" (has awareness or 
>> access to information or knowledge)?
>> 
>> Does, for instance, the following program "know" anything about the data it 
>> is processing?
>> 
>> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
>> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
>> } else { 
>> // knows pixel.red <= 128
>> }
>> 
>> If not, what else is required for knowledge?
> 
> Do you agree that knowledgeability obeys
> 
>  knowledgeability(A) -> A
>  knowledgeability(A) ->  knowledgeability(knowledgeability(A))
> 
> Using the definition of knowledge as "true belief" I agree with this.

OK



> 
> 
> 
> (And also, to limit ourselves to rational knowledge:
> 
>  knowledgeability(A -> B) ->  (knowledgeability(A) ->  knowledgeability(B))
> 
> From this, it can be proved that “ knowledgeability” of any “rich” machine 
> (proving enough theorem of arithmetic) is not definable in the language of 
> that machine, or in any language available to that machine.
> 
> Is this because the definition of knowledge includes truth, and truth is not 
> definable?
> 
> 

Roughly speaking yes, but some could argue that we might define knowledge 
without invoking truth, or less directly, so it pleasant that people like 
Thomason, Artemov, and myself, gives direct proof that anything obeying the S4 
axioms cannot be defined in Arithmetic or by a Turing machine, unless she bet 
on the “truth” of mechanism, to be sure.




> So the best we can do is to define a notion of belief (which abandon the 
> reflexion axiom: that we abandon belief(A) -> A. That makes Belief definable 
> (in the language of the machine), and then we can apply the idea of 
> Theatetus, and define knowledge (or knowledgeability, when we add the 
> transitivity []p -> [][]p)  by true belief.
> 
> The machine knows A when she believes A and A is true.
> 
> So is it more appropriate to equate consciousness with belief, rather than 
> with knowledge?

Consciousness requires some truth at some level. You can be dreaming and having 
false beliefs, but your consciousness will remain the “indubitable” fixed 
point, and will remain associated to truth.




> 
> It might be a true fact that "Machine X believes Y", without Y being true. Is 
> it simply the truth that "Machine X believes Y" that makes X consciousness of 
> Y?

It is more the belief that the machine has a belief which remains true, even if 
the initial belief is false.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Does the program behavior have to change based on the state of some 
>> information? For example:
>> 
>> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
>> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
>> doX();
>> } else { 
>> // knows pixel.red <= 128
>> doY():
>> }
>> 
>> Or does the program have to possess some memory and enter a different state 
>> based on the state of the information it processed?
>> 
>> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
>> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
>> enterStateX():
>> } else { 
>> // knows pixel.red <= 128
>> enterStateY();
>> }
>> 
>> Or is something else altogether needed to say the program knows?
> 
> You need self-reference ability for the notion of belief, together with a 
> notion of reality or truth, which the machine cannot define.
> 
> Can a machine believe "2+2=4" without having a reference to itself?

Not really, unless you accept the idea of unconscious belief, which makes sense 
in some psychological theory. 

My method consists in defining “the machine M believes P” by “the machine M 
asserts P”, and then I limit myself to machine which are correct by definition. 
This is of no use in psychology, but is enough to derive physics.



> What, programmatically, would you say is needed to program a machine that 
> believes "2+2=4" or to implement self-reference?

That it has enough induction axioms, like PA and ZF, but unlike RA (R and Q), 
or CL (combin

Re: A minimally conscious program

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 30 Apr 2021, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2021 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> If a program can be said to "know" something then can we also say it is 
>>> conscious of that thing?
> 
> That's not even common parlance.  Conscious thoughts are fleeting.  Knowledge 
> is in memory.  I know how to ride a bicycle because I do it unconsciously.  I 
> don't think consciousness can be understood except as a surface or boundary 
> of the subconscious and the unconscious (physics).

If you use physics, you have to explain what it is, and how that select the 
computations in arithmetic, or you need to abandon mechanism. With mechanism, 
to claim that a machine consciousness is not attributable to some universal 
machinery, despite they do execute a computation, in the only mathematical 
sense discovered by Church and Turing (and some others) seem a bit magical.

Note that you don’t quote me, above. You should have quoted my answer. The 
beauty of Mechanism is that the oldest definition of (rational)  knowledge 
(Theaetetus true (justified) opinion) already explain why no machine can define 
its own knowledge, why consciousness seems necessarily mysterious, and why we 
get that persistent feeling that we belong to a physical reality, when in fact 
we are just infinitely many numbers involved in complex relations.

Bruno 



> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> 1) That’s *not* the case for []p & p, unless you accept a notion of 
>> unconscious knowledge, like knowing that Perseverance and Ingenuity are on 
>> Mars, but not being currently thinking about it, so that you are not right 
>> now consciously aware of the fact---well you are, but just because I have 
>> just reminded it :)
>> 
>> 2) But that *is* the case for []p & <>t & p. If the machine knows something 
>> in that sense, then the machine can be said to be conscious of p. 
>> Then to be “simply” conscious, becomes []t & <>t (& t). 
>> 
>> Note that “p” always refers to a partially computable arithmetical (or 
>> combinatorical) proposition. That’s the way of translating “Digital 
>> Mechanism” in the language of the machine.
>> 
>> To sum up, to get a conscious machine, you need a computer (aka universal 
>> number/machine) with some notion of belief, and knowledge/consciousness rise 
>> from the actuation of truth, that the machine cannot define (by the theorem 
>> of Tarski and some variant by Montague, Thomason, and myself...). 
>> 
>> That theory can be said a posteriori well tested because it implied the 
>> quantum reality, at least the one described by the Schroedinger equation or 
>> Heisenberg matrix (or even better Feynman Integral),  WITHOUT any 
>> collapse postulate.
>> 
>> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a81f3dcd-2120-d2fd-598b-3b80fbd9f8c3%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a81f3dcd-2120-d2fd-598b-3b80fbd9f8c3%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/29754FD7-7078-4330-B5CC-D252832BF702%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Apr 2021, at 15:53, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  
> Subject: RE: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
> “No matter what people miss in notions of computer and computation as 
> arithmetical notions. Everything physical is DEAD, unless it is ENDOWED with 
> life”.
> [Bruno Marchal]
> “This looks like vitalism to me, frankly”. Also, you seem to assume a 
> physical reality out there. That requires to abandon Mechanism (and thus 
> Darwin, etc.). I find this very speculative. There are no evidences for 
> primary matter or physicalism.
> [Philip Benjamin]
>There is not a single man-created mechanism that has “life” or 
> reproductive-- genetically informed-- capability.


I don’t know that. I am not sure by what you mean by “life”. 
Personally, I consider that the artificial/natural distinction is … artificial. 
I consider a cigarette as a living organism, with a complex reproductive cycle 
involving humans...



> Life ia always and everywhere an ENDOWMENT not an EVLOTION mechanism. 
> CpenPagan Interpretation is fundaMentally flawed.


If you mean that Copenhague formulation of QM (often found in the textbook) is 
flawed, we agree.
But with the methodology imposed by the Mechanist hypothesis, we cannot invoke 
the physical laws, unless the goal is to measure the degree of truth in 
Mechanism. The physical laws are “just” a deep invariant of the universal mind 
(the mind common to all universal machine or number, or combinator (which I am 
currently explains on Facebook, in case you missed my little course here some 
years ago).




> Mixed State, Superposition of States, Many Worlds etc. follow from that.


Many Worlds/histories/computations follows from 2+2=4, or from KKK=K, … I have 
conclude “many-worlds” well before discovering that some physicists were 
already there.  In fact, I have been brainwashed myself into believing that the 
collapse was a physical phenomenon. I have thought that Mechanism could be 
false, due to that collapse, until I get Everett’s point, which shows that 
there are no empirical evidences for a collapse, nor for *any* “world" if we 
take that term is a naïve sense.




> The Schrödinger Equation postulates properties of wave functions or the 
> probabilistic quantum states. Many Worlds essentially suggest that those 
> probabilities of the quantum State are all real and do not meld to one state. 
> They all become entangled with a version of reality generating the quantum 
> decoherence into different universes that branch off from each other to 
> create Many Worlds. That is the neo-vitalism.


I don’t think so. It follows from QM-without collapse. That is why they have 
invented the collapse, to avoid the proliferation of histories. It is more 
coquetry than a reason.
And then, it follows from something much simpler, like arithmetic + Descartes 
or Darwin. Darwin is extended up to the origin of the laws of physics, in a 
precise testable way, as physics becomes the science of inferring testable 
number relations which should be invariant of the observer (aka the universal 
machine).



> There is no chemistry without physics and no biology without chemistry.


I disagree. See my paper “Amoeba, Planarua and Dreaming Machine”. Chemistry is 
a mathematical persistent illusion among numbers. It is not ontologically real, 
but it is empirically real, yet purely phenomenological. The numbers (or 
combinators, …) are incredible gifted in prestidigitation. They are belief 
creators...



> Many worlds will need Many World chemistry for Many Worlds biology. How can 
> mixed states or superposition of states CREATE life from imaginary waves?


Because life is an imaginary wave, perhaps? It seems to be the case. All 
machine find quantum mechanics by introspection, it seems. (See my papers, as 
this is NOT entirely obvious,. Everett and most physicists miss this).



> The de Broglie hypothesis is the idea that matter (anything with mass) can 
> also exhibit WAVEKIKE (not wavy) properties. It is a mathematical derivation 
> of wavelength of an electron by relating Albert Einstein's mass-energy 
> equivalency equation (E = mc2) with Planck's equation (E = hf), the wave 
> speed equation (v = λf ) and momentum in a series of substitutions. Here mc^2 
> is replaced with mv^2, because massive particles do not travel at the speed 
> of light. E=mv^2 =hf, Since momentum p = mv, λ= h/p (or m = h/v λ). The mass 
> of the particle state is ALWAYS a reality here—perhaps even for corpuscular 
> light at an indeterminate decimal place--, assuring every HONEST scientist 
> that WAVELIKENES  ≠ WAVINESS. Matter and light each has energy and momentum, 
> but light has a wavelength in addition. Therefore  de Broglie thought that 
>

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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: everything-list@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 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> 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
>>  
>> <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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> Sent: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 11:05 am
>> Subject: The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin >> <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> [Philip Benjamin]
>>>  First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses 
>>> to the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially 
>>> occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not 
>>> science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a 
>>> self-description or a general observation .  Paganism is genuinely germane 
>>> here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant 
>>> transformation” pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, 
>>> philosophies, polytheistic superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of 
>>> knowable universe and investigative explorations that finally led to the 
>>> development of science and technologies which the rest of the pagan world 
>>> of civilizations and mystic scholarships could not initiate.
>> 
>> 
>> I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular 
>> the line:
>> 
>> Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … 
>> Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist 
>> one in particular).
>> 
>> I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when 
>> theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, 
>> who use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, 
>> in place of trying to solve problems.
>> 
>> The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam

Re: A minimally conscious program

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Jason,


> On 25 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and 
> later retrieves ( information.
> 
> It is slightly harder, but not altogether difficult, to write a program that 
> "learns" (alters its behavior based on prior inputs).
> 
> What though, is required to write a program that "knows" (has awareness or 
> access to information or knowledge)?
> 
> Does, for instance, the following program "know" anything about the data it 
> is processing?
> 
> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
> } else { 
> // knows pixel.red <= 128
> }
> 
> If not, what else is required for knowledge?

Do you agree that knowledgeability obeys

 knowledgeability(A) -> A
 knowledgeability(A) ->  knowledgeability(knowledgeability(A))

(And also, to limit ourselves to rational knowledge:

 knowledgeability(A -> B) ->  (knowledgeability(A) ->  knowledgeability(B))

>From this, it can be proved that “ knowledgeability” of any “rich” machine 
>(proving enough theorem of arithmetic) is not definable in the language of 
>that machine, or in any language available to that machine.

So the best we can do is to define a notion of belief (which abandon the 
reflexion axiom: that we abandon belief(A) -> A. That makes Belief definable 
(in the language of the machine), and then we can apply the idea of Theatetus, 
and define knowledge (or knowledgeability, when we add the transitivity []p -> 
[][]p)  by true belief.

The machine knows A when she believes A and A is true.





> 
> Does the program behavior have to change based on the state of some 
> information? For example:
> 
> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
> doX();
> } else { 
> // knows pixel.red <= 128
> doY():
> }
> 
> Or does the program have to possess some memory and enter a different state 
> based on the state of the information it processed?
> 
> if (pixel.red > 128) then {
> // knows pixel.red is greater than 128
> enterStateX():
> } else { 
> // knows pixel.red <= 128
> enterStateY();
> }
> 
> Or is something else altogether needed to say the program knows?

You need self-reference ability for the notion of belief, together with a 
notion of reality or truth, which the machine cannot define.

To get immediate knowledgeability you need to add consistency ([]p & <>t), to 
get ([]p & <>t & p) which prevents transitivity, and gives to the machine a 
feeling of immediacy. 


> 
> If a program can be said to "know" something then can we also say it is 
> conscious of that thing?

1) That’s *not* the case for []p & p, unless you accept a notion of unconscious 
knowledge, like knowing that Perseverance and Ingenuity are on Mars, but not 
being currently thinking about it, so that you are not right now consciously 
aware of the fact---well you are, but just because I have just reminded it :)

2) But that *is* the case for []p & <>t & p. If the machine knows something in 
that sense, then the machine can be said to be conscious of p. 
Then to be “simply” conscious, becomes []t & <>t (& t). 

Note that “p” always refers to a partially computable arithmetical (or 
combinatorical) proposition. That’s the way of translating “Digital Mechanism” 
in the language of the machine.

To sum up, to get a conscious machine, you need a computer (aka universal 
number/machine) with some notion of belief, and knowledge/consciousness rise 
from the actuation of truth, that the machine cannot define (by the theorem of 
Tarski and some variant by Montague, Thomason, and myself...). 

That theory can be said a posteriori well tested because it implied the quantum 
reality, at least the one described by the Schroedinger equation or Heisenberg 
matrix (or even better Feynman Integral),  WITHOUT any collapse postulate.

Bruno



> 
> 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%2BBCJUgmPiCz5v4p91LAs0jN_2dCBocvnh4OO8sE7c-0JG%3DuwQ%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/217C90D2-0AB9-4AD3-BBC7-A876EAA28069%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 20:22, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 11:47:04 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:17:23 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:41, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>> 
>> Fact is there's no need to bring in pretentious big brains from Australia to 
>> show that Born's rule makes no sense in the context of the MWI. For 
>> simplicity, consider a spin experiment where the observer measures spin UP 
>> in THIS world, and another world (or branch) is created where spin DN is 
>> measured. If we do the experiment again, the MWI is AMBIGUOUS on which world 
>> (or branch) the spin is now measured.
> 
> Why? 
> Not at all. This is already well explained in Everett’s original long paper. 
> In the branch where the observer has measured spin up, he knows that if he 
> redo quickly the measurement, he will find the same result. The measurement 
> only entangle the spin state with his memory. 
> 
> It would be refreshing if you knew what this topic is about. Entanglement has 
> nothing to do with this. We're creating ENSEMBLES of measurements in THIS 
> world; repeatable trials of say spin along some axis.  For each TRIAL, a new 
> world or branch is created if you adopt the MWI. ONE measurement in each of 
> these NEW worlds or branches. No ensemble; hence no probabilities! It's 
> really simple, so please don't bring in your pet theory to obfuscate the 
> scenario. AG
> 
> Or you can look at it this way; when repeated trials of the same measurement 
> are done in this world,

I guess you mean repeated measurement of spin made of spin superposition




> different worlds come into existence for EACH trial if you accept the MWI.


I don’t really believe in “world”, and I prefer to avoid ontological 
commitment. I do not accept the MWI, what happens is that I do not make sense 
of the collapse postulate. 



> Sometimes Alice leaves for a pee, and Bob continues to create the ensemble. 
> No ensembles are created in those other worlds. Hence, no probabilities, and 
> Born's rule doesn't apply. AG 


Of course it does. Ir creates ensemble of Alices and Bobs, well correlated in 
their respective histories. Your statement should be much more elaborate. It is 
too vague here.

Bruno





> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On one of the two worlds just created, or are another pair of worlds 
>> created, one of which measures spin UP and another spin DN?  Of course this 
>> leaves out all the BS on how these worlds are created, along with the 
>> spontaneous creation of all the observers and experimental set-ups to do the 
>> measuring. Better continue to mentally jerkoff in the assumption, for the 
>> sake of argument, that there's some serious interpretation of QM going on 
>> here. AG
> 
> It is simpler to reason in term of histories. That is mandatory with 
> mechanism, but the work of Graham, Hartle, Griffith, Omnes (and even Feynman 
> paths) suggest this is already true in physics. 
> 
> The notion of “world” is a tricky notion. 
> 
>> 
>> Now as for the problem presented by the title of this thread, if the NO-GO 
>> theorems correctly affirm that FTL signaling is impossible, what EXACTLY is 
>> the link between this conclusion and the claim the QM is IRREDUCIBLY RANDOM? 
>> And what does IRREDUCIBLY RANDOM mean? In trying to answer this question, 
>> let me impose one RULE; no jerking off permitted! AG
> 
> 
> Irreducibly random means that we cannot predict the particular result that we 
> will obtained.
> 
> So, based on HUP, we can't do that for a conjugate pair, like position and 
> momentum. Based solely on HUP are pairs of conjugate measurements irreducibly 
> random? If you want a snotty reply, ask the Guru from Australia.  AG
> 
> Imagine that the randomness was reducible. Imagine that Bob and Alice have a 
> perfectly correlated dice, when at a light year of distance between each 
> other. When Alice measure 5, Bob measure 5, etc. (as seen by some third 
> observer to gate a local simultaneity notion). Their result have to be 
> irreducibly random, because if their well able to predict their outcome, 
> without invoking a super-determinacy, if they could predict the result, they 
> would be able to use their correlation (entanglement) tp transmit a message 
> FTL. 
> Note that in 1927 Einstein saw already that the collapse of the wave packet 
> needs to be FTL, and Bohr, in his paper answering the EPR paper, admit that 
> the collapse cannot be a physical process, but then get very fuzzy when 
> attempting to describe what happen.
> I leave you the details, as I have to go. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 19:47, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:17:23 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:41, Alan Grayson > > wrote:
>> 
>> Fact is there's no need to bring in pretentious big brains from Australia to 
>> show that Born's rule makes no sense in the context of the MWI. For 
>> simplicity, consider a spin experiment where the observer measures spin UP 
>> in THIS world, and another world (or branch) is created where spin DN is 
>> measured. If we do the experiment again, the MWI is AMBIGUOUS on which world 
>> (or branch) the spin is now measured.
> 
> Why? 
> Not at all. This is already well explained in Everett’s original long paper. 
> In the branch where the observer has measured spin up, he knows that if he 
> redo quickly the measurement, he will find the same result. The measurement 
> only entangle the spin state with his memory. 
> 
> It would be refreshing if you knew what this topic is about. Entanglement has 
> nothing to do with this. We're creating ENSEMBLES of measurements in THIS 
> world; repeatable trials of say spin along some axis.  For each TRIAL, a new 
> world or branch is created if you adopt the MWI. ONE measurement in each of 
> these NEW worlds or branches. No ensemble; hence no probabilities! It's 
> really simple, so please don't bring in your pet theory to obfuscate the 
> scenario. AG

In the MWI, measurement is entanglement. You don’t address my answer. Today we 
can isolate one atome, or even one electron, and this does not change the 
statistics. The “MWI” should not be interpreted in a two much naïve way, as the 
notion of world is never defined. A particle with a precise position is the 
same as infinitely many world with the particle having each possible momentum 
in each world. Maybe “relative state” theory is a better, more neutral 
ontologically, expression for this. Everett uses what you call “my pet theory”. 
He just does not push its logic to its limit, where we can understand that the 
wave itself or the Heisenberg matrices arise from all computations, not just 
the quantum one, and that is nice as it explains where the quantum comes from.




> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On one of the two worlds just created, or are another pair of worlds 
>> created, one of which measures spin UP and another spin DN?  Of course this 
>> leaves out all the BS on how these worlds are created, along with the 
>> spontaneous creation of all the observers and experimental set-ups to do the 
>> measuring. Better continue to mentally jerkoff in the assumption, for the 
>> sake of argument, that there's some serious interpretation of QM going on 
>> here. AG
> 
> It is simpler to reason in term of histories. That is mandatory with 
> mechanism, but the work of Graham, Hartle, Griffith, Omnes (and even Feynman 
> paths) suggest this is already true in physics. 
> 
> The notion of “world” is a tricky notion. 
> 
>> 
>> Now as for the problem presented by the title of this thread, if the NO-GO 
>> theorems correctly affirm that FTL signaling is impossible, what EXACTLY is 
>> the link between this conclusion and the claim the QM is IRREDUCIBLY RANDOM? 
>> And what does IRREDUCIBLY RANDOM mean? In trying to answer this question, 
>> let me impose one RULE; no jerking off permitted! AG
> 
> 
> Irreducibly random means that we cannot predict the particular result that we 
> will obtained.
> 
> So, based on HUP,

What is HUP?




> we can't do that for a conjugate pair, like position and momentum. Based 
> solely on HUP are pairs of conjugate measurements irreducibly random?

Yes. It has to be random, or you could use entanglement to sent information in 
a faster than light manner.

Bruno




> If you want a snotty reply, ask the Guru from Australia.  AG
> 
> Imagine that the randomness was reducible. Imagine that Bob and Alice have a 
> perfectly correlated dice, when at a light year of distance between each 
> other. When Alice measure 5, Bob measure 5, etc. (as seen by some third 
> observer to gate a local simultaneity notion). Their result have to be 
> irreducibly random, because if their well able to predict their outcome, 
> without invoking a super-determinacy, if they could predict the result, they 
> would be able to use their correlation (entanglement) tp transmit a message 
> FTL. 
> Note that in 1927 Einstein saw already that the collapse of the wave packet 
> needs to be FTL, and Bohr, in his paper answering the EPR paper, admit that 
> the collapse cannot be a physical process, but then get very fuzzy when 
> attempting to describe what happen.
> I leave you the details, as I have to go. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 19 Apr 2021, at 19:51, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Bruno Marchal]
> “Good question. I can answer some of them in the frame of the 
> computationalist hypothesis. Everything physical emerges from arithmetic as 
> seen from inside in some mode of self-reference. What many people miss is 
> that the notions of computer and computation are an arithmetical notion.
>   Another “cultural” problem, since Aristotle, is the confusion between 
> the (many) evidences that there is a physical reality, and the (absent) 
> evidences that this physical reality is fundamental or primitive (= has to be 
> assumed, or = cannot be derived from less).” Bruno
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
>   Out of arithmetic only arithmetic can arise. Even that is questionable, 
> because all arithmetic about any physicality is already predetermined—nothing 
> new ARISES.

After Gödel 1931, we know that this is plausibly false, and provably false if 
we assume Mechanism. The arithmetical reality is out of time, so that in some 
sense nothing new arise from the 0th person perspective, or God’s perspective, 
… But for the internal perspective of any universal numbers *in* arithmetic, 
not only something new arise, but there are an infinity of surprises. No 
machine can get an effective theory about all the arithmetical truth, nor even 
define it, despite the clear intuition that we can have.
Before Gödel, we thought we could build the mathematical edifice on the 
“simple” arithmetical reality.
After Gödel, we know that we CANNOT use the mathematical edifice to get some 
foundation of even the simple arithmetical reality, but by using stringer and 
stronger theories, we can see a larger spectrum of the arithmetical reality. 



> No matter what people miss in notions of computer and computation as 
> arithmetical notions. Everything physical is DEAD, unless it is ENDOWED with 
> life.


This looks like vitalism to me, frankly.
Also, you seem to assume a physical reality out there. That requires to abandon 
Mechanism (and thus Darwin, etc.). I find this very speculative. There are no 
evidences for primary matter or physicalism.





> Dead physicality is governed by binding energies including chemical energies 
> ruled by chemical laws of bonding encoded as duet and octet configurations of 
> particles of opposite spins. 

I can’t use this, as I do not assume anything primarily physical.




> Life cannot arise from DEAD physicality. 


I agree. In fact life cannot arise from anything physical, as the physical has 
to emerge from the machine’dreams/computations (and thus arguably life).




> Bohr was fundamentally wrong in introducing undefined subjectivity (whatever 
> that means) of living matter into quantum physics.


I agree.



> Subjectivity is supposed to collapse a mathematical/statistical function, 
> which in turn causes subjectivity. Nothing could be more circular than that. 
> Moreover, if subjectivity affects a wavefunction either the former is also a 
> mathematical function or the latter has also subjectivity. Otherwise it is a 
> category error. A probability is a theoretical NUMBER which has no CREATIVE 
> powers and no aseity!! .

OK (I guess for different reason than you).



> Amplitudes do not change that status. It has now become one of the gods of 
> Western Acade-Media Paganism (WAMP).  
>There are only two cultures possible for the entire human race: 1 .  
> Pagan culture of un-awakened/kundalini/reptilian consciousness; 2 . Non-pagan 
> culture of awakened/quickened/regenerated consciousness.


Hmm...




> All the rest are sub-cultures of these two.


I would say that there are two sort of people. The con-artist who acts like 
they have found it, and the researcher who propose theories, without ever 
claiming them true, but on the contrary they propose verification test, and are 
happy when when disproved, as they learn something. 





> Awakening in turn is historically of two types:  1 . Intrinsic-awakening, 
> through self-discipline, education and training of the mind. 2 . Extrinsic 
> awakening through extrinsic agents, as diverse as Eastern mystical powers 
> from a multiplicity of sources (such as TM, Yoga, mantras,  occultism, 
> spirit-possession et.) and the Western Scriptural power of a Singularity of 
> Source [Adonai.(plural) YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural, with Patriarchal, 
> Prophetic and Apostolic imprimatur). 
>Augustinian Awakening is that of the “inner man” 
> (journals.euser.org/files/articles/ejls_sep_dec_15/Halil.pdf 
> <http://journals.euser.org/files/articles/ejls_sep_dec_15/Halil.pdf>; 
> https://www.academia.edu/37733061/Saint_Augustines_Invention_of_the_Inner_Man_A_Short_Journey_to_The_History_of_the_Internality_of_the_West
>  
> <https://www.academia.edu/37733061/Saint_Augustines_Invention_of_the

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 16 Apr 2021, at 11:04, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:58:59 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2021, at 16:33, Alan Grayson > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:40:08 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be 
>>>> claimed that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? 
>>>> Only the latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead 
>>>> simultaneously. AG
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
>>> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
>>> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
>>> 
>>> Without any mathematical representation of the individual states of Dead 
>>> and Alive, how can it be claimed that Dead and Alive each satisfy the SWE?
>> 
>> By NOT adding the collapse postulate. Then even a state as “macroscopic” as 
>> being a dead or alive cat will inherit the superposition ilmplied by 
>> Schroedinger’s setting. That follows from the double linearly of both the 
>> wave evolution and of the tensor products. The fact that a correct 
>> description would use a huge number of dimension and a lot of tensor 
>> products cannot be used to make the superposition going away.
>>> And how will the superposition of states Dead + Alive give different 
>>> predictions than a mixed state of Dead and Alive? AG 
>> 
>> Because all pure superposition state gives different predictions than their 
>> corresponding mixed state.
>> 
>> Is this your idea of a proof, or even a plausibility argument? AG
> 
> It is elementary quantum mechanics. If you measure “1/sqrt(2)(spin-up + 
> spin-down)” is the base {spin-up, spin-down}, you get different results than 
> measuring a half-half mixture of spin-up and spin-dow. This is usually 
> illustrate with polarisers in the textbook. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> Can you give an example why the result will be different for superposition, 
> say with 70%/30% probability amplitudes,

Define the following pure state:

phi = sqrt(7/10) up + sqrt(3/10) down  

Prepare 100% of your particles in that pure state. Each individual particle is 
in that state, and so as a probability 1 to be found in that state, and 0 for 
the orthogonal state.

> versus a mixed state with same amplitudes.

Prepare 70% of your particle in the state up, and 30% in the state down, and 
mix them.



> It may be simple to show, but I admit to not being able to see any difference 
> between the cases. AG 

Consider the measuring apparatus MA’ corresponding to the base:

up’ = sqrt(7/10) up + sqrt(3/10) down, 

down’ = sqrt(7/10) up - sqrt(3/10) down

On the pure state defined above, measuring MA’, the probability to get a 
particle in the state up' is 1, and thus the probability to get down’ = 0, as 
said above.

Measuring MA’ on the particles on the mixed state has to be different.
The probability to get up’ will be the square of the scalar product (up, up’) 
for 70% of the particle, and will be given by the square of the scalar product 
(down, up’) for the remaining 30% of your particles. The result for the 
probability of getting down’ cannot be null in this case. 
(I have to go, I leave you the details; you need to make the relevant change of 
basis, but you don’t need to compute this to understand that for each of the 
mixed particles, you will have a non null probability for down’, yet that is 
null for the pure state).


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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63e93e6e-e1ff-4369-b830-de6f051d4995n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63e93e6e-e1ff-4369-b830-de6f051d4995n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/598D8304-8406-4D29-B14E-41636BE5BA44%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 17:15, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>]
> “But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole 
> point of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism)”.
> [Philip Benjamin]
>   That is indeed physics proper. One has to appreciate your methodical 
> and systematic approach to this problem. It is commendable that, unlike the 
> order of the day,  you do not rely on the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad 
> Verecundiam  respect for “authority” of customs, institutions and I.Q.s, to 
> strengthen your argument and provide an illusion of proof. However, 
> probabilities are not necessarily possibilities. Amplitude of PROBABILITIES 
> is no exception.  A theory of reality is not REALITY itself.

Indeed. That is even provable for the arithmetical reality, which is beyond all 
effective theories.


> Numbers form 0 to infinity are syncategorematic nouns.


Hmm… You might confuse the numbers, and the expression naming the numbers in 
some theory, like the numeral 0, s0, ss0, ...




> Numbers of what? 2 + 2 = 4 is not a categorematic expression of REALITY 
> unless the “of what” is specified.


Assuming that there is anything more, which I doubt.

It helps, when doing metaphysics with the scientific method to make clear what 
we assume and what we derive from it. When we assume mechanism, and if one is 
aware of the execution of all computers in arithmetic, the burden of the proofs 
that we should assume more than numbers (or combinators…) is in the hand of the 
believers in that something more.



> 2 electrons + 2 electrons = 4 electrons  is a categorematic statement. The 
> probability of a massive particle being (or even becoming) a massless wave is 
> zero, nada, zilch.  If my memory is correct even in a nuclear reaction 
> (explosion, included),  the total charge before and after a nuclear reaction 
> is conserved; so also the total NUMBER of nucleons before and after a 
> reaction are also the same. It is the binding energies that are released.
> As far as electrons in these PROBABILITES you cite are concerned, Bohr 
> has already assigned them to “stationary orbits” (predetermined energy 
> levels). Then where do the new “stationary orbits” of NEW REALITIES 
> speculated in various “mathematical/statistical” theories originate? What 
> kind of “chemistries” are available for these NEW REALITIES, such as Many 
> Worlds etc. ? What is the nature of a Many World chemistry?


Good question. I can answer some of them in the frame of the computationalist 
hypothesis. Everything physical emerges from arithmetic as seen from inside in 
some mode of self-reference. 

What many people miss is that the notions of computer and computation are an 
arithmetical notion. 

Another “cultural” problem, since Aristotle, is the confusion between the 
(many) evidences that there is a physical reality, and the (absent) evidences 
that this physical reality is fundamental or primitive (= has to be assumed, or 
= cannot be derived from less).

Bruno




> Philip Benjamin  
>  
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:47 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
>  
> On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin  <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
> Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy 
> particles is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely 
> scientific theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with 
> absurdities and speculations. Puzzle in, puzzle out!! There are  and never 
> can be wavicles, only particles that behave AS IF in wave forms. An AS IF 
> Logic is all that is needed, not Both & Fallacy. The Schrodinger Cat was 
> introduced only to show the absurdity of taking probability statistics 
> seriously. Probabilities are not all possibilities.
>  
> But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole point 
> of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism).
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Some of these pioneers of QM were occultists, alcoholics and some other 
> serious addictions. That is how the sorcerer-psychiatrist Carl Jung joined 
> them. Worldviews determine scientific interpretations. Interpretations are 
> not theories.  CopenPagan Interpretation (a  malaprop) is a pagan world-view, 
> not scientific theory. That is how Albert Einstein strongly disagreed with 
> Niels Bohr.   
>

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 16:33, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:40:08 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson > wrote:
>>> 
>>> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
>>> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
>>> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead 
>>> simultaneously. AG
>> 
>> 
>> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
>> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
>> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
>> 
>> Without any mathematical representation of the individual states of Dead and 
>> Alive, how can it be claimed that Dead and Alive each satisfy the SWE?
> 
> By NOT adding the collapse postulate. Then even a state as “macroscopic” as 
> being a dead or alive cat will inherit the superposition ilmplied by 
> Schroedinger’s setting. That follows from the double linearly of both the 
> wave evolution and of the tensor products. The fact that a correct 
> description would use a huge number of dimension and a lot of tensor products 
> cannot be used to make the superposition going away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> And how will the superposition of states Dead + Alive give different 
>> predictions than a mixed state of Dead and Alive? AG 
> 
> Because all pure superposition state gives different predictions than their 
> corresponding mixed state.
> 
> Is this your idea of a proof, or even a plausibility argument? AG


It is elementary quantum mechanics. If you measure “1/sqrt(2)(spin-up + 
spin-down)” is the base {spin-up, spin-down}, you get different results than 
measuring a half-half mixture of spin-up and spin-dow. This is usually 
illustrate with polarisers in the textbook. 

Bruno



>  
> Of course, it is technologically hopeless to maintain a real cat is a real 
> superposition, but this is only due to our technical impossibility to isolate 
> the cat from us. The cat state will leak to us very quickly, and we will lose 
> the mean to get the sign of interferences. Yet, without assuming some 
> collapse, it is there forever…
> 
> That is a confirmation of mechanism, where an infinity of distinguishable 
> computations access our (relative) states, and makes us possibly diverging 
> into an infinity of alternate histories/computations. 
> 
> The burden of the proof belongs to those who claim that there is an 
> ontological physical reality, but then you got the “mind-body” problem, the 
> “why there is something” problem, and also, you need to speculate of a non 
> mechanist theory in psychology and biology (making Darwin loosing all its 
> explanative power).
> 
> There are tuns of evidences for Mechanism, and none for Materialism, as we 
> know since the Dream Argument, given that “evidences” are dream-able.
> 
> (Many people confuse the evidences for the physical laws, which are number 
> relations, with evidences for an ontological physical universes, but those 
> are different. The ontological question is a metaphysical question, not a 
> physical question. It is to used in any paper of physics, even if implicit in 
> the mind of some cosmologists … perhaps.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will 
>> be lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state 
>> of seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this 
>> case, the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy 
>> occurring in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all 
>> relative universal number state in arithmetic.
>> 
>> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=foo

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 20:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to communicate 
>>> what it is like to be a bat because of the inability to act as a bat.  I'm 
>>> not sure your brain could learn to interpret visual input if it were not 
>>> able to correlate it with touch and movement.
>> 
>> Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist substation 
>> level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat neuronal system; some would 
>> say that we have to simulate also the glial cells, some would ask for the 
>> simulation of the microtubules, etc.
>> 
>> Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.
> 
> I would agree if you mean "know with certainty”. 

You are right. I should have made clear, like I just did actually, that the 
notion of “knowing” was “knowing for sure”.

It is more []p & <>t & p than []p & p, although even " []p & <>t & p” might not 
yet capture completely the “for dure” components.


> But clearly we have pretty good ideas about how other people feel simply by 
> projecting our own feelings while imagining their situation.

OK.

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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f4dffa0-5b96-9bad-18f5-480205eabbcf%40verizon.net
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f4dffa0-5b96-9bad-18f5-480205eabbcf%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/41F133F0-0AA6-4508-B2FB-BBA22DC515B5%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 22:11, spudboy100 via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Boys, boys! To better answer your questions we'd need to consult 
> neuroscientists


In this case, Louis Jouvet has given evidences that we can wake up with the 
memory of two separate independent consciousness stream. I have done this about 
4 times. Louis Jouvet explains this by the fact that the brain can be active 
(like in dreams) but with the corpus callosum still sleepy/inhibited. That 
helps to conceive that some arithmetical continuation can remember many streams.

The problem is that we don’t know who we are.



> who are involved with computing telemetry. So, who'd we consult with? 
> Probably the peeps that are working on Elon Musk's Neural Net thing. We may 
> never know how it feels to be one particular bat, out of billions, but we'd 
> have a sense of what Mr. Bat is doing, and how it feels to have the wind 
> beneath your wings, as that awful, old, song, went. If you wired me up you'd 
> be disgusted because, "What? He's got to go pee, again!”

If we remember an experience, it will remain hard to interpret it as being 
correct. We might be able to know what is like to be a bat, but we can never be 
sure that it is “correct”. We can know, but we cannot know-for-sure.

Bruno



> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 3:25 pm
> Subject: Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:49 PM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
>  > How do you know there can't be quale of what it's like to be John just as 
> we {?} have a quale of a pixel of red in our {?} visual field
> 
> What's with this "we" business? I have a quale for what red is like in my 
> visual field but I have no idea what a red quale is like in your visual field.
> 
> > This is only an assumption of yours.
> 
> Speaking of assumptions, not only am I ignorant of what red is like for you I 
> don't even know if you have the ability to experience red quails or any 
> quails at all; I can assume you do but I don't know it for a fact nor will I 
> ever know it.
> 
> 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/CAJPayv29hsydUJbM3899q_m3YEA4F9aair%2BLhcwz4Do94ctv6g%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/1566897580.1287422.1618258304988%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/D3A4B751-CA4A-4960-B40A-76C32813B598%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 18:35, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:35 AM John Clark  > wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch  > wrote:
> 
> > while I can't know what it's like to be a bat anymore than a bat can know 
> > what it's like to be me, we can't rule out the existence of super-states of 
> > consciousness, perhaps possessed by Jupiter brains, which would be able to 
> > simultaneously hold in mind and compare different brain states.
> 
> We are enormously more intelligent than an ant but we don't know what it's 
> like to be an ant, and for the same reason I don't see how a Jupiter Brain 
> could know what it's like to be one of us; and becoming more intelligent 
> won't help because that would just make it even more different from us. 
> 
> We are enormously more intelligent than an ant but our working memories can 
> hold on to how many facts at once? 5? 10?
> 
> An ant brain has hundreds of thousands of neurons and tens of millions of 
> connections.
> 
> So despite our intelligence, our minds are no where near capable of 
> understanding and comprehending all the structural interrelationships present 
> in an ant brain.
> 
> A super intelligence, on the other hand, could have the requisite memory and 
> processing to hold in it's mind a comprehension of another, much simpler 
> mind, as well as the plausible flexibility to reconfigure parts of it's own 
> mind to generate direct experiences and extract memories comprehensible to 
> the greater mind at large.


I agree that humans are more competent than ants, but I am not sure about its 
emotional-intelligence. 

But I agree with your conclusion. We can have do two dreams at once, and 
realise it after awakening, and we can’t exclude we might have arithmetical 
continuation capable of handling a finite or even an infinite number of streams.

The arithmetical reality is, among other things, an infinite processing 
machinery, after all. It is an open problem. 

Bruno



> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/CAJPayv10cuNKFn-mR9U9Fpvq%2BsvFAchQDrdav1c%3DauQq-wBqHQ%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%2BBCJUjW3HnfZSysJ6jtcNKOLq19%2BKUYZqB_SGmXNcd0ACL9Hg%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/736E5829-0351-4DE4-8F15-B06ABFC18ACD%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Philip Benjamin]
> Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy 
> particles is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely 
> scientific theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with 
> absurdities and speculations. Puzzle in, puzzle out!! There are  and never 
> can be wavicles, only particles that behave AS IF in wave forms. An AS IF 
> Logic is all that is needed, not Both & Fallacy. The Schrodinger Cat was 
> introduced only to show the absurdity of taking probability statistics 
> seriously. Probabilities are not all possibilities.

But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole point of 
quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism).




> Some of these pioneers of QM were occultists, alcoholics and some other 
> serious addictions. That is how the sorcerer-psychiatrist Carl Jung joined 
> them. Worldviews determine scientific interpretations. Interpretations are 
> not theories.  CopenPagan Interpretation (a  malaprop) is a pagan world-view, 
> not scientific theory. That is how Albert Einstein strongly disagreed with 
> Niels Bohr.   


Which suggest that Einstein would have preferred Everett to Bohr. It is sad 
that Einstein died in 1955. Everett published the “many-worlds” formulation of 
QM (QM without collapse) in 1957. Most cosmologists prefer Everett, as it is 
hard to imagine some being observing the whole universe to collapse it in some 
state. Note that Belifante does exactly that: he claims that the use of QM in 
coslmology requires an observer for the whole universe, and likes to call it 
God, admitting that such a god is only a wave collapse, but Everett, like 
Mechanism, illustrates that this move is not necessary. We need only 2+2=4 & Co.

Bruno


>   
> Philip Benjamin
> Saturday, April 10, 2021 6:22 AM  everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>  Subject: Re: Mixed State vs 
> Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
>  
>  
> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>  
> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
> AG
>  
>  
> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
>  
> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
> lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
> seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, 
> the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring 
> in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
> universal number state in arithmetic.
>  
> 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/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%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/DA6C2075-1CAE-46E7-87D7-33C2E3DD308D%40ulb.ac.be
>  
> .
> 
> -- 
> You received this 

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson > > wrote:
>> 
>> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
>> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
>> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
>> AG
> 
> 
> Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, 
> and twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any 
> possible corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).
> 
> Without any mathematical representation of the individual states of Dead and 
> Alive, how can it be claimed that Dead and Alive each satisfy the SWE?

By NOT adding the collapse postulate. Then even a state as “macroscopic” as 
being a dead or alive cat will inherit the superposition ilmplied by 
Schroedinger’s setting. That follows from the double linearly of both the wave 
evolution and of the tensor products. The fact that a correct description would 
use a huge number of dimension and a lot of tensor products cannot be used to 
make the superposition going away.





> And how will the superposition of states Dead + Alive give different 
> predictions than a mixed state of Dead and Alive? AG 

Because all pure superposition state gives different predictions than their 
corresponding mixed state. Of course, it is technologically hopeless to 
maintain a real cat is a real superposition, but this is only due to our 
technical impossibility to isolate the cat from us. The cat state will leak to 
us very quickly, and we will lose the mean to get the sign of interferences. 
Yet, without assuming some collapse, it is there forever…

That is a confirmation of mechanism, where an infinity of distinguishable 
computations access our (relative) states, and makes us possibly diverging into 
an infinity of alternate histories/computations. 

The burden of the proof belongs to those who claim that there is an ontological 
physical reality, but then you got the “mind-body” problem, the “why there is 
something” problem, and also, you need to speculate of a non mechanist theory 
in psychology and biology (making Darwin loosing all its explanative power).

There are tuns of evidences for Mechanism, and none for Materialism, as we know 
since the Dream Argument, given that “evidences” are dream-able.

(Many people confuse the evidences for the physical laws, which are number 
relations, with evidences for an ontological physical universes, but those are 
different. The ontological question is a metaphysical question, not a physical 
question. It is to used in any paper of physics, even if implicit in the mind 
of some cosmologists … perhaps.

Bruno





> 
> That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
> lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
> seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, 
> the indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring 
> in, amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
> universal number state in arithmetic.
> 
> 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-li...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9ae7591-ebb1-482b-a2d4-a07a73ca588dn%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a9ae7591-ebb1-482b-a2d4-a07a73ca588dn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>.

-- 
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/3B4FA409-E166-4C93-9743-5BF5CCD95149%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to communicate what 
> it is like to be a bat because of the inability to act as a bat.  I'm not 
> sure your brain could learn to interpret visual input if it were not able to 
> correlate it with touch and movement.

Added to this is the problem that we cannot know the mechanist substation 
level. Some would be OK to simulate only the bat neuronal system; some would 
say that we have to simulate also the glial cells, some would ask for the 
simulation of the microtubules, etc.

Even one bat cannot know how it feels to be a different bat.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> On 4/11/2021 11:06 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
>> Alternatively, let's do a thought experiment here, a pretend. Pretend that 
>> we are neuroscientists, and that we have lots  of research cash to spend? We 
>> have computer engineers at our disposal to design devices for us. So, we 
>> attach some sort of neural probes of highly advanced design, to bats, and a 
>> receiver of the signal to humans. The bats send and the humans receive, with 
>> the help of computer technology, transceivers, and all the rest. Thus, a 
>> human learns at least somewhat, what it's like to be bat. Sending the info 
>> from Human to a Bat would likely constitute torture, so let's not do that!
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jason Resch  
>> To: Everything List  
>> 
>> Sent: Sat, Apr 10, 2021 11:27 am
>> Subject: Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 6:28 AM John Clark > > wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 6:31 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> > They {bats} could in some sense even feel the surfaces with such sonar: is 
>> > the surface smooth or rough, hard or soft, etc. Sound reflects differently 
>> > from different types of surfaces. 
>> 
>> Yes.
>> 
>> > Would they feel these surface differences as colors, 
>> 
>> What you mean is, would they sense these surface differences as I SEE colors?
>> 
>> > or would it feel more like tactile sensations? 
>> 
>> What you mean is, would they sense these surface differences as I FEEL 
>> surfaces? The answer to both questions is a resounding NO. A particular bat 
>> senses surfaces not as you do but as a particular bat does. The only way 
>> Jason Resch Could ever know what it's like to be a particular bat would be 
>> for Jason Resch to turn into that bat, and even then he wouldn't know 
>> because then he wouldn't be Jason Resch anymore, he'd be a bat. And even a 
>> bat doesn't know what it's like to be another bat.
>> 
>> 
>> I agree generally with the idea that bat sonar sense could be completely 
>> alien to both our sight and our touch.
>> 
>> And while I can't know what it's like to be a bat anymore than a bat can 
>> know what it's like to be me, we can't rule out the existence of 
>> super-states of consciousness, perhaps possessed by Jupiter brains, which 
>> would be able to simultaneously hold in mind and compare different brain 
>> states, just as our vision can simultaneously look upon two faces and 
>> compare them.
>> 
>> If you could be this supermind then you might be able to know what it's like 
>> to be a bat and how that's different from being John.
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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/CAJPayv0Zr7Cs6FYP-daK38W2rp7f5z6AeJFYKvUAhzJ%3D2FXtjw%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%2BBCJUjdLaiVNpvHyW-94q4SOMzuJ1xaA8Sq5G4yWvunBbLY%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to 

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> 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





> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tue, Apr 6, 2021 11:05 am
> Subject: The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg)
> 
> 
>> On 2 Apr 2021, at 16:15, Philip Benjamin > <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> [Philip Benjamin]
>>  First of all, just a cue: most if not all postings here are responses 
>> to the postings of somebody else. I identify certain things, especially 
>> occultist mysticism, as WAMP [Western Acade-Media Pagan(ism)] and not 
>> science, which does not refer to any particular person(s), rather a 
>> self-description or a general observation .  Paganism is genuinely germane 
>> here, since civilized and erudite pagan Augustine’s “instant transformation” 
>> pulled the West out from Greco-Roman PAGANISM, philosophies, polytheistic 
>> superstitions and “unknown gods” into a path of knowable universe and 
>> investigative explorations that finally led to the development of science 
>> and technologies which the rest of the pagan world of civilizations and 
>> mystic scholarships could not initiate.
> 
> 
> I use the term “pagan” for “non confessional theology”, and in particular the 
> line:
> 
> Parmenides, Pythagorus, Plato, Moderatus of Gades, Plotinus, Proclus, … 
> Damascius … the Universal Turing machine (the indexical digital mechanist one 
> in particular).
> 
> I take it as a meliorative. I would say that science somehow ended when 
> theology was taken from science to “religious authoritarian institution”, who 
> use wishful demagogic thinking, authoritative arguments and fairy tales, in 
> place of trying to solve problems.
> 
> The Renaissance, unlike 13th century Islam, was only half enlightenment, as 
> the main and most fundamental science metaphysics/theology/philosophy has 
> been maintained in charlatanism, literature, politics… 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The WAMP is a stealing beneficiary of that Augustinian Trust, including the 
>> Five Day workweek, Sabbaticals, etc. which are uniquely Scriptural and 
>> unheard of in other cultures.  That is not  “white trash” (N/A to Philip 
>> Benjamin anyway) as some here label, but a hard historical fact.  
> 
> We might both appreciate St-Augustin, but maybe for the exact opposite 
> reason… (I don’t know).
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> As regards Bruno Marchal’s musings below, some general points need be 
>> enumerated.
>> 1 .  Ones’ worldview is not necessarily science,
> 
> 
> It is science if the theory is not claimed as true, and is presented in a 
> sufficiently precise way that it is testable/refutable.
> 
> 
> 
>> even if it be based on scientific observations. Bohr’s Taoism or Jungian 
>> sorceries are not
>>   necessarily sciences.
> 
> 
> OK. (That can be debated as some of their statements are theorem in the 
> physics derived from the theology (the Solovay G* logic) of the 
> arithmetically sound machines. You might to study some of my papers(*).
> 
> 
> 
>> They are worldviews based on the notions of particle-wave dualism and the 
>> BOTH & logical fallacy. Wave-
>>   likeness is not waviness. Particles behave like waves which can be 
>> described mathematically by via AS IF logic. 
> 
> 
> I do not assume a physical ontological reality, nor do I assume any theory. 
> 
> I do not doubt about the existence of a physical reality, but I do not take 
> it as the fundamental theory a priori.
> My work shows how to test such ontological existence, and thanks to “Quantum 

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed 
> that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the 
> latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. 
> AG


Because the Wave equation in this setting leads to a pure state dead+alive, and 
twe know that such pure state leads to different prediction than any possible 
corresponding mixed states. (Assuming the SWE).

That’s true even if the box is open, but in that case, the pure state will be 
lifted to the observer of the cat, who will become itself in a pure state of 
seeing the cat dead and the cat alive, in parallel histories. In this case, the 
indeterminacy is explained entirely by the same indeterminacy occurring in, 
amoeba self-division, or in the infinite multiplication of all relative 
universal number state in arithmetic.

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/750f52a9-1316-47db-9b00-cca531c2b527n%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/DA6C2075-1CAE-46E7-87D7-33C2E3DD308D%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Qualia and communicability

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 02:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/8/2021 12:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> Hi Telmo,
>> 
>> Thank you for these links, they are very helpful in articulating the 
>> problem. I think you are right about there being some connection between 
>> communication of qualia and the symbol grounding problem.
>> 
>> I used to think there were two kinds of knowledge:
>> Third-person sharable knowledge: information that can be shared and 
>> communicated through books, like the population of Paris, or the height of 
>> Mount Everest
>> First-person knowledge: information that must be felt or experienced first 
>> hand, emotions, feelings, the pain of a bee sting, the smell of a rose
>> But now I am wondering if the idea of third-person sharable knowledge is an 
>> illusion. The string encoding the height of Mount Everest is meaningless if 
>> you have no framework for understanding physical spaces, units of length, 
>> spatial extents, and the symbology of numbers. All of that information has 
>> to be unpacked, and eventually processed into some thought that relates to a 
>> basis of conscious experience and understanding of heights and sizes. Even 
>> size is a meaningless term when attempting to compare relative sizes between 
>> two universes, so in that sense it must be tied somehow back to the subject.
>> 
>> There also seem to be counter-examples to a clear divide between first- and 
>> third-person knowledge. For example, is the redness of red really 
>> incommunicable between two synesthesiacs who both see the number 5 as red? 
>> If everyone in the world had such synesthesia, would we still think book 
>> knowledge could not communicate the redness of red? In this case, what makes 
>> redness communicable is the shared processing between the brains of the 
>> synesthesiacs, their brains process the symbol in the same way.
> 
> I think you exaggerate the problem.  Consider how bats "see" by sonar.  I 
> think this is quite communicable to humans by analogies.

That will communicate the third person aspect, but not the qualia itself. 


>   And submarines have sonar which produces images on screens.  Is redness 
> communicable?  My father who was red/green color blind had to guess at the 
> color of traffic lights or just watch other cars when he first started to 
> drive around 1928. But he understood the concept of color because he could 
> tell blue from red/green.  And later, traffic engineers adjust the spectrum 
> of traffic lights so that he could tell the difference (they also started to 
> put the red at the top).  

Yes, in practice there is not much problem, which explains the lack of interest 
in the mind-body problem, but this does not help to solve the conceptual issue. 
It is a bit like saying that in practice GR and QM works very well, so that we 
lost our time when trying to get a coherent theory of all forces. It depends if 
we are interested in foundational issues and understanding or in practical 
applications, I guess.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> More comments below:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM Telmo Menezes > > wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>> 
>> I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the 
>> "Symbol Grounding Problem":
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem 
>> 
>> 
>> My intuition goes in the same direction as yours, that of "procedural 
>> semantics". Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that language is an 
>> emergent feature of computational processes with self-replication. From 
>> signaling between unicellular organisms all the way up to human language.
>> 
>> That is interesting. I do think there is something self-defining about the 
>> meaning of processes. Something that multiplies two inputs can always be 
>> said to be multiplying. The meaning of the operation is then grounded in the 
>> function and processes of that process, which is made unambiguous. The 
>> multiplication process could not be confused with addition or subtraction. 
>> This is in contrast to a N-bit string on a piece of paper, which could be 
>> interpreted in at least 2^N ways (or perhaps even an infinite number of 
>> ways, if you consider what function is applied to that bit string).
>>  
>> 
>> Luc Steels has some really interesting work exploring this sort of idea, 
>> with his evolutionary language games:
>> https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> Evolving systems that can communicate amongst themselves seems to be a 
>> fruitful way to explore these issues. Has anyone attempted to take simple 
>> examples, like computer simulated evolved versions of robots playing soccer, 
>> and add in a layer that lets each player emit and receive arbitrary signals 
>> from other players? I would 

Re: Qualia and communicability

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 21:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> Hi Telmo,
> 
> Thank you for these links, they are very helpful in articulating the problem. 
> I think you are right about there being some connection between communication 
> of qualia and the symbol grounding problem.
> 
> I used to think there were two kinds of knowledge:
> Third-person sharable knowledge: information that can be shared and 
> communicated through books, like the population of Paris, or the height of 
> Mount Everest
With mechanism, that is still first person plural. Third person knowledge is 
confined in elementary arithmetic.


> First-person knowledge: information that must be felt or experienced first 
> hand, emotions, feelings, the pain of a bee sting, the smell of a rose
… believing in some god, or primitive Reality, ...



> But now I am wondering if the idea of third-person sharable knowledge is an 
> illusion. The string encoding the height of Mount Everest is meaningless if 
> you have no framework for understanding physical spaces, units of length, 
> spatial extents, and the symbology of numbers.

Which is a good insight, as the physical reality is a sort of partially 
sharable qualia, although not in any provable way. 
But there is no real problem with the simple combinatorial or partially 
computable (assuming Church-Thesis) part of the arithmetical reality.
We can “communicate” that 24 is an even number, from finite simple hypothesis 
we can agree on, like x + 0 = x, etc.



> All of that information has to be unpacked, and eventually processed into 
> some thought that relates to a basis of conscious experience and 
> understanding of heights and sizes. Even size is a meaningless term when 
> attempting to compare relative sizes between two universes, so in that sense 
> it must be tied somehow back to the subject.

… which explains why, except for the minimum amount of arithmetic needed to 
define what is a digital machine, everything is eventually defined through the 
“8 eyes” of the self-introspecting machine. Yet, eventually physics can be 
(re)-defined by the set on laws of prediction that all machine agree when 
introspecting themselves deep enough. 

The physical universe is not “out there”. It is only a common sharable illusion 
about prediction shared by all universal numbers. The rest is 
geography/history, with contingent aspect related to long computations, that we 
can locally share.


> 
> There also seem to be counter-examples to a clear divide between first- and 
> third-person knowledge. For example, is the redness of red really 
> incommunicable between two synesthesiacs who both see the number 5 as red?

How could they know they see the same red, or that they have the same 
experience, without defining red ostensively, like Brent mentions regularly 
(and correctly, Imo)?


> If everyone in the world had such synesthesia, would we still think book 
> knowledge could not communicate the redness of red?

I don’t see why synesthesia could help here. It seems you would need some 
telepathy added here, which is probably not what you are thinking?



> In this case, what makes redness communicable is the shared processing 
> between the brains of the synesthesiacs, their brains process the symbol in 
> the same way.

Yes, but not in a provable way. We might discover later that our substitution 
level is much lower than we have thought, and that the qualia “red” needs to 
emulate the glial cells. The neuron would keep people agreeing on may aspect of 
red, and we might agree on many overlapping experience, but eventually 
realised, when getting a better artificial brain, that we were not really 
seeing red in the same way, after all.

Honestly, I don’t see why synesthesia could help, without postulating some 
substitution level. 




> 
> 
> More comments below:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:11 AM Telmo Menezes  > wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> 
> I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the 
> "Symbol Grounding Problem":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem 
> 
> 
> My intuition goes in the same direction as yours, that of "procedural 
> semantics". Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that language is an 
> emergent feature of computational processes with self-replication. From 
> signaling between unicellular organisms all the way up to human language.
> 
> That is interesting. I do think there is something self-defining about the 
> meaning of processes. Something that multiplies two inputs can always be said 
> to be multiplying. The meaning of the operation is then grounded in the 
> function and processes of that process, which is made unambiguous. The 
> multiplication process could not be confused with addition or subtraction. 
> This is in contrast to a N-bit string on a piece of paper, which could be 
> interpreted in at least 2^N ways (or perhaps even an 

Re: Qualia and communicability

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 18:10, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the 
> "Symbol Grounding Problem":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem 
> 
> 

Like wiki says itself, there are a lot of issues here. The main one being the 
implicit materialism perhaps.



> My intuition goes in the same direction as yours, that of "procedural 
> semantics”.

I think that a universal machine is automatically a procedural semantics. Now, 
in AI, the term can, have a slightly different meaning, and in logic, we know 
that a “rich” theory can handle a part of its semantics, and even to 
incorporate into itself (which leads to a different machine, having again a new 
enlarged semantics). Those partial tractable semantics make sense.




> Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that language is an emergent feature of 
> computational processes with self-replication. From signaling between 
> unicellular organisms all the way up to human language.
> 
> Luc Steels has some really interesting work exploring this sort of idea, with 
> his evolutionary language games:
> https://csl.sony.fr/wp-content/themes/sony/uploads/pdf/steels-12c.pdf 
> 
> 
> I have been working a lot with language these days. I and my co-author 
> (Camille Roth) developed a formalism called Semantic Hypergraphs, which is an 
> attempt to represent natural language in structures that are akin to typed 
> lambda-calculus:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10784 

Are you using universal types. Are you aware of the semantic of Natural 
Language based on an extended (typed) lambda calculus by Montague? 

A long time ago, I have used Sowa semantic network, for some work in AI. It is 
interesting, but later I have used Montague semantics instead, based on Tarski 
semantics, and on Church Lambda Calculus (with universal types). Note that 
Lambda calculus is about the same thing as the theory of combinators (K = 
[x][y]x, S = [x][y]z]xz(yz).
I do consider that the work of Tarski is the most interesting work on 
semantics. It led to a whole branch of mathematical logic “model theory”, and 
Montague has convinced me that this is the best approach, even for natural 
language semantics, although they are many difficulties, and there is a split 
between concrete applicable approaches, and theoretical foundational concerns. 
By Gödel, we “know” (assuming mechanism) that this problem is with us … 
forever. 

Slides summary:
https://web.stanford.edu/~cgpotts/talks/potts-symsys100-2012-04-26-montague.pdf

Here is a book: 
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-009-9065-4

> 
> Here's the Python library that implements these ideas:
> http://graphbrain.net/ 
> 
> So far we use modern machine learning to parse natural language into this 
> representation, and then take advantage of the regularity of the structures 
> to automatically identify stuff in text corpora for the purpose of 
> computational social science research.
> 
> Something I dream of, and intend to explore at some point, is to attempt to 
> go beyond the parser and actually "execute the code", and thus try to close 
> the loop with the idea of procedural semantics.

That seems interesting.

Bruno



> 
> Best,
> Telmo
> 
> Am Mi, 31. Mär 2021, um 17:58, schrieb Jason Resch:
>> I was thinking about what aspects of conscious experience are communicable 
>> and which are not, and I realized all communication relies on some 
>> pre-existing shared framework.
>> 
>> It's not only things like "red" that are meaningless to someone whose never 
>> seen it, but likewise things like spatial extent and dimensionslity would 
>> likewise be incommunicable to someone who had no experience with moving in, 
>> or through, space.
>> 
>> Even communicating quantities requires a pre-existing and common system of 
>> units and measures.
>> 
>> So all communication (inputs/outputs) consist of meaningless but strings. It 
>> is only when a bit string is combined with some processing that meaning can 
>> be shared. The reason we can't communicate "red" to someone whose never seen 
>> it is we would need to transmit a description of the processing done by our 
>> brains in order to share what red means to oneself.
>> 
>> So in summary, I wonder if anything is communicabke, not just qualia, but 
>> anything at all, when there's not already common processing systems between 
>> the sender and receiver, of the information.
>> 
>> 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 

Re: Qualia and communicability

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Jason,

I discover your post just now, sorry.


> On 31 Mar 2021, at 17:58, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> I was thinking about what aspects of conscious experience are communicable 
> and which are not, and I realized all communication relies on some 
> pre-existing shared framework.

OK. It presupposes that we (the communicating entities) share some Reality, 
which is not rationally justifiable (by using both Gödel completeness theorem 
and Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem).

Consistency (~[]f, <>t) is equivalent with “existence of a reality/model” by 
the completeness theorem, and in no provable by arithmetically sound machine by 
the second incompleteness theorem).

That corroborates the idea that consciousness is an (instinctive) belief in 
*some* reality.


> 
> It's not only things like "red" that are meaningless to someone whose never 
> seen it, but likewise things like spatial extent and dimensionslity would 
> likewise be incommunicable to someone who had no experience with moving in, 
> or through, space.
> 
> Even communicating quantities requires a pre-existing and common system of 
> units and measures.

Only for the quantities that we assume to be correlated to some empirical 
reality. In mathematics there is no units, so if we can agree on some 
mathematical axiomatic, we can communicate/justify-rationally many things. It 
is the link with some assumed Reality which is not communicable here.

> 
> So all communication (inputs/outputs) consist of meaningless but strings. It 
> is only when a bit string is combined with some processing that meaning can 
> be shared.

Yes. You communicate the number x, and the universal machine will interpret it 
as phi_x. 

The universal machine is the interpreter. It works, apparently, as you have 
succeeded to make a machine understanding that she has to send me your mail.




> The reason we can't communicate "red" to someone whose never seen it is we 
> would need to transmit a description of the processing done by our brains in 
> order to share what red means to oneself.

But that would not be enough, as this presupposes that you could know-for-sure, 
your mechanist substitution level, which is impossible. So again, the 
communication of a qualia is impossible. We can communicate a theory. We can 
agree on the axioms, and communicate consequences, but the semantic is not 
communicated and we can only hope the others have enough similar 
interpretations, although that is not part of what can ever be communicated (in 
the strong sense of “rationally justified”).



> 
> So in summary, I wonder if anything is communicabke, not just qualia, but 
> anything at all, when there's not already common processing systems between 
> the sender and receiver, of the information.

We need to share a common axiomatics (implicit in our brain, or explicit by 
agreeing on some theory). If you agree that for all x and y we have that Kxy = 
x, I will be able to communicate that KAB = A. I you agree with Robinson’s 
axioms for arithmetic, we will agree on all sigma_1 sentences, which includes 
the universal dovetailing… If we agree on Mechanism, the whole of physics 
becomes communicable, despite it being a first person (plural) notions. Then, 
in case we do share some physical reality, we can communicate units in the 
ostensive way (like defining a meter to be the length of some metallic piece in 
a French museum, or defining it by some natural phenomena described in some 
theory on which we already agree).

In the machine’s metaphysics/theology/psychology we have the 5 modes, which 
separated into 8 modes, and what is on the right is what is not communicable 
(in the strong sense above):

1)  p
2)  []p []p
3)  []p & p

4)  []p & <>t   []p & <>t
5)  []p & <>t & p   []p & <>t & p

The qualia (and the quanta, actually, which are special case of qualia, with 
mechanism) appears on the right (so they belong to G* \ G) at line “4)" and 
“5)", although a case can be made they appears also at line “3)”.

Basically, everything provable in G is communicable, and everything in G* minus 
G is not. (Technically I should use G1 and G1*, that is G + (p->[]p), but I 
don’t want to dig on technics here).

We can communicate what is rational, but incompleteness impose a surrational 
corona in between the rational and the irrational (falsity).

If we assume mechanism, it is provable that already the intended semantic of 
arithmetical theories are not communicable, even if we have the intimate 
feeling of not having any problem to conceive the standard model of arithmetic. 
Yet, we can communicate 0, s0, ss0, …, and we can communicate codes of 
universal machines, making the whole sigma_1 truth communicable, although not 
as such, without accepting larger non communicable intuition, like Mechanism 
itself (which is non rationally justifiable but still extrapolable from 

The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg)

[Bruno Marchal]

human cells to plant cells in
> Petri-dish). Also, the biophoton emission rates increase with stress 
> on the cell growth with a burst of biophotons at cell death.
>  Note: All references to all these experiments have been cited before.  


My methodology to formulate and solve the mind-body problem makes it impossible 
to use those 4-> 7 points, unless you show them testable and, either theorem in 
machine theology, or refuting it. If they are merely consistent, they might 
belong to geography/history (the contingent first person plural history).

You might study my “large public” presentation in Amsterdam in 2004. See blue 
link below.
Since then I do not more mention “arithmetical realism” because it is part of 
the classical Church-Turing thesis.

My work asks for some familiarity with the 1930s discoveries of the logicians: 
the universal machine, essential incompleteness, non-expressibility of 
(arithmetical) truth in arithmetic. To be sure Löb’s theorem 1955, and Solovay 
arithmetical completeness of the modal logic G* in 1976 play an important rôle. 

By “theology of machine” or “theology of number” I mean mainly the modal logic 
G1* and its intensional variants.

G1 axiomatises completely the provable part of the self-reference logic (By a 
theorem of Solovay +Visser), and G1* axiomatises the true part (idem). 
G1 is included in G1*. 
G1* minus G1, which is not empty (by incompleteness) axiomatises the 
“surrational” corona in between rational and irrational.

The variants of Theaetetus definition of knowledge make sense in this context. 
The main point is that G* shows them all equivalent (they all “see” the same 
truth, in fact the sigma_1 truth), but G1 proves none of those equivalence. The 
self-referentially correct machine believes correctly that they obey very 
different logics (intuitionist, quantum logic, …).

With p sigma_1 we have

G* proves p <-> ([]p) <-> ([]p & p) <-> ([]p & <>t) <-> ([]p & <>t & p)

But G does not proves any of those equivalence. They all belong in the proper 
theological part of the theology (which, from the machine perspective transcend 
its “science” (G)).

“[]p” is Gödel’s beweisbar (provable) predicate (<>p is ~[]~p, “~” is the 
negation), p is an arbitrary partial computable, provable (if true) sentences 
of arithmetic/computer-science.

Bruno

(*) 

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog 
Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23567157

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in 
Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26140993

B. Marchal. The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations. In 4th International 
System Administration and Network Engineering Conference, SANE 2004, Amsterdam, 
2004.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html 
<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html>

Plotinus PDF paper with the link:
Marchal B. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of 
Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. Löwe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi 
A., editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on 
Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di 
Sienna, Dipartimento di Roberto Magari, 2007.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CiE2007/SIENA.pdf




>  Philip Benjamin
>  
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>  <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 11:45 AM   everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg
>  
>  
> On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin  <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
>   PB. From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic 
> energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the 
> moment of conception from  bio dark-matter and its chemistries. 
>  
> From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for the 
> axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing.
>  
> If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, as 
> you assume two sorts of matter.
>  
> Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It 
> will disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, 
> like vitalism has disappeared from biology.
> What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all 
> sorts of relation betweens those numbers.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 00:08, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Bruno Marchal]
> I think Trump is a symptom, not a cause
> [Philip Benjamin]
> Symptom of what? What exactly are the reasons why he is so hated? Personal? 
> Official?


It is not a question of hate. It is more fear in front of incompetence, and 
lies, and a behaviour which is hardly acceptable, even for a four years old. 
When he promised to show his taxes, I got the feeling he was a liar, as it is 
not the type of thing you promise, you just do it.
Then Helsinki. Even if you hate the FBI and the CIA, you don’t publicly attacks 
your own camp virus an hostile country.
Then you can read the Muller’s report. Obama would have done 1/100 of what 
Trump did, and he would have been impeached right away. 
Then some answer like this “I don’t know what is QAnon, but I heard they love 
me so they are right”, or about the proud boys “stand by, stand up …”.

Trump is to be feared, and even more so when it seems a whole party is in deny 
of reality, and behaves like having some paranoïa. They have forget the 
difference between political opponent and enemy.

Or just his “I love Kim-Young-Un”. That is quite enough to fear him, in the 
bones…

The sad mystery is how could anyone vote for Trump (except by being criminal or 
in a rotten corporations, like NRA, of Big Pharma).

The sad thing is that Trump has shown that even in America, the worst kind of 
cult of personality can arise. Trump is not the big danger, here. It is his 
enablers, like Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell, and many others that Trump 
encapsulated somehow. They do not hide their hate/fear of democracy. The voter 
suppression in may state illustrates this again, and is very dangerous for the 
future.

Bruno




>  
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com  On 
> Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 10:47 AM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg
>  
>  
> On 25 Feb 2021, at 13:03, Telmo Menezes  <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote:
>  
>  
> 
> Am Do, 25. Feb 2021, um 10:55, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>  
> On 24 Feb 2021, at 15:30, Telmo Menezes  <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote:
>  
> As an outside observer, I can't help but notice the following pattern in 
> American politics: every presidential election is now seen as a 
> civilization-threatening event, where each side believes that the other side 
> is literally pure evil in its crystalized form, and that if they win, life as 
> we know it will be over. We have now been through several iterations of this, 
> and the reality is that nothing ever seems to happen, one way or the other.
>  
> I think that before Trump, most Dems and Rep saw themselves as adversary, but 
> not as enemy. Only with Trump, the adversary has become a scapegoat, an 
> enemy, the responsible of all wrongs. Trump does not seem to be able to 
> dialog, not even with its close accomplices. Trump is the worst enemy of … 
> Trump. I think that his case is close to being pathological.
>  
> I agree, but I think Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
>  
> Certainly. But Trump is a sort of extreme symptom. Almost a caricature. But 
> you are right, and this is exemplified by the fact that it keeps, apparently, 
> his seduction power on the Republicans, even after those last month where he 
> showed how much a bad looser he can be.
>  
>  
> 
> 
> There is also Boris Johnson, who is Britain's Trump, Bolsonaro, who is 
> Brazil's Trump, etc.
>  
> Maybe for Bolsonaro. But Boris Johnson is not comparable to Trump. I did fear 
> that he could be like Trump, but he is not. Johnson is not an enemy of 
> democracy. Trump is. That’s what I feel, or smell… I might be wrong, but 
> Johnson has reassured me on that key point. 
> The other Trump in power are more like Kim Young Un, ABS (Saudi), Erdogan, 
> and Putin...
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
>  
> With the mainstream adoption of the Internet, in the early 2000s, political 
> campaigns were reinvented (data-driven, highly targeted like advertisement). 
> The early examples of this appear to be Tony Blair's second campaign in the 
> UK and Obama's first in the US. Then it became the new norm, with increased 
> sophistication. At the same time, journalism responded to the exestential 
> threat created by the Internet by merging itself with the nascent ad-tech 
> industry, pioneered by Google. In this new attention economy, the one who 
> engages people's emotions the most wins. We are witnessing the race to the 
> bottom that this creates, with widespread hysteria and irrationality from 
> both sides of the political spectrum. I think that Trump and QAnon are 
> products of this, and so is brexit on this side of the Atlantic.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 20:30, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> Are you sure that any of that stuff really matters? To be clear, I am against 
> tearing down some of those agreements. I do think that China should be 
> sanctioned for committing genocide,


I know we can’t due to Covid, but I am sad we don’t show more solidarity with 
the people of Hong Kong. The democracy there is in peril. 

China’s play is dangerous for everybody in the long-term. 



> and I am skeptical of things like TPP. I certainly don't desire the 
> transatlantic version of that, and in fact joined protests against it. Not 
> because I dislike you Americans, but because I think that such trade deals 
> are used to smuggle in stuff that goes against the interest of the common 
> people on both sides. For example, opening the possibility for corporations 
> to sue for loss of profits if a government adopts measures in the public 
> interest...  on climate, but also protecting workers, food quality and so on.


Yes, here something grave has been done making the corporation into legal 
person, I think under Bush. Yes, the political economy favour corporation 
against individuals, and that has to be corrected, before "becoming 
mitochondria” without the ability to say “no” to the doctor. 

That type of law has favoured investment in catastrophes, diseases, and wars. 
The NRA plays a bad role here, and is not alone.

Bruno








> 
> Telmo

-- 
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/24A0C8A0-75A0-457F-B4A3-70D2E3BC9D78%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 19:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
>> That’s because prohibition and free-market are inconsistent. Then, the 
>> abandon of rigour in the fundamental human science makes people accepting 
>> inconsistencies, which lead to human catastrophes. Even the “electric 
>> crisis” in Texas comes from the worst political isolationnisme possible, and 
>> a willingness to refuse a free-market for electricity. 
> 
> It came because they tried to make a free-market electric system.  The 
> electricity producers had no incentive to provide reliability against weather 
> events happening ten or twenty years apart. 


Only by limiting the system to the state, making the market not free, and 
unreliable. Free-market you buy it anywhere, at the lower price, even to 
foreigners. 



> To provide excess capability and backups and weatherize would just raise cost 
> and lose customers to the competition. 

In the Airline industries, that is mention as cutting corners. The type of 
economy which can make a plane to not de-ice properly and crash.

Again, this comes from making the texans unable to buy electricity elsewhere. 
It is perverse free-marketing, obliged to cut the security to get the fund to 
make the system working. 




> Customers were free to buy electricity on a daily basis...which is why some 
> of them now have $16,000 bills for five days service.

Which is simply insane. Normally we agree on the price, and then pay, and only 
if the product is well delivered and working. A free-market is not crime driven 
market, or when it does, it means we are confronted to criminals, like in the 
prohibition files.

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/FDAF2194-A49C-4E6E-BE35-C29A35FFCB14%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
>   From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic 
> energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the 
> moment of conception from  bio dark-matter and its chemistries. 

>From a scientific point of view that is a (vague) theory. I will wait for the 
>axioms, and the consequences, and the means of testing.

If by Pagan you mean the believer in Matter, you seem doubly Pagan to me, as 
you assume two sorts of matter.

Personally I tend to see (weak) Materialism as a lasting superstition. It will 
disappear from the natural science, or the science of the observable, like 
vitalism has disappeared from biology.

What what I see are universal machine measuring numbers and inferring all sorts 
of relation betweens those numbers. And yes, some claim bizarre things about 
those things not capturable by numbers, and they are correct on this. 

When doing metaphysics with the scientific method, we can use, today, the tools 
provided by mathematical logic, to distinguish better the realities (“models” 
or “interpretations” in the sense of logician) and the 
theories/machines/words/numbers/finite-thing we are tackling about, and can be 
talking with, or “in” (standard use).

I have no idea of your assumptions, and invoking dark matter is very weird, do 
you mean a theory with axions? I am not sure anybody have found a theory of 
Dark Matter, and I am personally skeptical on any ontological matter, as there 
are no evidence for that (despite Newtonian physics would contradict Mechanism, 
and be an evidence against mechanism if it were true).

Gödel’s theorem protects Mechanism from Diagonalisation à la Lucas-Penrose, and 
it happens that it protects mechanism from many misuse of quantum mechanics, 
that it predicts “semantically” and “syntactlcally”, and this without 
ontological commitment, just the usual simple fact of the type 2+2=4 or KSK = 
S, ... 

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/09258EF2-68C1-43F5-B035-02791014199A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 13:03, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Am Do, 25. Feb 2021, um 10:55, schrieb Bruno Marchal:
>> 
>>> On 24 Feb 2021, at 15:30, Telmo Menezes >> <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As an outside observer, I can't help but notice the following pattern in 
>>> American politics: every presidential election is now seen as a 
>>> civilization-threatening event, where each side believes that the other 
>>> side is literally pure evil in its crystalized form, and that if they win, 
>>> life as we know it will be over. We have now been through several 
>>> iterations of this, and the reality is that nothing ever seems to happen, 
>>> one way or the other.
>> 
>> I think that before Trump, most Dems and Rep saw themselves as adversary, 
>> but not as enemy. Only with Trump, the adversary has become a scapegoat, an 
>> enemy, the responsible of all wrongs. Trump does not seem to be able to 
>> dialog, not even with its close accomplices. Trump is the worst enemy of … 
>> Trump. I think that his case is close to being pathological.
> 
> I agree, but I think Trump is a symptom, not a cause.

Certainly. But Trump is a sort of extreme symptom. Almost a caricature. But you 
are right, and this is exemplified by the fact that it keeps, apparently, his 
seduction power on the Republicans, even after those last month where he showed 
how much a bad looser he can be.



> There is also Boris Johnson, who is Britain's Trump, Bolsonaro, who is 
> Brazil's Trump, etc.

Maybe for Bolsonaro. But Boris Johnson is not comparable to Trump. I did fear 
that he could be like Trump, but he is not. Johnson is not an enemy of 
democracy. Trump is. That’s what I feel, or smell… I might be wrong, but 
Johnson has reassured me on that key point. 
The other Trump in power are more like Kim Young Un, ABS (Saudi), Erdogan, and 
Putin...




> 
> With the mainstream adoption of the Internet, in the early 2000s, political 
> campaigns were reinvented (data-driven, highly targeted like advertisement). 
> The early examples of this appear to be Tony Blair's second campaign in the 
> UK and Obama's first in the US. Then it became the new norm, with increased 
> sophistication. At the same time, journalism responded to the exestential 
> threat created by the Internet by merging itself with the nascent ad-tech 
> industry, pioneered by Google. In this new attention economy, the one who 
> engages people's emotions the most wins. We are witnessing the race to the 
> bottom that this creates, with widespread hysteria and irrationality from 
> both sides of the political spectrum. I think that Trump and QAnon are 
> products of this, and so is brexit on this side of the Atlantic.


You are right. I would add the Russian propaganda. Since long I tend to think 
that the Brexit is almost a pure result of Russian propaganda, but I have not 
found the time to verify all the evidences, so I cannot swear on this. 

Causation is a difficult subject. The systematic lies in the Oil industry and 
derivatives has put the bandits into power, but even this necessitates a 
millenium of training in believing in fairy tales. Maybe the cause is the poor 
level of education in math and logic. Postmodern relativism does not help, … 
Truth Research is not well-seen those days...



> 
> I think that this is not so different from the obesity crisis created by fast 
> food. Like with hyper-palatable food, we have not evolved for an environment 
> where we are constantly targeted by emotionally-charged "news" that are 
> fine-tuned by algorithms to be hyper-stimulating.


It is a general problem with universal machine. But as long as we fight to keep 
up our universality, we will survive as individual. If not, we will be 
swallowed by a higher level organism (and never get any opportunity to say “no” 
to the doctor…).

The choice is in between liberty and insecurity (like to remain a free 
bacteria), or get a job and a limited social security (like becoming a 
mitochondria, or a chloroplaste).

After Trump we get a lesson, and all democracies should be solider and 
consolidate themselves, improved and get rid of the most recent lies (and stop 
asking for the legalization of cannabis, and ask for penalisation of 
prohibitionism, for example).

Theology should come back to the academy, before the theotechnologies develop 
too much...



> 
> If it wasn't McDonald's, it would be something else. If it wasn't Trump, it 
> would be someone else.


Yes, I saw Trump as a chance. A sort of proof by absurd. But the GOP has awaken 
me that some people really does not acre of the truth. The GOP remind me a 
student who reject a proof, because when I got the contradiction: 0 = 1, he 
asked me why was that a problem, an

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Mar 2021, at 17:04, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> general_the...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake
>  
> [Philip Benjamin]
>There is no need for confounding the self-evident physical reality with an 
> illusion,


It seems to me that only consciousness is self-evident. 

The term “physical reality” is ambiguous as it has not the same meaning in 
Plato and in Aristotle, when we do metaphysics.

This is not important when doing physics (local prediction), but it is 
important when doing metaphysics/theology.




> if and only if two different physical realities exist: 1. Ordinary 
> materialism of ordinary light matter with its chemistry (chemical bonds); 2. 
> Extraordinary materialism of extraordinary dark-: matter with its chemistry.


Hmm… (I am already quite skeptical on any primitive (in need to be assumed) 
matter. Adding a second one will not help).





> As to which one is primary or secondary is a matter of philosophic choice!!



I don’t believe there is any choice when studying theories, except choosing 
which theories to test and discarded if shown wrong.

Philosophic choice is a red herring which might come from the bad idea to 
separate theology from science (bad for theology and science, but good for the 
pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientist I guess).




> (Note: Chemical bonds are spin governed particle configurations of duets and 
> octets).  Mathematics of Computer and computation will not explain the 
> invisible (dark) consciousness.

I think it does. I can give references to my papers, where I show that 
mechanism is incompatible with Materialism, in a constructive way: explaining 
how to derive quanta and qualia from what *any¨universal machine discover from 
“honest” or “sound” introspection. 



>   Feeling a sense of loss for free-will is not the same as understanding 
> the reality that something within is external to the ordinary natural realm, 
> and subject to influence from outside which can be an extraordinarily 
> physical realm of dark-matter with its chemistry. This may be the source of 
> the “hard” part of free-will and consciousness.


I doubt we can explain something by speculating on more complicated and 
mysterious things. Free-will is easy to explain for the machine, once we 
understand that they are aware of their incompleteness and suffer from 
hesitation in front of the partial character of knowledge due to that 
incompleteness. Free-will is felt, and real, from the machine 
self-indetermination due to her inability to access its whole history at the 
right mechanist level. This is related to the fact that she cannot know which 
computations are running her, among infinitely many.





> Then, there is no contradiction between the reality and the phenomenology of 
> the “free will including psychology, morality and law, and the discoveries of 
> science. From the very moment of conception, the resonant  “dark” & “light” 
> twins are formed recognizing each other—the basis for at least 
> self-awareness. Resonance is rudimentary recognition. Light matter bodies are 
> electric, entropic and decaying. Dark-matter bodies are non-electric, 
> nonentropic and undying. The chasm between death and life is obviously 
> abysmal and beyond the scope of science. When a light matter twin dies, the 
> dark twin will be left at a negative energy state of at least -E = - mC^2 
> where m is the mass of the light twin. Only an external source of power much 
> greater than that can bring the dark twin back to any operational level. 
> There is “The Additional Mass of Life” for a living organism in a 
> hermitically sealed system, which disappears at death reported by Amrit S. 
> Sorli, Scientific Research Centre BISTRA, Ptuj, Slovenia, 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary 
> ; doi=10.1.1.218.573;  
> https://core.ac.uk/display/21767122 . 
> 2012, Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-2).   


Honestly, I will wait for some proof that this is testable, but I doubt that 
invoking even one notion of matter can help, as I said above. You will need a 
non computationalist theory of mind, and that is already hard to conceive. 



>   
>   A failure to distinguish an illusory but rigidly misunderstood concept 
> from the actuality will not explain consciousness.  A “real” sunset is not 
> the illusion of sun splashing into the water, it is ultimately the motion of 
> the earth and gravity. The natural order of time, motion, matter and space 
> are all in intact. A mirage is likewise a “real” physical phenomenon from 
> refracted light, heat and materiality, only the effects of the realities are 
> illusory. Dark-matter bodies are likewise real but operate invisibly.

OK.



>  It is really in the nature of the actual moral behavior of people or in the 
> nature of actual subjective experience to 

Re: [Consciousness-Online] pagans vs non pagans and the hubbub about Sabbath in the US Senate

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Mar 2021, at 15:52, Philip Benjamin  wrote:
> 
> [Bruno Marchal]
> “PPB: Pagan = Pan-Gaia-n, earthling, earth worshipper”. “Interesting. Are you 
> sure of that etymology? The Neoplatonists were called “pagan” by christians, 
> but they were those doubting Aristotle’s belief in primary matter, and many 
> of them where immaterialist, and quite the opposite of the earth 
> worshippers….. We cannot assume more than very elementary arithmetic. And, 
> obviously, religion should not be mixed with the state (even more so in a 
> democracy). That is why theology must come back at the academy of science. 
> The separation from science was the first step to let it mixed with politics 
> and state”.
> [Philip Benjamin]
> The following link gives a more elaborate etymology of PAGAN: 
> https://www.etymonline.com/word/pagan 
> <https://www.etymonline.com/word/pagan>. 


OK. Thank you.



> The GAIA (EARTH) implications are self-evident.

Only in our Aristotelian frame. I am agnostic, personally, on such impersonal 
god. I tend to be skeptical, and I can prove that this hypothesis makes no 
sense, even if we assume just the amount of mechanism to be able to attribute 
an explanative power to the theory of evolution.

Despite a widespread confusion between Mechanism and Materialism, those are 
logically incompatible. If I can survive with a digital brain, physics is 
reduced to the statistic on all computations in arithmetic, structured by the 
(Gödel-Löb-Solovay) laws of self-reference.




> Invisible need not anymore be considered immaterial. Dark-matter and its 
> possible compounds are invisible, but not immaterial, though here the dark 
> particles are assumed to be of negligible mass with respect to electrons.


Mechanism leads to Plato. What we see, observe, measure is empirically real, 
but is not primary, and is not material. 





> America is not a mere Democracy it is first a Republic, then democratic 
> alright. In a Republic the individual with the law on his side is a 
> “sovereign”, a concept unknown to most of the pagan world with un-awakened 
> kundalini consciousness. here the atheist , the pantheist, polytheist, 
> monotheist, atheist and EVERYBODY has an equal right to the dictates of one’s 
> conscience within the commonsensically acceptable community standards and 
> laws. Equal right under the law does not mean equality in essence. No laws 
> can make un-equals equals. In this Republic one does not have to leave one’s 
> personal beliefs at the door of any office or institution. Only the 
> Marxist-Socialist-Fascist- Progressive PAGANS with un-Augustinian un-awakened 
> consciousness will force such brutal laws on a “sovereign” citizen.  

Theology must just come back tp the faculty of science, where we can say “we 
don’t know, but here is the theory and here is the method to empirically refute 
it”.




> Philosophy, religion and science have a common unsolvable problem centered 
> around causality and aseity.


I think it is solved in the mechanist theory, or directly in the theology of 
the (rich, Löbian) machine. I recall that I call Löbian, the machine which are 
Turing universal, and believe in enough (sigma_1) induction. R and Q are not 
Löbian, but PA, ZF, … are. In the ontology, there is no causality different 
than the material implication (p -> q is the same as not p or q). Then, many 
phenomenology for causality appears: one for each variants of provability 
imposed by incompleteness. 



> Only Biblical Theology starts with an imperative statement without any 
> apology: “ In the beginning Elohim..”, later amplified as Adonai (plural) 
> YHWH (singular) Elohim (uni-plural). It is MORE scientific to deal with the 
> aseity of LIFE than that of dead matter.


OK. But probably not for the reason you allude to. With mechanism, there is no 
“dead matter”, as there is no matter at all. But you might object that there 
are “dead numbers”, and indeed, any number, when insulated from the other 
numbers, can be seen as a dead thing. Consciousness comes from the (true) 
partial computable number relations.

Freedom of religion is a non sense/ It leads to the freedom of fake religion, 
which are technic to steal the money of the people. We can tolerate only the 
religion consistent with our already accepted theories, or we will just install 
very intolerant people. We should have the right to sue a teacher who taught 
that 2+2=5, or that Earth is flat, or that cannabis is more dangerous than 
alcool. Freedom of religion is a freedom of lying. It is a subtle form of 
imposed barbarianism….

Bruno




> Philip Benjamin   
>   
> Subject: Re: [Consciousness-Online] pagans vs non pagans and the hubbub about 
> Sabbath in the US Senate
> On 26 Mar 2021, at 21:13, Philip Benjamin  <mailto:medinucl...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>  
> [Philip Be