Re: [Extropolis] A Dyson sphere by 2030?

[ronaldheld]

A solid Dyson sphere is unstable to perturbations. No such problem with a 
swarm or statlites

On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 3:42:37 PM UTC-4 John Clark wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 3:31 PM Henrik Ohrstrom  
> wrote:
>
> *> Nanosanta or not.*
>>
>
> Unlike time travel or perpetual motion machines. no breakthrough in 
> science is required for Nanosanta or Von Neumann Probes to become a 
> reality, just improved engineering. 
>  
>
>> *> Traveltime does not go away just because nanotechnology or AI. *
>>
>
> True, on his construction site the poor AI would still be unable to move 
> things faster than the speed of light. I guess Mr. Jupiter Brain will 
> just have to muddle through. 
>
>  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/610309ad-db3c-47bd-b013-d2b20e7f4170n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: OpenAI launches free ChatGPT app for iOS

[ronaldheld]

Whating for an Android version




On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 8:23:32 PM UTC-4 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Iphone is mind-bogglingly smart? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Clark 
> To: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> Sent: Fri, May 19, 2023 1:29 pm
> Subject: OpenAI launches free ChatGPT app for iOS
>
> I've already downloaded it to my iPhone in a few seconds and it couldn't 
> be easier to use and is as mind-bogglingly smart as ever. 
>
> OpenAI launches free ChatGPT app for iOS 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> w4z
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv2u3mVoAiWxCC8jWa585jp0PLqtipRHZap7-APYnemp3g%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/dd6687a2-4900-4db0-af14-8b88c8fe299bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Multiverses Are There?

[ronaldheld]

Soundsike Max Tegmark's hietatchy of multiverse.
   Ronald

On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 2:19:50 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> Thanks for that explication, Lawrence.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 
> doesn't that leave all the usual conservation laws in place locally because 
> spacetime is locally Minkowski.
>
> And on the question of observing things earlier/beyond the CMB, I think 
> that's the hope for gravity wave observatories and maybe neutrinos too.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 1/8/2023 5:53 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> Emmy Noether gave consideration to a boundary term we usually discard when 
> deriving the Euler-Lagrange formula to show that a symmetry was involved 
> with this term. This symmetry and that this boundary term is zero meant a 
> conservation law. A law of physics considered as such is something 
> associated with covariant and invariant properties of space, spacetime or 
> an abstract space under some set of transformations. Is this principle, a 
> law of laws should we say, something that is discovered or is some 
> objective aspect of a mathematical reality?
>
> The type D, II, III and N solutions, black holes = D and gravitational 
> waves = N, are vacuum solutions with the Weyl tensor C_{abcd} that wholly 
> determines the curvature. The Weyl curvature is an operator on Killing 
> vectors, such that Killing vectors are eigenvalued with the Weyl curvature 
> C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c. The type N solutions have Killing vectors that 
> have zero eigenvalue C_{abcd}K^d = 0. Type III spacetimes have λ = 0 and 
> type II and D have nontrivial eigenvalues that are unequal for C_{abcd} and 
> *C_{abcd}, for * the Hodge dual with C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λK_aK_c and 
> *C_{abcd}K^bK^d = λ’K_aK_c for λ ≠ λ’ and λλ ≠ 0. These Killing vectors 
> define symmetries and thus conservation laws. A timelike Killing vector 
> defines conservation of energy, a spacelike Killing vector defines 
> conservation of momentum, and a Killing bi-vector or one derived from such 
> defines conservation of angular momentum. That is a total of 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 
> Killing vectors. These eigenvalued equations should make one think of the 
> Schrodinger equation. Indeed for a timelike Killing vector K_t = 
> √(g_{tt})∂_t so that this gives a general wave equation HΨ[g] = 
> iK_t∂Ψ[g]/∂t, which for g_{tt} = 1 is the Schrodinger equation. The ADM 
> approach to general relativity give NH = 0 and the Wheeler-deWitt equation 
> HΨ[g] = 0. General relativity does not automatically define conservation 
> laws. Conservation laws only occur with certain symmetries of spacetime. 
> This often occurs where there is an ADM mass defined by an asymptotic 
> condition of flatness or some other spacetime with constant curvature at a 
> distance.
>
> Conservation laws appear as asymptotic or boundary terms. The AdS/CFT 
> correspondence of Maldacena shows that a nonlocal quantum gravity theory 
> corresponds to a local conformal field theory on the conformal boundary of 
> the anti-de Sitter spacetime. The anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime has 
> constant negative curvature. This is a negative vacuum energy, where this 
> has some correspondence with string theory, such as the type I string 
> theory has a negative energy vacuum and its first excited state is a 
> negative energy state. The AdS_4 has a correspondence with black hole 
> physics. The AdS spacetime is not the spacetime of the observable universe. 
> It is though in line with the theory of Emmy Noether, also work by 
> Hurzebruch, and even the old Gauss-Bonnet theory. 
>
> Physical spacetime is more similar to de Sitter spacetime, and is the 
> Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime with positive energy. This 
> means curvature is positive, which involves how space is embedded in 
> spacetime, and this does not have conservation laws. If that space is a 
> sphere S^3 the constant vacuum energy on this space grows with the 
> evolution of this space and volume growth. This is one reason that people 
> tend to prefer the flat space model, where vacuum energy is net "infinity" 
> and remains so. However, there is nothing to prevent vacuum energy density 
> from changing. The phantom energy model leading to a big rip of the cosmos 
> is possible, and the curious discrepancy between CMB and SNII data, with 
> the Hubble constant H = 70km/sec-Mpc and H = 74km/sec-Mpc respectively, 
> appears to resist analysis meant to show it is zero. If the phantom energy 
> model should be realized then conservation of energy, even with an infinite 
> flat space, is gone.
>
> The expansion of the universe also means we will not be able to observe 
> much physics that could be called “pre-cosmic,” or the quantum gravitation 
> of the pre-inflationary universe. Because of inflation and this 60-efolds 
> of expansion, expansion by ~ 10^{29}, a Planck scale region was expanded 
> from 10^{-33}cm to 10^{-4} cm. Since inflation began at 10^{30} sec in the 
> early universe, any Planck scale 

Re: Why Does the Universe Exist? Some Perspectives from Our Physics Project—Stephen Wolfram Wis this ritings

[ronaldheld]

Is this vaguely related to Tegmark's mathematical structures? 

On Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 2:36:05 PM UTC-4 Jason wrote:

>
> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
>  
>
> I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the 
> type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with 
> new ways of explaining it and some new insights.
>
> 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/1b825aad-4522-4d4e-8f09-d81dd7f17415n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Dumbest guy in congress asks if the Forest Service can change Earth's orbit to fight climate change

[ronaldheld]

Is There anyone really so uneducated to believe any human can significantly 
change any planet or moons orbits??
On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 3:04:34 PM UTC-4 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> I would be asking NASA myself, especially in light of multiple 
> recommendations from climate scientists to perform mass aerosol sprays into 
> the upper atmosphere to cool us all off, or to drop gigatons of iron 
> filings to offset the weakening of the Atlantic current. It's not just 
> screwy Louie who comes up with untested, unlikely, stuff, it's Harvard.  
>
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-six-ideas-to-limit-global-warming-with-solar-geoengineering
>  Moreover, since Biden has reduced the hunt for oil and gas, on public 
> lands, WITHOUT possessing any ready-to-go substitutes for electricity and 
> transportation, replacing the dirty stuff, it seems that having a law 
> degree as both men do, shows how little this really means! Joe thinks its 
> ok to save the earth first without having wind, solar, and batteries 
> massively available to switch over, and Louie thinks we can play 8-ball 
> with planets!!  Forget Louie. Where's my perovskite solar cells, wheres 
> microscale solar, batteries??? Where are the democrats who see this as a 
> solution and push this? The answer may be, they don't because Greenpeace 
> and liked-minded progressives, seem to find a solution in a die-off. The 
> Population Bomb is still ticking, or so Ehrlich asserted and lied about 53 
> years ago.
>
> https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/the-idea-of-green-growth-is-flawed-we-must-find-ways-of-using-and-wasting-less-energy/
>
> See, you can conserve your way to paradise. Move aside Isaac Newton, 
> Monsieur Carnot!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thu, Jun 10, 2021 2:08 pm
> Subject: Re: Dumbest guy in congress asks if the Forest Service can change 
> Earth's orbit to fight climate change
>
> Dumb would be to ask if the orbit of the Earth or Moon could be changed to 
> cure global waming, of NASA.  But to ask if the fucking Forest Service 
> could do it is beyond idiocy!  I must congratulate Ms. Eberlein for 
> maintaining her composure while realizing that people with bat shit for 
> brains vote on our laws.
>
> Brent
>
> On 6/10/2021 7:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tuesday Louie Gohmert cemented his place as the dumbest man in 
> Congress (and that is saying something!) by asking if the Forest Service or 
> the Bureau of Land Management could cure global warming by changing the 
> moon or the Earth's orbit around the sun. Louie Gohmert is of course a 
> member in good standing of the Stupid Party, aka the Republican party.  
>
> The dumbest guy in congress asks if the Forest Service can change Earth's 
> orbit to fight climate change 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> mli 9
> -- 
> 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/CAJPayv1rfRpW6bpUA6TC0yE860T1SA7XzHsmRohXKE7dxGrTow%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-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97df25e8-0a23-a1f9-7d0e-c10cf24a97d0%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/941f1314-d9cb-4b2f-b902-384d1a73cccdn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Max Tegmark: AI discovers physics

[ronaldheld]

Is the AI discovering some Physics or just fitting data which produces 
equations that look like physical laws?
 Ronald
On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 12:20:49 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> https://www.facebook.com/461616050561921/posts/3107668729289960/
>
>
> We just posted a new AI paper on how to automatically discover laws of 
> physics from raw video with machine learning. For example, we feed in the 
> video below of a rocket moving in a circles in a magnetic field, seen 
> through a distorting lens, and our code automatically discovers the Lorentz 
> Force Law. It took Silviu and me about a year to get this working, by using 
> ideas inspired by general relativity and the the theory of knots in 
> 5-dimensional space, so we're excited to be done!  
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11212
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3572dac1-e47f-4e6f-9e06-26a63068b1e6%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Witten proposes planet 9 is small black hole

[ronaldheld]

Not certain those flyby micro craft will determine whether it exists.
 Ronald

On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 7:48:58 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This is entertaining. He also coauthored a paper below on using photon 
> sails to perform this probing.
>
> LC
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14192  
> Searching for a Black Hole in the Outer Solar System
> Edward Witten 
> 
>
> There are hints of a novel object ("Planet 9") with a mass 5−10 M⊕ in the 
> outer Solar System, at a distance of order 500 AU. If it is a relatively 
> conventional planet, it can be found in telescopic searches. Alternatively, 
> it has been suggested that this body might be a primordial black hole 
> (PBH). In that case, conventional searches will fail. A possible 
> alternative is to probe the gravitational field of this object using small, 
> laser-launched spacecraft, like the ones envisioned in the Breakthrough 
> Starshot project. With a velocity of order .001 c, such spacecraft can 
> reach Planet 9 roughly a decade after launch and can discover it if they 
> can report timing measurements accurate to 10−5 seconds back to Earth.
>
> Comments: 4 pp, additional references
> Subjects: Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); High Energy 
> Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
> Cite as: arXiv:2004.14192  [astro-ph.EP]
>   (or arXiv:2004.14192v2 
>  [astro-ph.EP] for this version)
>
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12336  
>
> Exploration of the outer solar system with fast and small sailcraft
> Slava G. Turyshev 
> 
> , Peter Klupar 
> , 
> Abraham 
> Loeb 
> , Zachary Manchester 
> 
> , Kevin Parkin 
> , 
> Edward 
> Witten 
> , S. 
> Pete Worden 
> 
>
> Two new interplanetary technologies have advanced in the past decade to 
> the point where they may enable exciting, affordable missions that reach 
> further and faster deep into the outer regions of our solar system: (i) 
> small and capable interplanetary spacecraft and (ii) light-driven sails. 
> Combination of these two technologies could drastically reduce travel times 
> within the solar system. We discuss a new paradigm that involves small and 
> fast moving sailcraft that could enable exploration of distant regions of 
> the solar system much sooner and faster than previously considered. We 
> present some of the exciting science objectives for these miniaturized 
> intelligent space systems that could lead to transformational advancements 
> in the space sciences.
>
> Comments: A White Paper to the National Academy of Sciences Planetary 
> Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032. 13 pages, 5 figures and 
> 2 tables
> Subjects: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (astro-ph.IM); 
> Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Solar and Stellar 
> Astrophysics (astro-ph.SR); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
> Cite as: arXiv:2005.12336  [astro-ph.IM]
>   (or arXiv:2005.12336v1 
>  [astro-ph.IM] for this version)
>

-- 
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/886bef07-3f8b-4da7-bbbd-9e64d64b6174%40googlegroups.com.

Re: "Shape" of the universe

[ronaldheld]

Should one expect the unobservable part to be e^50 to e^60  times larger?
  Ronald

On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 2:41:45 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:E
>
>
>
> *Would traveling out in a "straight" line bring you back to where you 
> started?*
>
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/19/would-a-long-journey-through-the-universe-bring-us-back-to-our-starting-point/#1781c2ccf6c5
>
> In the writer's (Ethan Siegel's) *opinion*:
>
>
> On a cosmic scale, there is no indication that the Universe is anything 
> other than infinite and flat. There is no evidence that features in one 
> region of space also appear in any other well-separated region, nor is 
> there evidence of a repeating pattern in the Universe's large-scale 
> structure or the Big Bang's leftover glow. The only way we know of to turn 
> a freely moving object around is via gravitation slingshot, not from cosmic 
> curvature.
>
> And yet, it's a legitimate possibility that the Universe may, in fact, be 
> finite in extent, but larger than our observations can currently take us. 
> As the Universe unfolds over the coming billions of years, more and more of 
> it (about 135% more, by volume) will become visible to us. If there's any 
> hint that a long-distance journey would bring us back to our starting 
> point, that's the only place we'll ever find it. Our only hope for 
> discovering a finite but traversible Universe lies, quite ironically, in 
> our far distant future.
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cc72aa75-4b91-4377-98a2-b704db3e5b73%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[ronaldheld]

I agree that I have no idea how to relate what I have read, to any Physics 
I have learned.
 Ronald

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4309f23a-381a-4a62-8d28-fa3dbeedfbf4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems

[ronaldheld]

Not  a favorable review from SA.   If he submitted peer reviewed documents 
years ago, things might be different today.
  Ronald

On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 4:13:05 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Wolfram Models as Set Substitution Systems*
> https://github.com/maxitg/SetReplace
>
> cf. https://www.wolframphysics.org/
>
> Stephen Wolfram (Ph.D. in theoretical physics at the California Institute 
> of Technology in 1979—at the age of 20): 
>
> “I’m disappointed by the naivete of the questions that you’re 
> communicating.” 
>
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-criticize-stephen-wolframs-theory-of-everything/
>
> “I don’t know of any others in this field that have the wide range of 
> understanding of Dr. Wolfram,” Feynman wrote ( in 1981).
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1254dc3e-6705-49b4-9d36-e9b629871c78%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Total energy of the universe

[ronaldheld]

If you attempt to Sum up all of the components, how close to 0 do you get?
Ronald

On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:00:18 AM UTC-4, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to expansion, 
> where does it go? TIA, AG
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7636d99a-9cc5-45bb-8808-7a16dd662d99%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
Am I correct that you see the Wolfram model as a Physicalist theory and not 
Mechanism(AR)?
  Ronald

On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0edf6f3f-74b3-4d48-83f3-6b3c6fc393a0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: EinsteinPy

[ronaldheld]

Sounds as if I can pass up using it for now.
 Ronald

On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> Latest release:
>
> https://twitter.com/EinsteinPy/status/1257452756413165568
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/877fbd4e-83de-4143-85df-21ea78e13809%40googlegroups.com.

Re: EinsteinPy

[ronaldheld]

Does anyone use this?   IMO, Pytjon is slower than my F77/90 executables, 
but I have never tried a direct comparison.  IMO, it is Pytjon-mania.
 Ronald
On Monday, May 4, 2020 at 8:02:23 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> Latest release:
>
> https://twitter.com/EinsteinPy/status/1257452756413165568
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f009ce7-777c-4c10-9f18-1c7fedbb209f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

I do not understand the basic graph math.   Maybe do as Sean Caroll says to 
do?
  Ronald
On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/09168af6-5955-4abd-8618-01f1b109a2c7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

I am a physicist.   Ignoring the mind/body problems,what new predictions 
does his model make,and can it be falsified?
  Ronald
n Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ceb4e12-456a-4e6c-9721-1ff1403af285%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

Has this works of Wolfram been peer reviewed?
Trying to justify allocating the time to read a large paper with unfamiliar 
concepts.
Ronald


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e710c967-09a5-43b3-8c67-812d355582f7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Wolfram Model

[ronaldheld]

What will I be getting from reading these long papers?
Ronald


On Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 4:40:56 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The "hypergraph" stuff from Stephen Wolfram in recent news on his "new 
> foundation" of physics has a name: 
> *The Wolfram Model.*
>
>
>
> *Some Relativistic and Gravitational Properties of the Wolfram*
> *Model*
> Jonathan Gorard
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-quantum-mechanical-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
> *Some Quantum Mechanical Properties of the Wolfram Model*
> *Jonathan Gorard*
>
> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Documents/some-relativistic-and-gravitational-properties-of-the-wolfram-model.pdf
>
>
> @philipthrift
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc02bc5c-1c48-49a9-ae31-aade7caef25a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Best lecture (so far) on 'consciousness'

[ronaldheld]

Watched the entire video, but do not know what to make of it.   It cannot 
be because I am a physicalist .   Could it be his use of language and 
definitions are imprecise?

On Saturday, April 4, 2020 at 4:07:25 AM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FHLjHC-soU
>
> "there is no conflict between a ‘hard-nosed’ 
> physicalist/materialist/naturalistic scientific approach to the world and 
> all-out belief in the reality of consciousness, conscious experience, good 
> old fashioned qualia - whatever you want to call it or them"
> -- Galen Strawson
>
> @philpthrift
>
>

-- 
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/90a35048-9388-442c-a365-f62a41d855f7%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A interview with Alan Guth, the man who invented inflation

[ronaldheld]

That videio was fine for a lay audience.  Why he did not mention the 
inflation scalar(s) fields or the
~55 e folding times is unknown.
 Ronald
On Wednesday, March 11, 2020 at 7:51:29 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> Alan H. Guth - How Significant is an Expanding Universe? 
> 
>
> 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/b7fc1538-46ab-4cd9-a87c-e7f2a0884fa1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Fermi Paradox

[ronaldheld]

Short of the Prime Directive, I believe we are the first in this section of 
the Milky Way.
 Ronald

On Friday, March 6, 2020 at 10:03:21 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Galactic clusters are the largest structures in the universe held together 
> by gravity and the Ophiuchus Supercluster contains 4021 known galaxies, 
> it's likely none of them contain life, much less intelligent life. 
> Telescopes have seen evidence that the largest galaxy in the center of the 
> cluster underwent a gargantuan explosion at least 240 million years 
> earlier, it's 390 million light years away so the explosion happened at 
> least 630 million years ago. It's thought that 270 million solar masses of 
> gas and dust was sucked into the black hole at the center of the galaxy 
> producing something equivalent to a supernova going off every month for a 
> 100 million years. Something like that would probably sterilize not only 
> the galaxy but the entire cluster. And Ophiuchus is relatively nearby so 
> it's almost certain there are more distant clusters that suffered even 
> larger explosions. It looks like the Milky Way has just been lucky.
>
> DISCOVERY OF A GIANT RADIO FOSSIL IN THE OPHIUCHUS GALAXY CLUSTER 
> 
>
> 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/7f0b5e02-74c4-4e7e-9d9e-27f88a0f5060%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Horizons protect Church-Turing

[ronaldheld]

interesting responses I did expect.   From the physical universe POV, CT is 
relevant?

-- 
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/1bbf2e91-b6c8-484a-9549-be9293cf7de4%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Betelgeuse again

[ronaldheld]

More likely just a superposition of cycle minima.  See if it starts to 
brightened by February 2020.
 Ronald

On Wednesday, January 1, 2020 at 9:06:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> Betelgeuse continues to fall in brightness, 2 months ago it was the 10th 
> brightest star in the sky, as of December 28 it had dropped to number 21. 
> Nobody seems to know if that means anything important but it's certainly 
> odd.
>
>  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/a86d7294-22f7-4264-9453-38d2b7added5%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The problem with physics

[ronaldheld]

Really late, but for the center of the Solar System use Solar system 
barycentric coordinates.

-- 
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/c8105d63-aed2-4d2d-b151-00c19fef0b5c%40googlegroups.com.

Re: What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole?

[ronaldheld]

Not certain there is a planet 9, but my first choice would be a Superearth 
overall PBH.   Still need to rule it out.

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 at 12:44:18 AM UTC-8, John Clark wrote:
>
> Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian objects 
> astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely coincidence, there 
> is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15 earth masses orbiting the sun 
> between 300 and 1000 times as distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but 
> other than this indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to 
> find the slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's 
> so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet at all 
> but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist, and says we 
> need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the optical sort.
>
> What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? 
> 
>
> The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra short micro 
> lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the same range in the 
> distant Magellanic  Cloud (a dwarf galaxy) that they assume were 
> caused by free floating planets not connected to any star, but perhaps it 
> was caused by something even more exotic like a Primordial  Black Hole.
>
> Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment 
>  
>
> It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be GREAT if it 
> turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot spacecraft to explore 
> a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing "Goddard orbit" to boost its 
> speed it could get there in less than a decade.
>
> 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/0b935339-1e06-4a88-8abc-596fc9d302b4%40googlegroups.com.

The Physics of Mind and Thought

[ronaldheld]

Abstract

Regular physics is unsatisfactory in that it fails to take into 
consideration phenomena relating to mind and meaning, whereas on

the other side of the cultural divide such constructs have been studied in 
detail. This paper discusses a possible synthesis of the

two perspectives. Crucial is the way systems realising mental function can 
develop step by step on the basis of the scaffolding

mechanisms of Hoffmeyer, in a way that can be clarified by consideration of 
the phenomenon of language. Taking into account

such constructs, aspects of which are apparent even with simple systems 
such as acoustically excited water, as with cymatics,

potentially opens up a window into a world of mentality excluded from 
conventional physics as a result of the primary focus of
the latter on the matter-like aspect of reality.

 
 
Comments?
Ronald

 

 

 

-- 
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/e5435442-d88a-4b24-a3a0-240b1ece1767%40googlegroups.com.

Re: New equations go beyond Einstein's theory of General Relativity

[ronaldheld]

Looks like another attempt at quantum gravity.
  Ronald

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:15:55 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:

> Anything new here? AG
>
>
> https://scitechdaily.com/new-equations-go-beyond-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity/
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The codical-material universe

[ronaldheld]

AR : Arithmatic Reality 
  Ronald

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 12:08:28 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

> The codical-material universe:
>
> The Babel of Languages and the Substrate of Nature
>
>   https://codicalist.wordpress.com/contents/
>
>
> Im in the "process" is writing an ebook as a collection of"Notes", now a 
> list of 94.
>
> The simple thesis: All is matter, but a;; matter has codicality (a 
> codical, programmatic nature).
>
> Some of these Notes might be of interest.
>
>
> - Philip Thrift
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The codical-material universe

[ronaldheld]

This is a hypothesis a non AR, Physicalist can accept?
  Ronald

On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 12:08:28 PM UTC-4, Philip Thrift wrote:

> The codical-material universe:
>
> The Babel of Languages and the Substrate of Nature
>
>   https://codicalist.wordpress.com/contents/
>
>
> Im in the "process" is writing an ebook as a collection of"Notes", now a 
> list of 94.
>
> The simple thesis: All is matter, but a;; matter has codicality (a 
> codical, programmatic nature).
>
> Some of these Notes might be of interest.
>
>
> - Philip Thrift
>

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Computability and Physical Theories

[ronaldheld]

Curious to hear others opinions before I answer.
 

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:23:31 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> > On 29 Jun 2018, at 13:24, ronaldheld > 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Comments?   Note that I am not a Brunoist or AR. 
>
> Everyone is AR, except ultra-strong-finitim (I have not yet found one). 
> Non AR is the belief that 2+2 is not equal to 4, to put it roughly. 
>
> Brunoist? Not sure what that could mean, as I make no opinion public, 
> still less any claims of truth. Only proof in a well defined theory, and 
> this only to show it testable. I am not a philosophers of the type of 
> suggesting any new idea. I just show that two old ideas: mechanism and 
> materialism are incompatible, and can be tested, and that if we count the 
> evidences, both empirical and theoretical, all the evidences accumulated so 
> far side with mechanism. 
>
> Your link to a text by Geroch and Hartle is not bad at all, but what I 
> shown is more general and more strong: if we assume mechanism in the 
> cognitive science, then the measurable numbers cannot be all computable. I 
> am not sure if this is not already the case with simple QM, but the 
> proposal to extract this (and confirms Mechanism) using gravity might be 
> interesting, although it seems to me quite speculative, given the lack of 
> physical theory coherent on this. Also, if true, and if mechanism is true 
> (in cognitive science — not in physics)that might not be testable, but I 
> have to reread their stuff to see how to explain this with enough detail. 
>
> You can relate all this with my claim that mechanism in cognitive science 
> entails non-mechanism in the physical science and in psychology, theology, 
> etc. Digital physics is incompatible with digital psychology/theology, as I 
> have explained here many times (but I am ware it is subtle). Have you grasp 
> the first person indeterminacy? The rest follows easily from it. Keep in 
> mind that for a mechanist, the mystery is that the physical laws appears to 
> be too much computable, a priori, without the self-reference nuance brought 
> by incompleteness, mechanism predicts white noise and white rabbits, more 
> than any computations. But then the incompleteness just shows that this 
> cannot be used to refute mechanism, and that the testing has to be more 
> sophicticated, and up to now, QM, well, the SWE, confirms 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: How we view the World

[ronaldheld]

Sure, Bruno(and others). No rush so take more time.
  Ronald

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An interstellar asteroid​ ​has been found

[ronaldheld]

On Sunday, October 29, 2017 at 12:25:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> For the first time an asteroid has been found that follows a hyperbolic 
> path not a elliptical one, that means it is not in orbit around the sun but 
> is freely traveling between the stars. It's about 1300 feet across and was 
> discovered on Oct 19 after it had already made its closest approach to 
> Earth (15 million miles) which must have been on Oct 14. It will never come 
> this way again. 
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/10/27/a-space-rock-from-another-star-is-spotted-in-our-solar-system-a-cosmic-first/?utm_term=.2f342bf9bebc
>   
>
>
>  John K Clark
>
the object needs a new designation as it does not orbit the Sun, just 
passing through. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: math and the treal world

[ronaldheld]

What is my take on this, since I am not Bruno or  one of his Apostles?  I also 
harbor tendencies u popular here.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: math and the treal world

[ronaldheld]

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 8:01:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Sep 2017, at 13:22, ronaldheld wrote:
>
> This should cause some discussion. Maybe belongs in the "is math real" 
> thread, but that one is large??
>Ronald
>
>
> What is your opinion?
>
> The author believes that PI does not existed 100,000 years ago. 
>
> It looks like he believes that 100,000 existed 100,000 years ago, making 
> hard for me to understand why PI would not exist, and in which sense, as PI 
> is not a function of time.
>
> Then the author seems to believe in a primary physical universe, and does 
> not seem aware that this is an assumption too, and indeed arguably much 
> stronger than assuming arithmetic.
>
> The main problem is that the author does not put its assumption on the 
> table, and take for granted that existence is physical existence. That does 
> not make sense with mechanism (probably), but to be franc, I am not sure 
> this makes sense even without mechanism. He confuses also mathematical 
> theory and mathematical reality, it seems.
>
> What do *you* think? What would be your primary assumption?
>
> My feeling is that it is a waste of time to guess what exists or not 
> before saying what we are willing to assume as primitively true, or what is 
> the metaphysical background accepted. 
>
> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> <1709.03087.pdf>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
> Well, his use of 10 years does not fit with some little things he 
> states.  I am not the best person to comment, one because we should get 
> more opinions.  AFAIK his view is that mathematics (applied) does not fit 
> the "real world" as well as others have claimed. he also assumes that 
> lesser animals cannot do any math besides counting low integers. 
>
  Ronald 
 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Testing MWI

[ronaldheld]

Can you provide some examples?

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Testing MWI

[ronaldheld]

*arXiv:1412.7352* http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.7352 (cross-list from gr-qc) [
*pdf* http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7352, *ps* http://arxiv.org/ps/1412.7352, 
*other* http://arxiv.org/format/1412.7352] 
Title: Testing the Everett Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with 
Cosmology 
Authors: *Aurelien Barrau* 
http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Barrau_A/0/1/0/all/0/1 
Comments: 5 pages 
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and 
Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) 

In this brief note, we argue that contrarily to what is still often stated, 
the Everett many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not in 
principle impossible to test. It is actually not more difficult (but not 
easier either) to test than most other kinds of multiverse theories. We 
also remind why multiverse scenarios can be falsified. 

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark's new book

[ronaldheld]

 *arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf* 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348] 
Title: Our Mathematical Universe? 
Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield* 
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1 
Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL* 
http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014 
  
 I just saw thsi.
   Ronald
 
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a 
 State of Matter, 
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics- 
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
 has the most members in it.

 For another try I have read the following:


  arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in his 
 book?
Ronald

 --
 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 javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA

[ronaldheld]

Bruno, I have read several over the years but do not save them. Here is the 
latest one that I read: 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1599
Ronald
 
Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:37:52 PM UTC-4, ronaldheld wrote:

 Assuming chaotic inflation there is no consensus that the multiverse 
 is past infinite but some papers have try to show it is do. 
  Ronald 


-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

[ronaldheld]

Without hijacking this massive thread, I am asking if it is worth buying 
this book, if you are not a believer in the platonic universe, UDA,etc?
Ronald

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 10:31:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 26 January 2014 16:27, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 Dear LizR,

   I try to (have some idea what I am talking about). I just have lost the 
 desire to explain myself. I made my case already.


 Well, OK, fine by me. I didn't see a case made, only a definition / 
 ontological assumption, which I was attempting to clarify. I guess if I had 
 time to read that paper (and all the others that get linked) I might have 
 had a better idea of what backs up this definition:

I am trying to not get stuck on the classical notion of time and 
 instead focus on what the concept is trying to denote:
 1) a sequence of events
 2) a transition from one event to another.

  

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Universe on a Chip

[ronaldheld]

maybe this will help?
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
arXiv:1210.1847v1 [hep-ph] 4Oct 2012
Ronald


On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:

  On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:

    If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light
  correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the
  “CPU speed?”

  As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of
  the simulation appear as a constant value.

  Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle.

  Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also
  inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be
  changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value.

  A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to
  update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really
  is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more 
  herehttp://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...
 http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...)

    I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in
  a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which
  occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With
  this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an
  organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather
  than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons).

  This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a
  meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the
  computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating
  through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially
  consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the
  cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc?

  The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model
  would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate
  unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in
  genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering
  the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think
  that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not
  nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which
  loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no
  action at all.

  The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos
  over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear
  to. It can only seem to disappear through…
  …
  …
  …
  latency.

  The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A
  meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating
  methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side,
  richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through
  these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when
  the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the
  real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even
  one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to
  complete their cycles first?

  ?

  If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us
  say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will
  not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time
  does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR.

  I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe
  arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can
  talk about this instead if you like.

  What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU
  clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was
  saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program,
  start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually
  experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine.

  The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing
  the computing, yes? What does it run on?

  On the true number relations.

  Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic,
  involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic.

 Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then
 do their progeny require number-relations?







  If it doesn't need to run 

A digital approach to quantum theory

[ronaldheld]

 arXiv:1208.0493v1 [quant-ph]
   anything useful here?
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/o8kakXvUvOIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Physics and Tautology.

[ronaldheld]

If this universe has zero net energy charge and angular momemtum, I see no 
problem being created via a chaotic inflation scenario.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kRunZgoGxfoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

On the problem of a physical “theory of everything”

[ronaldheld]

arxiv:1207.4520
is there any meaning to this?
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kt7-xm6P4VoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[ronaldheld]

arXiv:1205.2720 [pdf]
Title: Why there is something rather than nothing: The finite,
infinite and eternal
Authors: Peter Lynds


Ronald

On May 15, 5:33 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 Brent:
 did I say .
 I am *conscious of infinite complexity???
 *If so, I used the word in a different meaning: like I know about. Or
 better: I think I know about. (Belief system).
 I explained several times that said infinite comp[lex system is beyond our
 knowability although we are part of it with a partial knowledge. I never
 promised symbols (or even a rose garden).



 On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
   On 5/14/2012 1:58 PM, John Mikes wrote:

  Qualia aspect?
  Please consider my 'rigid' agnostic stance with all those unknowable
  aspects playing into - what you so succinctly call: 'qualia' - I struggled
  for a long time to boil down my MOST GENERALIZED definition for something
  that would cover what many of us (?) call consciousness.
  I don't want to put a partial group of qualia on the banner.
  Besides: I fell into my own concept of 'networks of Networks (Karl Jaspers
  Forum TA62MIK) according to which there is no limitation how far
  connections may go.
  So whatever I would name 'qualia' is by Occam's razor.
  Not as a term of the infinite complexity I have in mind.
  JM

  No offense intended, but I strongly doubt that you can be conscious of
  infinite complexity.  ISTM that what one is conscious of is almost
  coextensive with what you can put into symbols: language, music, gestures,
  pictures.  Experiments with language and music suggest that you can only
  process about 50bits/sec.

  Brent

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

COMP test

[ronaldheld]

What observations or measurements can I perform that would falsify
COMP?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The free will function

[ronaldheld]

Another comment on the paper: arXiv:1202.3395v1 [physics.hist-ph}
   Ronald

On Feb 15, 10:27 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 14, 2012  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  can a virtual typhoon makes you wet?

 I don't know, it depends on whether you are in the same level of reality
 as the typhoon. I do know for certain that a real typhoon can't make the
 laws of physics wet because they exist at different levels, although I
 don't really have a way of determining if the storm is real or not, all I
 can do is tell if its at the same level as me or not. I can also say that
 some things behave much the same regardless of what level they are in,
 things like arithmetic and logic and consciousness.

   John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

The free will function

[ronaldheld]

arXiv:1202.0720v1 [physics.hist-ph]

Abstract
It is argued that it is possible to give operational meaning to free
will and
the process of making a choice without employing metaphysics.

comments?
Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Belief in Big Bang?

[ronaldheld]

I have no problem(for now) accepting the Big Bang theory+inflation
paradigm. I admit I do not know what dark matter is or how many
inflaton fields there are. I can accept the cosmological constant as
the source of dark energy. It seems better at this time to have the
two dark quantities than to alter Einsteins's General Relativity.
More observations will be needed.
Ronald

On Jan 25, 7:41 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 On 1/25/2012 4:16 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

  Sounds like the sophistry you accuse physcists of.  While 'everything' may 
  be as
  uninformative a 'nothing', they seem pretty distinct to me.

      Exactly how is this distinction made? Is it merely semantics for you, 
  this difference?

 Well, for one, if everything exists I'm around to see somethings.

 Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

[ronaldheld]

Not certain if this goes here
What about Data from TNG?  He could pass the Turing test, and with his
emotion chip on, act like many huminoids.   Is he intelligent,
conscious, self aware, etc?
Ronald


On Jan 23, 5:38 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Jan 23, 10:57 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

  On Sat, Jan 21, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

   It's simpler than that. Inanimate means it can't move

  Is a redwood tree an inanimate object?

 No. Trees grow and they die.



    and it's not alive.

  If it's alive then it's animate and if it's animate then it's alive and
  round and round to go.

 Not moving makes it inanimate but moving doesn't make it animate.

  Biologist have tried to come up with a good
  definition of life for a long time but have largely given up on the task
  and use examples instead. Examples are better anyway.

 Yes, I agree. Definitions aren't worth much.



   I choose to disagree with your view.

  And you disagree with me for reasons, reasons you are not shy in telling
  me all about. I think those reasons are very weak but it doesn't matter
  what I think, it doesn't even matter if your reasons are logically self
  contradictory; you believe the reasons are good and see no contradiction
  in your statements about them even if I do. Bad reasons work just as
  well as good reasons in making people do and believe in stuff.

 Then what makes you think they are bad?



  I am not genetically bound to disagree

  Maybe, maybe not, it's very difficult to say.

 Not really. Identical twins have the same genetics and they can
 disagree with each other.



  nor does my environment completely dictate my opinion.

  A  high speed proton  from a  cosmic ray could have entered  your
  brain causing you to have a thought you would not otherwise have had, or
  maybe the cause of the thought was a random quantum fluctuation inside
  just one neuron in your brain.

 Something like that could potentially be an influence, but there is no
 reason to think that it can dictate my opinion completely. There are
 lots of influences that impact an opinion, but mostly they are
 semantic. We don't see too many people change their opinion midstream
 without knowing why, as would be the case in this cosmic ray scenario.



   if some random quantum nothingness turned into somethingness in just

   the right way, then you would agree with me and there is nothing you can
   do to change it.

  Yes.

   Do you not see that it is impossible to care about what you write here if

   those three options were truly the only options?

  No.

 If what you write here is automatic or random then what would be the
 point of caring about it?



   you've been saying that whatever isn't deterministic must be random.

  Yes.

  Neither of us disagree about randomness, so that leaves determinism vs

   determinism + choice.

  This isn't really that difficult. If you made a choice for a reason then
  its deterministic, if you made a choice for no reason then its random.

 It's not for a reason, it is through your own reasoning. You are
 providing the reason yourself.



   Choice is not deterministic and also not random.

  Then the only alternative is gibberish.

 That is reductionist gibberish.



   A yellow traffic signal is not red and it is not green.

  Yes, but you're saying a yellow traffic signal is not red AND not not
  red, and that my friend is gibberish.

 Yellow anticipates red, so the meaning of it can also be considered
 not not-red. The yellow signal means nothing other than red is coming.
 This is actually analogous to free will. If red is determinism, then
 yellow is conscious determination.



  It's you who are denying the obvious role of free will in our every

   conscious moment.

  The idea of free will would have to improve dramatically before I
  could deny it, until then denying free will would be like denying a
  burp.

 You can't deny it or not deny it without free will. You would only be
 a powerless spectator to your own denial.



  It's like I'm watching Fox News or something.

  That's the worst insult I've ever had in my life.

 Sorry. Maybe was hyperbole.





   When I type now, I could say anything. I can say trampoline isotope,

   or I can make up a word like cheesaholic. It's not random.

  OK, if it's not random then there is a reason, so what was the reason
  for linking trampoline and isotope rather than say squeamish and
  osprey? If you can answer then there was a reason and thus the
  response was deterministic. If you can not answer then there are 2
  possibilities:

  1) There was a reason but it's deep in your subconscious and your
  conscious mind can not access it, then it was still deterministic.

  2) There was no reason whatsoever for picking those words,  and so despite
  your assertion the choice was indeed random.

   There were other possibilities but I choose 

Is Turing’s Thesis the Consequence of a More

[ronaldheld]

Since there was a thread on Turing:arXiv:1201.4504v1 [math.LO]
Here is the abstract:

We discuss historical attempts to formulate a physical hypothesis from
which Turing’s thesis may be derived, and also discuss some related
at-
tempts to establish the computability of mathematical models in
physics.
We show that these attempts are all related to a single, unified
hypothesis.

comments?
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

The Computing Spacetime

[ronaldheld]

I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments?
I have just started to read it.,
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Beyond quantum theory: a realist psycho-biological

[ronaldheld]

article copy from Arxiv.org
   Ronald

‘Beyond quantum theory: a realist psycho-biological
interpretation of reality’ revisited
Brian D. Josephson
Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
Abstract
It is hypothesised, following Conrad et al. (1988) that quantum
physics is not the ultimate theory of nature, but
merely a theoretical account of the phenomena manifested in nature
under particular conditions. These
phenomena parallel cognitive phenomena in biosystems in a number of
ways and are assumed to arise from
related mechanisms. Quantum and biological accounts are complementary
in the sense of Bohr and quantum
accounts may be incomplete. In particular, following ideas of Stapp,
‘the observer’ is a system that, while
lying outside the descriptive capacities of quantum mechanics, creates
observable phenomena such as wave
function collapse through its probing activities. Better understanding
of such processes may pave the way to
new science.
Keywords: complementarity, subjective–objective parallelism, the
observer, state vector
collapse, epistemology
Michael Conrad was an unusually gifted scientist. My experience with
him was that if one
had a question about anything one could go and ask him about it and
get back a clear
explanation of the issue concerned, no matter what field it belonged
to. And if one was
working on an idea of one’s own and wanted some feedback, he would
always come back
with deep insights.
I will leave to others in this volume the task of explaining his many
innovative ideas, and
focus here on some specific ideas that we worked on together. One of
these was the idea
from Eastern Philosophy that in certain states of consciousness the
subjective states of the
mind, irrespective of learning, closely reflect objective reality, a
state of affairs contrary to
that of the usual assumption, whereby the contents of the mind reflect
objective reality
— page 1 —
purely as a consequence of what one has learnt about it. Such an idea
had been discussed by
Fritjof Capra in his book the Tao of Physics (Capra 1983), concerned
with the deep parallels
that appear to exist between patterns found in objective reality as
revealed by modern
science, and patterns found in deeper personal experiences as revealed
by meditation or
mystical experience and reported by the mystics. A related theoretical
idea, based on
Whitehead’s process philosophy, was developed by Stapp (1982, 1985).
This is the idea
that reality evolves by a mind-like process, decisions made by this
process being apparent in
the context of ordinary physics as the collapse of the wave function.
In our Urbino
conference paper (Conrad et al. 1988) we tried to take this idea
further (see Table 1),
proposing a number of logical correspondences between the two modes of
description (in the
original paper we called the right hand side biological, since we
regarded phenomena such as
signals, decisions and regulation as characteristically biological, a
theme developed in more
detail in Josephson and Conrad (1992)):
[table 1 about by here]
The details of quantum physics and biology are very different, but we
argued that they might
nevertheless be derivative of some common underlying subtler
background process, in the
same way that waves and particles emerge from a common subtler domain,
that of quantum
mechanics, and in some cases share certain features such as
propagation along a trajectory.
Quantum mechanics would then be the specific theory that emerges as a
good description in
some domain of nature, whilst more biological accounts would be
relevant in some other
phenomenal domain. We thus envisaged the possibility, highlighted in
some of the writings of
Bohr (1958), that biological and quantum accounts of nature might,
like the wave and particle
accounts, of certain phenomena, be complementary rather than, as with
the conventional
view, the first being entirely derivative of the latter.
We finished our paper with considerations of knowability (in which
discussion our coauthor,
Dipankar Home, played a major role), it being our view that the form
of a scientific domain is
— page 2 —
very much influenced by its paradigm. Biology concerns itself largely
with processes, while
quantum mechanics is concerned fundamentally with quantifiability. As
already noted, these
aspects may be complementary and also incompatible. Quantum mechanics
achieves its
quantitative aspects by an averaging process, but this may lead to
neglecting characteristics of
individual cases which may be relevant in the case of a biosystem,
provided we are prepared
to recognise the uniqueness of the individual case instead of treating
all cases of a class as if
they were the same. This may point to a fundamental inadequacy in the
quantum point of
view, as we illustrated by consideration of a classical gas where the
options exist for
statistical or deterministic accounts, there being an epistemology
acknowledging only
statistical properties or properties 

QM:collapse vs no collapse

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1108/1108.4175v1.pdf
   Any comments?
Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

logic and physicists

[ronaldheld]

I believe Bruno said this. Could whomever did say that expand upon the
phrase?
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

The Brain Speaks(to Bruno)

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1107/1107.4028.pdf
Sorry about my title choice. Any comments?
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 You may be correct that it is only an intellectual exercise. How many
lines of LISP code comprises the UD?
 I may have been infomally exposed to LISP in college, but that was
decades ago.
Ronald

On Jul 20, 5:01 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 19 Jul 2011, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:

  On 7/19/2011 11:32 AM, ronaldheld wrote:
  Given limited resources and for only 1 program, it does not seem
  logical to learn LISP. Are there Windows or DOS executables of the  
  UD?
  FWIW. I use MAPLE and not Mathematica.
                 Ronald

  Maple is based on LISP.  An executable UD wouldn't be very  
  interesting.  Since it doesn't halt what would you do with it?  It's  
  the program itself that is more interesting.

 Absolutely. Even more important is the understanding that the UD, and  
 its mathematical execution is embedded in the first order arithmetical  
 true relation. This is not obvious, nor easy to prove. But it is  
 proved in any accurate proof of Gödel's theorem for arithmetic.

 Also, I would say to Ronald that it is easy to write a code for the UD  
 in any language. I guess it will be a tedious work in a language like  
 Fortran, but that might be a good exercise in programming. But again,  
 you are right: it makes no sense to program a UD. The running is  
 infinite. The only reasons to program it are pedagogical and  
 illustrative.

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Bruno's blasphemy.

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
   I do not know LISP. Any UD code written in Fortran?
Ronald

On Jul 18, 5:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 17 Jul 2011, at 19:52, Jason Resch wrote:







  On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
  wrote:

  The interior of the
  singularity is the interior of the cosmos with all of the spacetime
  vacuumed out of it. Spacetime is what exteriorizes the big bang
  (meaning it's more of a Big Break, where the void of space rushes
  inward. There is no exterior to the big bang since it prefigures
  timespace, therefore it can only be conceived of accurately from the
  interior perspective. explicates matter as volume and the void of time
  explicates 'energy' (the experience of matter) as sequence-memory. The
  Singularity then is always happening and never happening, since it is
  outside timespace, the hub of the wheel of Runtime/UD.

  The UD is a mathematical being. It is an open question if the  
  apparent physical universe run a UD, without stopping.
  One has run, in my office, for one week. Such a program is demanding  
  in memory, to say the least.

  Bruno,

  Is the source of this program available?  I am curious how many  
  lines of (Fortran?) code is was.

 Jason,

 Click on

 Φ-LISP  Φ-DOVE

 in the volume 4 of Conscience et Mécanisme here:

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/consciencemecanisme.html

 It is not in FORTRAN, but in LISP. The UD is written in a personal  
 LISP, described itself there too (in Allegro Common Lisp).

 Sorry for the comments in french, but if you know a few LISP, the code  
 is self-explaining. Examples are given for most subroutines. The whole  
 program makes about 300 lines.

 Best,

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

MULTIVERSE HYPOTHESIS and natural laws

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.4278.pdf
They mentioned Tegmark's Level IV multiverse so I thought i would post
the link here.
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

QM and MWI

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1105/1105.3796v1.pdf.
I am curious what people think of this, not just from the DM Point of
view.
   Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: TIME warp

[ronaldheld]

Are you talking about a Star Trek term or for certain space-times,
the ability to go forwards or backwards in time relative to a distant
observer?
 
Ronald

On May 16, 3:31 pm, selva selvakr1...@gmail.com wrote:
 hi everyone,

 can someone explain me what a time warp is ? or why there is a time
 warp ?
 well yes,it is due to the curvature of the space-time graph near a
 heavy mass.
 but how does it points to the center of the mass,how does it finds
 it..
 and explanation at atomic level plz..

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

The Emergence of Consciousness in the Quantum Universe

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1103/1103.1651v1.pdf
Here we go again.
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Another TOE short paper

[ronaldheld]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0005v1.pdf.
Bruno may be interested in this one.
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE,QUANTUM

[ronaldheld]

I see you beat me to posting this.
Ronald

On Mar 1, 12:55 am, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.5339v1.pdf

 CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE
 QUANTUM  
 Don N. Page
 Theoretical Physics Institute
 Department of Physics, University of Alberta
 Room 238 CEB, 11322 89 Avenue
 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G7
 (2011 Feb. 25)
 Abstract
 Sensible Quantum Mechanics or Mindless Sensationalism is a framework
 for relating consciousness to a quantum universe. It states that each con-
 scious perception has a measure that is given by the expectation value of a
 corresponding quantum awareness operator in a fixed quantum state of the
 universe. The measures can be interpreted as frequency-type probabilities
 for a large set of perceptions that all actually exist with varying
 degrees of
 reality, so detailed theories within this framework are testable. The
 measures
 are not propensities for potentialities to be actualized, so there is
 nothing
 indeterministic in this framework, and no free will in the incompatibilistic
 sense. As conscious perceptions are determined by the awareness operators
 and the quantum state, they are epiphenomena. No fundamental relation is
 postulated between different perceptions (each being the entirety of a
 single
 conscious experience and thus not in direct contact with any other), so
 SQMor
 MS, a variant of Everett s many-worlds framework, is a many-perceptions
 framework but not a many-minds framework.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Physical Church-Turing thesis and QM

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1612v1.pdf
Any comments?
Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

another paper on consciousness and intrinsic awareness

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2422.pdf

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Observers and Church/Turing

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
   Any comments?
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
   Given what I know about the laws of Physics. A matter human in a
matter Universe(similar to ours) is Consciousness and self aware. An
antimatter human in an antimatter Universe should be expected to be
Consciousness and self aware.
   I do not understand the second to last paragraph. One starts with a
Universe that splits upon taking measuremennts, or there are N
parallel Universes to start and diverge from each other as unique
measurements occur over time.
 
Ronald

On Dec 22, 11:49 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 21 Dec 2010, at 21:40, Brent Meeker wrote:





  On 12/21/2010 5:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  On 20 Dec 2010, at 20:01, Brent Meeker wrote:

  Russell has given the correct answer. Here by mind I mean the  
  conscious first person mind. By UDA-8 (MGA), consciousness is not  
  attached to the physical running of a computer, but is attached  
  to the logical number-theoretical relations describing that  
  computation ... and all similar (with respect to the relevant  
  levels) computations which exist in Sigma_1 (computational)  
  arithmetical truth (and which might bear on beliefs and proofs  
  which extends far beyond the computable).

  But do you mean to assert that all computations have consciousness  
  attached?  In what sense does this allow us to distinguish human  
  introspection from human perception from my dog's awareness from a  
  snail's awareness from a rock's awareness?

  Not at all. Only very special computations have consciousness,  
  although it is better to attach consciousness to the sheaf of  
  equivalent computations, going through the relevant (relative)  
  states. For example, assuming many things by default, for any  
  different electron positions in the atoms in your brain you have a  
  different computations. Your actual consciousness is attached to  
  all those computations.

  When you express it that way it sounds as if you take consciousness  
  to be something apart from the sheaf of equivalent computations -  
  something I have but maybe a snail does not.  Don't you rely on  
  Everett's idea that consciousness just goes with the computations -  
  so that when computations of quantum events become classically  
  inconsistent then there is a different consciousness associated with  
  the each (classically) consistent sheaf?

 Consciousness differentiates only when it is aware of a specific  
 result making his world different from the worlds where the observer  
 would have seen another result, both in the WM duplication, or in the  
 measure of an electron position or spin. If not, we would not been  
 able to be aware of the quantum coherence.
 Here there is an ambiguity present in both quantum mechanics and  
 computationalism.

 Suppose an electron in your brain, or elsewhere, is in the  
 superposition state here+there. You are described by B.
 The state of you + the electron is described as well by B . (here
 +there) or by B . here + B . there. If B does not interact (observe)  
 the electron he will be able to decide to do a measure of the electron  
 in the complementary base of {here, there}, and observe interference  
 between the two different classical worlds (where the electron is  
 respectively here and there. But if the observer looks where is the  
 electron, then the evolution leads to B_here . here  +  B_there .  
 there. And without amnesia, the observer will be unable to make the  
 two worlds above fusing, and he has lost the ability to observe the  
 interference.

 The ambiguity is due to the factorization. I suggest, both for the  
 definition of the measure on the computational histories, and the  
 consistent quantum histories, to use the rule Y = II. This consists in  
 interpreting a(b+c) always as a shorthand for a.b + a.c. I think that  
 David Deutsch does the same in the quantum case when he says that the  
 universe never splits: it is split right at the start, and the  
 parallel universe only differentiate. With comp it is really  
 consciousness which differentiate, and somehow the subjective  
 experience plays the role of the universes.

 But those two views are really equivalent. The splitting/fusing  
 vocabulary is more easy for the description of the statistical  
 interference between subjective experience/ first person plural  
 realities, but the global measure on the computations is better seen  
 when distributing all the factors at once, unravelling all histories  
 by applying the rule Y = II all along the complete universal deployment.

 Does this make sense?

 Bruno







  Brent

  If electrons are specified by continuous variable, your  
  consciousness will be related to a continuum of computations  
  generated by the UD. In that case you have to consider the  
  dovetailing of the UD on the real and complex numbers. Of course  
  that continuum is an internal first person view which existence is  
  due to your non-awareness of the delays made by the UD. It 

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
   Behind in this group. I think that if you had a this Universe and
replace the particles with its antiparticles.there should be no
difference from the human observer POV.
 
Ronald

On Dec 20, 4:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 19 Dec 2010, at 18:29, ronaldheld wrote:

  Jason
  I would think normally the implant should work as well. Being
  Bajorean, could the missing essence be the influence of the Prophets?
  Data and the EMH should be able to pass the Turing test.
  Maybe I am missing something. A matter human in a matter universe
  should function the same as an antimatter human in an antimatter
  universe, AFAIK

 How do you know that?

 Of course it is a consequence of comp + the level is enough high to  
 allow electron to to be substituted by positron, etc. But if comp is  
 false, then you need an explicit hypothesis of invariance for the  
 matter/antimatter change.
 And from a logical point of view, we can make a comp theory of mind  
 with the matter/antimatter change no more working (using string  
 theory, for example).

 Comp, or digital mechanism assumes that there is a substitution level,  
 not that we can know what is that level. Indeed, it can be shown that  
 if we are machine, then we cannot know which machine we are, but can  
 infer it with some degree of plausibility from the observable reality.  
 Saying yes to the doctor asks for a leap of faith. Of course we have  
 biological reasons/observations to assume that the level is probably  
 much higher than the internal working of particles and strings.

 Bruno





                                              Ronald

  On Dec 18, 12:57 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
  Ronald,

  I remember that episode.  I thought it was quite a departure from the
  atheistic slant that was usual to star trek.
  ( For those not familiar with the 
  scene:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihdI8U9eS4c#t
  =2m30s)

  They seemed to suggest in the episode that the operation failed not  
  because
  of a defect in the artificial brain but because there was something  
  more to
  the mind that the machine didn't capture, some soul or some essence  
  that
  couldn't be copied.  This is contrary to the frequent use of  
  transporters
  throughout the series, unless you accept something like biological
  naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism),  
  the idea
  that only biochemistry has the right stuff or can do the right  
  things to
  create consciousness.  I don't think the writers of that episode  
  were well
  versed in philosophy of mind, so I wouldn't put too much stock in  
  the ideas
  they promote.  For that episode to make sense you either have to  
  accept
  dualism or biological naturalism (which is almost like a form of  
  dualism).

  Do you think that Commander Data, whose entire brain is positronic,  
  lacks
  consciousness?  I like the argument Picard gave for Data's  
  sentience:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWNPeNEvMN4

  You mentioned that you had no problem with the idea of a person  
  made from
  anti-matter particles.  What if scientists invented tiny machines  
  that were
  not atoms but operated all the same, would you accept that you  
  could build a
  person using these?  Taking the idea slightly further, lets say  
  these little
  faux-atoms were expensive, so scientists decided to model the  
  machines in a
  computer rather than make them.  Simulating a small number of them  
  together
  they could predict how  nano-machines behaved.  If the scientists  
  modeled a
  much larger collection of these atoms, organized in the same way as  
  in a
  person, do you think any of the complexity is lost?

  Jason

  On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:05 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com  
  wrote:
  Bruno and Jason
    The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep  
  space
  9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
  Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
                                                              Ronald

  On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
  wrote:
  Jason:
    I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of  
  voltage
  to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio  
  parts by
  processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
  mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.

  If the mechanical replacements have the same repertoire and  
  behavior as
  the
  biological parts I don't see how the complexity would be  
  lessened.  Many
  people feel lessened to be thought of as a machine, but they  
  probably
  don't
  fully appreciate just how complex of a machine the brain is.  It  
  has 100
  billion neurons (about 1 for each stars in this galaxy) and close  
  to 1
  quintillion connections or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (about 1  
  connection for
  every cent of US debt).  People

is the Brain in a superfluid state? Physics of Consciousness

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.3765v1.pdf
  I saw this and thought, Bruno.
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason
 I would think normally the implant should work as well. Being
Bajorean, could the missing essence be the influence of the Prophets?
 Data and the EMH should be able to pass the Turing test.
 Maybe I am missing something. A matter human in a matter universe
should function the same as an antimatter human in an antimatter
universe, AFAIK
 Ronald

On Dec 18, 12:57 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ronald,

 I remember that episode.  I thought it was quite a departure from the
 atheistic slant that was usual to star trek.
 ( For those not familiar with the 
 scene:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihdI8U9eS4c#t=2m30s)

 They seemed to suggest in the episode that the operation failed not because
 of a defect in the artificial brain but because there was something more to
 the mind that the machine didn't capture, some soul or some essence that
 couldn't be copied.  This is contrary to the frequent use of transporters
 throughout the series, unless you accept something like biological
 naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_naturalism), the idea
 that only biochemistry has the right stuff or can do the right things to
 create consciousness.  I don't think the writers of that episode were well
 versed in philosophy of mind, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the ideas
 they promote.  For that episode to make sense you either have to accept
 dualism or biological naturalism (which is almost like a form of dualism).

 Do you think that Commander Data, whose entire brain is positronic, lacks
 consciousness?  I like the argument Picard gave for Data's 
 sentience:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWNPeNEvMN4

 You mentioned that you had no problem with the idea of a person made from
 anti-matter particles.  What if scientists invented tiny machines that were
 not atoms but operated all the same, would you accept that you could build a
 person using these?  Taking the idea slightly further, lets say these little
 faux-atoms were expensive, so scientists decided to model the machines in a
 computer rather than make them.  Simulating a small number of them together
 they could predict how  nano-machines behaved.  If the scientists modeled a
 much larger collection of these atoms, organized in the same way as in a
 person, do you think any of the complexity is lost?

 Jason



 On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 8:05 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Bruno and Jason
    The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep space
  9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
  Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
                                                              Ronald

  On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
  wrote:
Jason:
  I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.

   If the mechanical replacements have the same repertoire and behavior as
  the
   biological parts I don't see how the complexity would be lessened.  Many
   people feel lessened to be thought of as a machine, but they probably
  don't
   fully appreciate just how complex of a machine the brain is.  It has 100
   billion neurons (about 1 for each stars in this galaxy) and close to 1
   quintillion connections or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (about 1 connection for
   every cent of US debt).  People aren't familiar with man-made machines
   anywhere near this level of complexity and so it is understandable that
  one
   could doubt a machine acting like a human. However, I think this is
  mainly a
   prejudice instilled by the types of (comparatively simple) machines we
  deal
   with on a daily basis.

   Jason

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno and Jason
   The complexity issue concerns me, perhaps because of the Deep space
9 episode:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Life_Support_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine)
 Ronald

On Dec 16, 11:39 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Jason:
    I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
  to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
  processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
  mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.

 If the mechanical replacements have the same repertoire and behavior as the
 biological parts I don't see how the complexity would be lessened.  Many
 people feel lessened to be thought of as a machine, but they probably don't
 fully appreciate just how complex of a machine the brain is.  It has 100
 billion neurons (about 1 for each stars in this galaxy) and close to 1
 quintillion connections or 1,000,000,000,000,000 (about 1 connection for
 every cent of US debt).  People aren't familiar with man-made machines
 anywhere near this level of complexity and so it is understandable that one
 could doubt a machine acting like a human. However, I think this is mainly a
 prejudice instilled by the types of (comparatively simple) machines we deal
 with on a daily basis.

 Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason:
   I do not think a neutron take more trhan a finite amount of voltage
to be able to fire. I do wonder if merely replacing the bio parts by
processing hardware, do you lose the part of the complexity of the
mind? Np problem with an antimatter man and mind.
 
Ronald


On Dec 14, 10:30 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ron,

 I think the path to seeing the mind as a program is easier in this way:
 1. It's not what the parts of the brain are made of its how they function
 which determines behavior
 2. This leads to the idea of multiple 
 realizabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_realizability(Brains can 
 be made in
 different ways so long as the parts function the same)
 3. Accordingly, one could replace each neuron, or each atom, (or whatever)
 with a device that behaved like what it was replacing (A man made out of
 antimatter and antiparticles would still be a man)
 4. Philosophical zombies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie) 
 are not possible,
 their brain/mind would have all the same beliefs, and
 all the same information as the equivalently organized and behaving brain it
 replaced, but in what sense could one say this one's beliefs are wrong but
 this one's beliefs are right?  There would be no way to ever prove that one
 is conscious and one is not, it would be wrong for no reason at all.  This
 is what it takes for the idea of zombies to be consistent.  Further, the
 real brain and zombie brain could never even report feeling any different,
 since both brains contain the same information and same knowledge, how is it
 possible for one to report differences in experience?  This addresses your
 question of whether or not there would be an impact to one's consciousness
 if their brain were swapped by a device with equivalent processing of
 information.
 5. If zombies are impossible, then any device containing the same
 information and processing it in the same way as another mind should have
 the same consciousness.
 6. By Church-Turing thesis, a Turing machine (computer) can process
 information in any way that information can be processed.  Note that to say
 the mind is emulable by a computer says very little about a mind, it
 essentally says only that that the mind is a process.  The analogy is that a
 computer can process information in any possible way given the appropriate
 programming, just as a record player can produce any possible sound given
 the appropriate record.  Saying the mind is emulable by a computer is like
 saying voice is emulable by a record player.  (It is not a very big leap,
 conceptually)

 It doesn't matter if the process is like parallel programs, networked
 computers, etc. a single computer can process information in the same way as
 a whole bunch of computers running in parallel without any difficulty.  The
 thing computers have difficulty with are infinities.  Questions which take
 an infinite amount of processing or infinite amount of information to answer
 can't realistically be simulated.  On this Bruno has said, if you don't
 believe the neuron requires an infinite amount of information to decide
 whether or not to fire, then you are a mechanist.

 Jason



 On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Bruno:
   Thanks for the weekend wishes.
    I believe the Brain runs programs, in parallel, but are they the
  Mind, and are they able to be run as Turing emulable programs with no
  impact to one's consciousness?
                                                   Ronald

  On Dec 11, 7:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
   On 11 Dec 2010, at 01:01, ronaldheld wrote:

Bruno:
 I stand corrected  on steps 6 and 7. I believe I understand your UDA
diagrams.

   OK.  Thanks for saying.

Before I can comment, I need to decide waht progrmas are and
are not Turing emulatable,

   All programs are Turing-emulable. That is a consequence of Church
   thesis.
   Many computer scientists tend to consider that Church Thesis is
   trivially true, but, when you study it you might realize that CT is on
   the contrary quite miraculous. Like Gödel saw, it is a miracle that
   the Cantor-like diagonalization procedure does not lead outside the
   class of partial recursive functions. The gift is a very robust notion
   of universality. The price to pay for that is also very big: the
   abandon of any complete TOE (unless ultrafinitism, ...). But
   psycholically that price is a relief: it prevents computer science to
   be reductionist.

and if the brain runs a program, parallel
programs, or something else.

   Brains and other biological organs and organisms,  run parallel
   programs. But all digitalizable parallel programs can be made
   equivalent with dovetailing on non parallel programs. The UD does run
   an infinity of programs in parallel, for example. So the brain
   parallelism does not change anything unless the brain is not a
   digitalizable physical process

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
  Thanks for the weekend wishes.
   I believe the Brain runs programs, in parallel, but are they the
Mind, and are they able to be run as Turing emulable programs with no
impact to one's consciousness?
  Ronald

On Dec 11, 7:51 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 11 Dec 2010, at 01:01, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno:
   I stand corrected  on steps 6 and 7. I believe I understand your UDA
  diagrams.

 OK.  Thanks for saying.

  Before I can comment, I need to decide waht progrmas are and
  are not Turing emulatable,

 All programs are Turing-emulable. That is a consequence of Church  
 thesis.
 Many computer scientists tend to consider that Church Thesis is  
 trivially true, but, when you study it you might realize that CT is on  
 the contrary quite miraculous. Like Gödel saw, it is a miracle that  
 the Cantor-like diagonalization procedure does not lead outside the  
 class of partial recursive functions. The gift is a very robust notion  
 of universality. The price to pay for that is also very big: the  
 abandon of any complete TOE (unless ultrafinitism, ...). But  
 psycholically that price is a relief: it prevents computer science to  
 be reductionist.

  and if the brain runs a program, parallel
  programs, or something else.

 Brains and other biological organs and organisms,  run parallel  
 programs. But all digitalizable parallel programs can be made  
 equivalent with dovetailing on non parallel programs. The UD does run  
 an infinity of programs in parallel, for example. So the brain  
 parallelism does not change anything unless the brain is not a  
 digitalizable physical process (but then we go outside the scope of  
 Digital Mechanism, the theory I am working in).
 Theoretical Computer Science is, amazingly enough, something non  
 dimensional. This of course forces us to explain why dimensionality  
 seems so important in the physical sciences, or in the observable  
 sharable (first person plural) realities.

 Don't hesitate to ask for precisions.

 Good week-end,

 Bruno



  On Dec 7, 4:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
  On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno(and others)
   I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
  of your UDA. Since the Brain is a Turing emulatable program  
  running on
  a biological platform(to start), steps 1-5 are not controversal.  
  Step
  6 scan(and annilates) the body and only places the program on  
  another
  physical hardware platform, for a finite amount of time. Step 7 is  
  the
  usual scan and annihilate,

  Well, step 6 and 7 use step 5 where you don't need to annihilate the
  original anymore.
  A (classical) teleportation without annihilation is a duplication
  where the original is considered annihilate and reconstituted at his
  original place wihout delay.
  You need that to understand that if you do an experience of physics,
  you have to to consider into account all computations in the UD
  execution to predict your future experience (including looking at a
  measuring apparatus needle'. OK?

  and then looks for the program in the UD
  still on some physical platform?

  Yes. At step seven, you have already that DM entails indeterminacy,
  non locality and even (exercice) non clonability of anything
  'physically' observable. (mechanism accepts the 3-duplicability of  
  the
  person which is not something physically observable (yet inferable)).

  Step 8 removes the physical universe
  and had the UD running in Arithmetical Platonia?

  Yes. The UD is somehow given by the true sigma_1 arithmetical
  propositions (with shape like ExP(x) P decidable) together with their
  many proofs. This can be derived from a well known result asserting
  that the computable functions are representable in Robinson (tiny)
  arithmetic, or you can use the beautiful work of Putnam, Juila
  Robinson, Davis, and Matiyazevitch).  This makes it Turing universal,
  and makes the UD emulated in Platonia (or in any model of Peano
  Arithmetic, that is a tiny part of arithmetical truth).

  If I basically understand this correctly, then I will interpret UDA
  from my(physicla scineces POV).

  Normally the reasoning does not depend on any points of view (that is
  why is a deductive reasoning or a proof). The step 8 is more
  difficult, and I might resend the Movie Graph Argument (MGA) already
  sent. Step 8 explains the necessity of immateriality. It explains  
  that
  the physical supervenience thesis cannot work, unless you accept the
  idea that an inactive piece of material has an active physical
  activity in a computation, and still say yes to the doctor, like
  Jack Mallah apparently. To avoid this I add sometimes that the
  survival, when saying yes to the doctor, is done qua computatio,  
  and
  I am working to make this more precise. It is always possible to put
  some magic in the notion of matter to build a fake comp hypothesis

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
  I stand corrected  on steps 6 and 7. I believe I understand your UDA
diagrams. Before I can comment, I need to decide waht progrmas are and
are not Turing emulatable, and if the brain runs a program, parallel
programs, or something else.
 
Ronald

On Dec 7, 4:10 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 06 Dec 2010, at 19:00, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno(and others)
   I am going to do this in two posts. The first is my interpretation
  of your UDA. Since the Brain is a Turing emulatable program running on
  a biological platform(to start), steps 1-5 are not controversal. Step
  6 scan(and annilates) the body and only places the program on another
  physical hardware platform, for a finite amount of time. Step 7 is the
  usual scan and annihilate,

 Well, step 6 and 7 use step 5 where you don't need to annihilate the  
 original anymore.
 A (classical) teleportation without annihilation is a duplication  
 where the original is considered annihilate and reconstituted at his  
 original place wihout delay.
 You need that to understand that if you do an experience of physics,  
 you have to to consider into account all computations in the UD  
 execution to predict your future experience (including looking at a  
 measuring apparatus needle'. OK?

  and then looks for the program in the UD
  still on some physical platform?

 Yes. At step seven, you have already that DM entails indeterminacy,  
 non locality and even (exercice) non clonability of anything  
 'physically' observable. (mechanism accepts the 3-duplicability of the  
 person which is not something physically observable (yet inferable)).

  Step 8 removes the physical universe
  and had the UD running in Arithmetical Platonia?

 Yes. The UD is somehow given by the true sigma_1 arithmetical  
 propositions (with shape like ExP(x) P decidable) together with their  
 many proofs. This can be derived from a well known result asserting  
 that the computable functions are representable in Robinson (tiny)  
 arithmetic, or you can use the beautiful work of Putnam, Juila  
 Robinson, Davis, and Matiyazevitch).  This makes it Turing universal,  
 and makes the UD emulated in Platonia (or in any model of Peano  
 Arithmetic, that is a tiny part of arithmetical truth).

  If I basically understand this correctly, then I will interpret UDA
  from my(physicla scineces POV).

 Normally the reasoning does not depend on any points of view (that is  
 why is a deductive reasoning or a proof). The step 8 is more  
 difficult, and I might resend the Movie Graph Argument (MGA) already  
 sent. Step 8 explains the necessity of immateriality. It explains that  
 the physical supervenience thesis cannot work, unless you accept the  
 idea that an inactive piece of material has an active physical  
 activity in a computation, and still say yes to the doctor, like  
 Jack Mallah apparently. To avoid this I add sometimes that the  
 survival, when saying yes to the doctor, is done qua computatio, and  
 I am working to make this more precise. It is always possible to put  
 some magic in the notion of matter to build a fake comp hypothesis  
 saving primary matter, but then you can save any theology, and it  
 seems to me quite an ad hoc move. But I am interested in hearing  your  
 Physical Science point of view.

 Bruno





  Ronald

  On Dec 2, 10:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
  On 02 Dec 2010, at 15:51, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno:
  I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
  Turing emulatable, but will move onward.

  OK. It is better to say brain instead of mind. The doctor proposes an
  artificial digital brain, and keep silent on what is the mind, just
  that it will be preserved locally through the running of the adequate
  computer.

  Using Star Trek transporter
  concepts, I can accept steps 1 through 5.

  Nice. Note that the Star trek transporter usually annihilates the
  original (like in quantum teleportation), but if I am a program (a
  natural program) then it can be duplicated (cut, copy and paste apply
  to it).

  Step 6 takes only the mind

  (the program, or the digital instantaneous state of a program)

  and sends it to a finite computational device or the entire person
  into a device similar to a Holodeck,

  It is just a computer. A physical embodiment of a (Turing) Universal
  Machine. Assuming the mind state (here and now) can be captured as
  an instantaneous description of a digital program, nobody can feel  
  the
  difference between reality and its physical digital emulation, at
  least for a period (which is all what is needed for the probability  
  or
  credibility measure).

  where the person is a
  Holocharacter?

  A person is what appears when the correct program (which exists by  
  the
  mechanist assumption) is executed ('runned') in a physical computer.

  I am not certain a UD is physically possible in a
  finite resource Universe.

  You don't need this to get

Brain as quantum computer

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0205/0205092v8.pdf
Bruno(and anyone else)
Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 I looked at UDA via the SANE paper. I am not certain the the mind is
Turing emulatable, but will move onward. Using Star Trek transporter
concepts, I can accept steps 1 through 5. Step 6 takes only the mind
and sends it to a finite computational device or the entire person
into a device similar to a Holodeck, where the person is a
Holocharacter? I am not certain a UD is physically possible in a
finite resource Universe.
 
Ronald

On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:

  Jason(and any others)
    Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
  reality is equally hard to convincing present.
                                Ronald

 Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in  
 principle duplicable?  This entails subjective indeterminacy.
 All the rest follows from that, and few people have problems to  
 understand UDA 1-7.

 UDA-8, which justifies immateriality, is slightly more subtle, but if  
 you have followed the last conversation on it on the list (with  
 Jacques Mallah, Stathis, ..) you could understand than to block the  
 movie graph argument you have to attribute a computational role to the  
 physical activity of something having non physical activity, and I  
 don't see how we could still accept a digital brain in this case. With  
 just UDA 1-7 you could already understand that most of quantum  
 weirdness (indeterminacy, non-locality, non-clonability) is a  
 qualitative almost direct consequence of digital mechanism (even in  
 presence of a primitively material universe).

 AUDA, the Löbian interview, is another matter because you need  
 familiarity with mathematical logic and recursion theory.

 Tell me please what you don't understand in the first steps of UDA. I  
 am always interested to have an idea of what is it that people don't  
 grasp. I am writing some official papers now, and that could help.  
 Up to now the results are more ignored than criticized, or is  
 considered as crap by religious atheist/materialist, without rational  
 arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first  
 person) indeterminacy. Thanks.

 Bruno







  On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com  
  wrote:
  Jason:
   I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do  
  not
  know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
                                                   Ronald

  Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
  present convincingly?  Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or  
  the
  suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
  exploration?

  Jason

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
  Groups Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group 
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
  .

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason:
   I gave it over 2 years ago, but did not get any argumentive
questions. Can I attach the prior charts here?
 Ronald

On Nov 30, 11:06 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ronald,

 Have you given this talk in the past to a similar audience?  What kind of
 objections did people raise?  Perhaps that would help us formulate a line of
 reasoning which would be more effective.

 Jason



 On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:15 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
  more before I answer Bruno.
                                                Ronald

  On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
   On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:

Jason(and any others)
  Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
                              Ronald

   Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in
   principle duplicable?  This entails subjective indeterminacy.
   All the rest follows from that, and few people have problems to
   understand UDA 1-7.

   UDA-8, which justifies immateriality, is slightly more subtle, but if
   you have followed the last conversation on it on the list (with
   Jacques Mallah, Stathis, ..) you could understand than to block the
   movie graph argument you have to attribute a computational role to the
   physical activity of something having non physical activity, and I
   don't see how we could still accept a digital brain in this case. With
   just UDA 1-7 you could already understand that most of quantum
   weirdness (indeterminacy, non-locality, non-clonability) is a
   qualitative almost direct consequence of digital mechanism (even in
   presence of a primitively material universe).

   AUDA, the Löbian interview, is another matter because you need
   familiarity with mathematical logic and recursion theory.

   Tell me please what you don't understand in the first steps of UDA. I
   am always interested to have an idea of what is it that people don't
   grasp. I am writing some official papers now, and that could help.
   Up to now the results are more ignored than criticized, or is
   considered as crap by religious atheist/materialist, without rational
   arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first
   person) indeterminacy. Thanks.

   Bruno

On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jason:
 I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do
not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
                                                 Ronald

Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
present convincingly?  Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or
the
suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
exploration?

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group athttp://
  groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/-Hide
   quoted text -

   - Show quoted text -

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Thanks Jason. Not certain how all of that helps. I will have think
more before I answer Bruno.
   Ronald

On Nov 28, 5:52 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 27 Nov 2010, at 19:05, ronaldheld wrote:

  Jason(and any others)
    Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
  reality is equally hard to convincing present.
                                Ronald

 Do you agree/understand that if we are machine then we are in  
 principle duplicable?  This entails subjective indeterminacy.
 All the rest follows from that, and few people have problems to  
 understand UDA 1-7.

 UDA-8, which justifies immateriality, is slightly more subtle, but if  
 you have followed the last conversation on it on the list (with  
 Jacques Mallah, Stathis, ..) you could understand than to block the  
 movie graph argument you have to attribute a computational role to the  
 physical activity of something having non physical activity, and I  
 don't see how we could still accept a digital brain in this case. With  
 just UDA 1-7 you could already understand that most of quantum  
 weirdness (indeterminacy, non-locality, non-clonability) is a  
 qualitative almost direct consequence of digital mechanism (even in  
 presence of a primitively material universe).

 AUDA, the Löbian interview, is another matter because you need  
 familiarity with mathematical logic and recursion theory.

 Tell me please what you don't understand in the first steps of UDA. I  
 am always interested to have an idea of what is it that people don't  
 grasp. I am writing some official papers now, and that could help.  
 Up to now the results are more ignored than criticized, or is  
 considered as crap by religious atheist/materialist, without rational  
 arguments. Tell me if you have a problem with the subjective (first  
 person) indeterminacy. Thanks.

 Bruno







  On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com  
  wrote:
  Jason:
   I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do  
  not
  know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
                                                   Ronald

  Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
  present convincingly?  Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or  
  the
  suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
  exploration?

  Jason

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
  Groups Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group 
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
  .

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason(and any others)
   Both. Level IV Universe is hard to explain even if real. Bruno's
reality is equally hard to convincing present.
   Ronald

On Nov 26, 12:02 am, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:50 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Jason:
   I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
  know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
                                                   Ronald

 Which message in particular do you think is difficult to
 present convincingly?  Tegmark's ideas that everything is real, or the
 suggestion that computer simulation might be a legitimate tool for
 exploration?

 Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason:
 I see what you are saying up at our level of understanding, I do not
know how to present that in a technically convincing matter.
  Ronald

On Nov 20, 7:07 pm, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ronald,

 Right, I think that is what he implied and it is something I agree with.
  There is only so much that can be learned about this universe, and physical
 exploration by locomotion or even observation is limited in many ways.
  Rather than moving around to other places to see what can be, with an
 appropriate understanding of the physical laws one could create any
 configuration of matter they wanted.  Simulate biology and evolution to find
 out what kinds of life might be out there; if the universe is infinitely
 large, then simulation is more than just imagination, one would be
 discovering things which are actually real, somewhere.  The physical laws
 and the possible configurations of matter are also a small part of what is
 possible.  Mathematics and simulation are two tools which provide a window
 into what exists in other universes.  If all possible universes exist then
 imagination is the ultimate form of exploration.  Ultimately, the limits of
 consciousness itself, will be explored.  What is it that can be perceived,
 felt, experienced, by conscious minds.  This inward exploration may be every
 bit as rich as the outward exploration of
 simulating/modeling/analyzing possible structures.

 Jason



 On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 2:39 PM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Jason:
   Do you want to add more? I know Q meant that mental exploration was
  more important than the physical
                                       .Ronald

  On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, Jason jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
   Ronald,

   Hope it isn't too late.  I think the last line from Q in the last
   episode of the next generation is relevant:

   Q: That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and
   studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of
   existence.

   Jason

   On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:

Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I
would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes.
Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be
appreciated.
                                      Ronald- Hide quoted text -

   - Show quoted text -

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Jason:
 Do you want to add more? I know Q meant that mental exploration was
more important than the physical
  .Ronald

On Nov 18, 1:53 pm, Jason jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Ronald,

 Hope it isn't too late.  I think the last line from Q in the last
 episode of the next generation is relevant:

 Q: That is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and
 studying nebulae, but charting the unknown possibilities of
 existence.

 Jason

 On Nov 5, 3:42 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:



  Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I
  would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes.
  Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be
  appreciated.
                                        Ronald- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

advice needed for Star Trek talk

[ronaldheld]

Several years ago, I gave a talk mostly based on Tegmark's work. I
would like to give an updated talk with other POVs within 40 minutes.
Any suggestions, considering the Trek fan audience, would be
appreciated.
  Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

NY times article on Tononi

[ronaldheld]

Sizing Up Consciousness by Its BitsBy CARL ZIMMER
One day in 2007, Dr. Giulio Tononi lay on a hospital stretcher as an
anesthesiologist prepared him for surgery. For Dr. Tononi, it was a
moment of intellectual exhilaration. He is a distinguished chair in
consciousness science at the University of Wisconsin, and for much of
his life he has been developing a theory of consciousness. Lying in
the hospital, Dr. Tononi finally had a chance to become his own
experiment.

The anesthesiologist was preparing to give Dr. Tononi one drug to
render him unconscious, and another one to block muscle movements. Dr.
Tononi suggested the anesthesiologist first tie a band around his arm
to keep out the muscle-blocking drug. The anesthesiologist could then
ask Dr. Tononi to lift his finger from time to time, so they could
mark the moment he lost awareness.

The anesthesiologist did not share Dr. Tononi’s excitement. “He could
not have been less interested,” Dr. Tononi recalled. “He just said,
‘Yes, yes, yes,’ and put me to sleep. He was thinking, ‘This guy must
be out of his mind.’ ”

Dr. Tononi was not offended. Consciousness has long been the province
of philosophers, and most doctors steer clear of their abstract
speculations. After all, debating the finer points of what it is like
to be a brain floating in a vat does not tell you how much anesthetic
to give a patient.

But Dr. Tononi’s theory is, potentially, very different. He and his
colleagues are translating the poetry of our conscious experiences
into the precise language of mathematics. To do so, they are adapting
information theory, a branch of science originally applied to
computers and telecommunications. If Dr. Tononi is right, he and his
colleagues may be able to build a “consciousness meter” that doctors
can use to measure consciousness as easily as they measure blood
pressure and body temperature. Perhaps then his anesthesiologist will
become interested.

“I love his ideas,” said Christof Koch, an expert on consciousness at
Caltech. “It’s the only really promising fundamental theory of
consciousness.”

Dr. Tononi’s obsession with consciousness started in his teens. He was
initially interested in ethics, but he decided that questions of
personal responsibility depended on our consciousness of our own
actions. So he would have to figure out consciousness first. “I’ve
been stuck with this thing for most of my life,” he said.

Eventually he decided to study consciousness by becoming a
psychiatrist. An early encounter with a patient in a vegetative state
convinced Dr. Tononi that understanding consciousness was not just a
matter of philosophy.

“There are very practical things involved,” Dr. Tononi said. “Are
these patients feeling pain or not? You look at science, and basically
science is telling you nothing.”

Dr. Tononi began developing models of the brain and became an expert
on one form of altered consciousness we all experience: sleep. In
2000, he and his colleagues found that Drosophila flies go through
cycles of sleeping and waking. By studying mutant flies, Dr. Tononi
and other researchers have discovered genes that may be important in
sleep disorders.

For Dr. Tononi, sleep is a daily reminder of how mysterious
consciousness is. Each night we lose it, and each morning it comes
back. In recent decades, neuroscientists have built models that
describe how consciousness emerges from the brain. Some researchers
have proposed that consciousness is caused by the synchronization of
neurons across the brain. That harmony allows the brain to bring
together different perceptions into a single conscious experience.

Dr. Tononi sees serious problems in these models. When people lose
consciousness from epileptic seizures, for instance, their brain waves
become more synchronized. If synchronization were the key to
consciousness, you would expect the seizures to make people
hyperconscious instead of unconscious, he said.

While in medical school, Dr. Tononi began to think of consciousness in
a different way, as a particularly rich form of information. He took
his inspiration from the American engineer Claude Shannon, who built a
scientific theory of information in the mid-1900s. Mr. Shannon
measured information in a signal by how much uncertainty it reduced.
There is very little information in a photodiode that switches on when
it detects light, because it reduces only a little uncertainty. It can
distinguish between light and dark, but it cannot distinguish between
different kinds of light. It cannot tell the differences between a
television screen showing a Charlie Chaplin movie or an ad for potato
chips. The question that the photodiode can answer, in other words, is
about as simple as a question can get.

Our neurons are basically fancy photodiodes, producing electric bursts
in response to incoming signals. But the conscious experiences they
produce contain far more information than in a single diode. In other
words, they reduce much more uncertainty. While a 

first order logic and SR/GR

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.0960v1.pdf
Comments?
   Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

which Multiverse?

[ronaldheld]

comments on this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.0148v1.pdf
 Ronald

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Definition of universe

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
   is there a free version of Theoretical computer science and the
natural
sciences?
 Ronald

On Feb 4, 2:45 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 04 Feb 2010, at 15:28, Jason Resch wrote:







  On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
  wrote:

  On 03 Feb 2010, at 15:49, Jason Resch wrote:

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
  wrote:

  On 03 Feb 2010, at 03:00, Jason Resch wrote:

   Is your point that with addition, multiplication, and an infinite  
  number of successive symbols, any computable function can be  
  constructed?

  You can say so.
  You could also have said that with addition + multiplication axioms  
  +  logic, any computable function can be proved to exist.

  So I suppose that is what I was wondering, given at minimum, those,  
  how is the existence of a computable function proved to exist?  
  Could you provide an example of how a simple function, like f(x) =  
  x*2 exists, or is it a very tedious proof?

  I guess you ask: how is the existence of a computable function  
  proved to exist in a theory T. Usually logicians use the notion of  
  representability. The one variable function f(x)  is said to be  
  representable in the theory T, if there is a formula F(x, y) such  
  that when f(n) = m,  the theory T proves F(n, m), and usually  
  (although not needed) that T proves
  Ax (F(n,x) - x = m).

  Here you will represent the function f(x) = x*2 by the formula F(x,  
  y) : y = x*2. Depending on your theory the proof of the true formula  
  F(n, m) will be tedious or not.  For example F(2, 1) is s(s(0)) =  
  s(0) * s(s(0), and you need a theory having at least logic +  
  equality rules, and the axioms

  1) x * 0 = 0
  2) x* s(y) = x * y   + x

  3) x + 0 = 0
  4) x + s(y) = s(x + y)

  I let you prove that  s(s(0)) = s(0) * s(s(0) from those axioms  
  (using the usual axiom for egality).

  s(0) * s(s(0)) = s(0) *s(0)   + s(0)        By axiom 2 with x = s(0)  
  and y = s(0)
  s(0) *s(0)   + s(0) = s(s(0) + 0)            By axiom 4 with x =  
  s(0) *s(0) and y = 0
  s(s(0) + 0)  = s(s(0))                             By substitution  
  of identical (logic + equality rules)
  s(0) * s(s(0)) = s(s(0))                          Transitivity of  
  equality (logic + equality rules)
  s(s(0)) = s(0) * s(s(0))                           equality rule (x  
  = y - y = x)

  And this is F(2, 1), together with its proof. Not very tedious, but  
  F(2010, 1005) would be much more tedious! Note that from this we can  
  also deduce the existential sentence ExF(x, 1), a typical sigma_1  
  sentence.

  Or do the relations imposed by addition and multiplication somehow  
  create functions/machines?

  You can say so but you need logic. Not just in the (meta)  
  background, but made explicit in the axiom of the theory, or the  
  program of the machine (theorem prover).

  Thanks,

  You are welcome. Such questions help to see where the difficulties  
  remain. Keep asking if anything is unclear.

  Thanks again, things are becoming a little more clear for me.  My  
  background is in computer science, in case that applies and helps  
  in writing an explanation for my question above.

  The nice thing is that a function is partial recursive  
  (programmable) if an only if it is representable in a Sigma_1  
  complete theory.
  A sigma_1 complete theory is a theory capable of proving all the  
  true sentences equivalent with ExP(x) with P decidable.

  In particular the theory above (with some more axioms like s(x) =  
  s(y) - x = y, ..) is Sigma_1 complete, and thus Turing universal.  
  All computable functions can be represented in that theory, and all  
  computations can be represented as a proof of a Sigma_1 sentence  
  like above.
  To show that such a weak theory is Sigma_1 complete is actually long  
  and not so easy. But then, to prove that the game of life is turing  
  universal is rather long also. For weak system, such proof asks for  
  some machine language programming, and the meticulous verification  
  that everything works well. Always tedious, and there are some  
  subtle points. It is well done in the book by Epstein and Carnielli,  
  or Boolos, Burgess and Jeffrey.

  Here is another very short Turing universal theory  (a purely  
  equational logic-free theory!) :

  ((K x) y) = x
  (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))

  (x = x)
  (x = y) == (y = x)
  (x = y) ; (y = z) === (x = z)

  (x = y) === ((x z) = (y z))
  (x = y) === ((z x) = (z y))       === is informal deduction, and  
  ; is the informal and.

  You may look at my paper Theoretical computer science and the  
  natural sciences for more on this theory, and its probable  
  importance in deriving the shape of physics from numbers.

 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B75DC-4GX6J4...

  Hmm... It is 32 $ ...  You may look at my older posts on the  
  combinators (Smullyan's 

Re: UDA query

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
yes that is unfortunately true.
 Ronald

On Dec 30, 10:25 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 30 Dec 2009, at 03:29, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno:
    Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?

 I don't know. If you know Fortran, it should be a relatively easy task  
 to implement one.
 Note that you have still the choice between a fortran program  
 dovetailing on all computations by combinators, or on all computations  
 by LISP programs, or on all proofs of Sigma_1 complete arithmetical  
 sentences, or on all running of game of life patterns, etc.
 Of you can write a Fortran program executing all Fortran programs. All  
 this will be equivalent. All UD executes all UDs, and this an infinity  
 of times.

 Good exercise. A bit tedious though.

 Bruno







  On Dec 29, 4:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
  On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:24, Nick Prince wrote:

  Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
  arithmetic. You assume 0, the successors, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
  You assume some laws, like s(x) = s(y) - x = y, 0 ≠ s(x), the  
  laws
  of addition, and multiplication. Then the existence of the  
  universal
  machine and the UD follows as consequences.

  Ok so the UD exists (platonically?)

  Yes. The UD exists, and its existence can be proved in or by very  
  weak
  (not yet Löbian) arithmetical theories, like Robinson Arithmetic.
  The UD exists like the number 733 exists. The proof of its existence
  is even constructive, so it exists even for an intuitionist (non
  platonist). No need of the excluded middle principle.

  Better not to conceive them as living in some place. where and
  when are not arithmetical predicate. The UD exists like PI or the
  square root of 2.
  (Assuming CT of course, to pretend the U in the UD is really
  universal, with respect to computability).

  Fine so the UD has an objective existence in spite of whatever else
  exists.

  It exists in the sense that we can prove it to exist once we accept
  the statement that 0 is different from all successor (0 ≠ s(x) for
  all x), etc.
  If you accept high school elementary arithmetic, then the UD exists  
  in
  the same sense that prime numbers exists.
  exist is used in sense of first order logic. This leads to the  
  usual
  philosophical problems in math, no new one, and the UDA reasoning  
  does
  not depend on the alternative way to solve those philsophical  
  problem,
  unless you propose a ultra-finitist solution (which I exclude in comp
  by arithmetical realism).

  There is a time order. The most basic one, after the successor  
  law,

  is the computational steps of a Universal Dovetailer.
  Then you have a (different) time order for each individual
  computations generated by the UD, like

  phi_24 (7)^1,   phi_24 (7)^2,   phi_24 (7)^3,   phi_24 (7)^4, ...
  where    phi_i (j)^s denotes the sth steps of the computation (by
  the UD) of the ith programs on input j.

  If the UD was a concrete one like you ran then it would start to
  generate all programs and execute them all by one step etc.  But are
  you saying that because the UD exists platonically all these  
  programs
  and  each of their steps exist also and hence, by the existence of a
  successor law they have an implicit  time order?

  Yes. The UD exist, and is even representable by a number. UD*, the
  complete running of the UD does not exist in that sense, because it  
  is
  an infinite object, and such object does not exist in simple
  arithmetical theories. But all finite parts of the UD* exist, and  
  this
  will be enough for first person being able to glue the  
  computations.
  For example, you could, for theoretical purpose, represent all the
  running of the UD by a specific total computable function. For  
  example
  by the function F which on n gives the (number representing the) nth
  first steps of the UD*. Then you can use the theorem which asserts
  that all total computable functions are representable in Robinson
  Arithmetic (a tiny fragment of Pean Arithmetic). That theorems is
  proved in detail, for Robinson-ile arithmetic, in Boolos and Jeffrey,
  or in Epstein and Carnielli. In Mendelson book it is done directly in
  Peano Arithmetic.

  Then there will be the time generated by first person learning and
  which relies eventually on a statistical view on infinities of
  computations.

  Is this because we are essentially constructs within these steps?

  It is because our 3-we, our bodies, or our bodies descriptions, are
  constructed within these steps. But our first person are not, and no
  finite pieces of the UD can give the real experience. This is a
  consequence of the first six steps: our next personal experience is
  determined by the whole actual infinity of all the infinitely many
  computations arrive at our current state. (+ step 8, where we abandon
  explicitly the physical supervenience thesis for the computational  
  one

new papers on Multiverse/TOE

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.5367.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.5434v1.pdf
I am more interested in comments on the second one.
Ronald

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: UDA query

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
   Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?
   Ronald

On Dec 29, 4:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:24, Nick Prince wrote:



  Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
  arithmetic. You assume 0, the successors, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
  You assume some laws, like s(x) = s(y) - x = y, 0 ≠ s(x), the laws
  of addition, and multiplication. Then the existence of the universal
  machine and the UD follows as consequences.

  Ok so the UD exists (platonically?)

 Yes. The UD exists, and its existence can be proved in or by very weak  
 (not yet Löbian) arithmetical theories, like Robinson Arithmetic.
 The UD exists like the number 733 exists. The proof of its existence  
 is even constructive, so it exists even for an intuitionist (non  
 platonist). No need of the excluded middle principle.



  Better not to conceive them as living in some place. where and
  when are not arithmetical predicate. The UD exists like PI or the
  square root of 2.
  (Assuming CT of course, to pretend the U in the UD is really
  universal, with respect to computability).

  Fine so the UD has an objective existence in spite of whatever else
  exists.

 It exists in the sense that we can prove it to exist once we accept  
 the statement that 0 is different from all successor (0 ≠ s(x) for  
 all x), etc.
 If you accept high school elementary arithmetic, then the UD exists in  
 the same sense that prime numbers exists.
 exist is used in sense of first order logic. This leads to the usual  
 philosophical problems in math, no new one, and the UDA reasoning does  
 not depend on the alternative way to solve those philsophical problem,  
 unless you propose a ultra-finitist solution (which I exclude in comp  
 by arithmetical realism).







  There is a time order. The most basic one, after the successor law,

  is the computational steps of a Universal Dovetailer.
  Then you have a (different) time order for each individual
  computations generated by the UD, like

  phi_24 (7)^1,   phi_24 (7)^2,   phi_24 (7)^3,   phi_24 (7)^4, ...
  where    phi_i (j)^s denotes the sth steps of the computation (by
  the UD) of the ith programs on input j.

  If the UD was a concrete one like you ran then it would start to
  generate all programs and execute them all by one step etc.  But are
  you saying that because the UD exists platonically all these programs
  and  each of their steps exist also and hence, by the existence of a
  successor law they have an implicit  time order?

 Yes. The UD exist, and is even representable by a number. UD*, the  
 complete running of the UD does not exist in that sense, because it is  
 an infinite object, and such object does not exist in simple  
 arithmetical theories. But all finite parts of the UD* exist, and this  
 will be enough for first person being able to glue the computations.  
 For example, you could, for theoretical purpose, represent all the  
 running of the UD by a specific total computable function. For example  
 by the function F which on n gives the (number representing the) nth  
 first steps of the UD*. Then you can use the theorem which asserts  
 that all total computable functions are representable in Robinson  
 Arithmetic (a tiny fragment of Pean Arithmetic). That theorems is  
 proved in detail, for Robinson-ile arithmetic, in Boolos and Jeffrey,  
 or in Epstein and Carnielli. In Mendelson book it is done directly in  
 Peano Arithmetic.



  Then there will be the time generated by first person learning and
  which relies eventually on a statistical view on infinities of
  computations.

  Is this because we are essentially constructs within these steps?

 It is because our 3-we, our bodies, or our bodies descriptions, are  
 constructed within these steps. But our first person are not, and no  
 finite pieces of the UD can give the real experience. This is a  
 consequence of the first six steps: our next personal experience is  
 determined by the whole actual infinity of all the infinitely many  
 computations arrive at our current state. (+ step 8, where we abandon  
 explicitly the physical supervenience thesis for the computational one).



  Time is not difficult. It is right in the successor axioms of
  arithmetic.

  Here again you confirm the invocation of the successor axioms.

 Yes. It is fundamental. I cannot extract those from logic alone. No  
 more than I can define addition or multiplication without using the  
 successor terms s(-) :

 for all x  x + 0 = x
 for all x and y    x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 You have to understand that all the talk on the phi_i and w_i,  
 including the existence of universal number
 (EuAxAy phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y)) can be translated in pure first order  
 arithmetic, using only s, + and *.

 I could add some nuances. To be prime is an intrinsic property of a  
 number. To be a universal number is not intrinsic. To define a  
 universal number I 

Re: paper on view of reality

[ronaldheld]

Not to hijack my thread, but even if Physics is just a subbranch of
PA, I have difficulty conceiving of numerical computations happening
without matter/energy.
 
Ronald

On Dec 19, 12:08 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 *Reality **versions(?)* continued...
 
 In his post Benjamin Jakubik wrote:Bruno Marchal wrote:

  Honestly I think you are a bit dishonest to yourself here, since you
  already presume the appearance of matter,

  I assume nowhere primitive matter. I do assume consensual reality.
  If not, I would not post message on a list.

 Well, that was my point. So indeed numbers don't make sense independent of
 that, because...
 --

 IMO to 'presume' the *appearance* of matter is not more than what I call
 (Colin's) *perceived reality* - our own figment at the mental level we *can
 and do* muster.

 Bruno's *(nowhere(!) assumed)* primitive matter would transcend the
 'perceived' - so it seems irrelevant in this respect, however... he assumes
 a *consensual reality* .
 In whch case a 'consensual' would be even weaker than a 'perceived' - this
 being a
  one-person mindset and does not require (consensual) agreement from many.

 I still feel that 'numbers' lurk somewhere in these - non primary -
 hills(as not 'primitives'!) - no matter how imaginative it would be to
 'express' anything with long-enough series of them.
 My ceterum censeo (sorry, Bruno)

 John M



 On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 3:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
  Ronald:
  WHAT is reality? 'physical' is one degree weaker, it is most likely based
  on observations we call 'physical' in the figment: physical world(view) -
  the poorly understood/explainable - as the article puts it: 'ontological in
  science' - explanatory figment.
  John M

    On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.comwrote:

 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
  any comments on this?
                     Ronald

  --

  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@­googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

paper on view of reality

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf
any comments on this?
Ronald

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Crystallizing block universe?

[ronaldheld]

I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he
mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory
of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields
correct results.
 
Ronald

On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:

  Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
   http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

 He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
 view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
 setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.

 Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Crystallizing block universe?

[ronaldheld]

I should have added this in the previous post. it is an article about
time from a different perspective.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.1604v1.pdf
 
Ronald

On Dec 10, 1:01 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have problems accepting some of these approaches. It seems that he
 mostly uses QM without really considering GR. Without a proper theory
 of Quantum Gravity, it is difficult to know what approach yields
 correct results.

 Ronald

 On Dec 9, 1:40 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



  On 09 Dec 2009, at 11:25, ronaldheld wrote:

   Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf

  He cites only Isham (very good book, by the way), for the non collapse  
  view. it may be interesting to describe the crystallization in that  
  setting. The wave collapse is never properly defined.

  Bruno

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Crystallizing block universe?

[ronaldheld]

Anyone want to give this a try and comment?
  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0912/0912.0808v1.pdf
 Ronald

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Real scalars and the Multiverse

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 That is a good enough explanation for me not to read the paper.
 Ronald

On Dec 1, 10:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 I have read it quickly. You can use that paper as an introduction to  
 the use of ultrafilters in Model theory. The application in physics  
 are not precisely justified, and the paper does not address any  
 fundamental questions, so I am not sure it is relevant here.
 It is also pretty much technical. I don't use much model theory in  
 this list, because it is too much technical, but if you go through all  
 the book of Mendelson, I think you could intuit by yourself if it is  
 relevant for the question you are interested in.
 I have no doubt that some ultrafilter construction of non standard  
 infinitesimal numbers can have some use in physics, if only to redeem  
 Newton and Leibniz form of infinitesimal analysis. But it is a  
 technical issue, and I am agnostic on the question if such  numbers  
 could play a conceptual role in physics.
 Technically I would opt for synthetic toposes, or things like that,  
 which seems more promising, but I can hardly say that I have any  
 conviction there.
 I tend to think that real numbers (standard or not) are really  
 construction of the mind (of the universal machine), like comp invites  
 to consider (with Occam).

 Best,

 Bruno

 On 30 Nov 2009, at 19:18, ronaldheld wrote:

 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.4824v1.pdf
   Can someone read this and explain any relevance it may have?
                                Ronald

  --

  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
  Groups Everything List group.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
  .
  For more options, visit this group 
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
  .

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Real scalars and the Multiverse

[ronaldheld]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.4824v1.pdf
  Can someone read this and explain any relevance it may have?
   Ronald

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

How many universe in the Multiverse?

[ronaldheld]

Arxiv:0910.1589v1
Any comments?


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: books on logic/computing

[ronaldheld]

Bruno:
 It will take quite a while for Mendelson, so I may ask again when I
am finished or want to start something new.
Ronald

On Sep 29, 12:47 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
 On 28 Sep 2009, at 21:51, ronaldheld wrote:



  My book has arrived. Perhaps in several months, I will be able to
  follow the symbolic arguments better?

 Nice. Now I feel some guild because for all books in logic, there  
 exists always a better book :)

 The books by Torkel Fraenkel are very good. Too, like Carnielli and  
 Epstein and the Boolos and Jeffrey series.

 As a unique book for a serious study, some remains the best, like  
 Mendelson for an introduction to mathematical logic (a branch of math  
 which study the formal or symbolical systems) and Hartley Rogers for a  
 serious introduction to recursion theory (alias theoretical computer  
 science; computability theory, uncomputability theory, ...).

 And the book by Boolos (1979, 1993) are basically the best  
 introduction to the G and G* logics of self-reference. (The AUDA main  
 tools).

 Smullyan wrote many chef-d'oeuvre.

 The deepest bible of the field is Davis 1965,

 DAVIS M. (ed.), 1965, The Undecidable, Raven Press, Hewlett, New York.

 with the original papers by Gödel, Turing, Kleene, Church, and the  
 most incredible Paper which anticipated everything up to now and  
 beyond ... (I could argue).
 It exists in DOVER now!

 My october month is a bit charged, and I am slow down. I will come  
 back on the diagonalization, and the mathematical
 definition or approach to the notion of computation, and the relation  
 between physics and the (mathematically shaped) border of the  
 uncomputable, asap.

 Best,

 Bruno





                                Ronald

  On Sep 19, 5:38 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks, Bruno. Mendelson is on its way to me.
                            Ronald

  On Sep 18, 10:10 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Hi Ronald,

  Mendelson' book is an excellent book.

  The many editions of Boolos and Jeffrey are very good, but the
  mathematical logic part is not really self-contained. I like very  
  much
  also the book by Epstein and Carnielli, and Epstein alone wrote nice
  big books on both classical and non classical logics, but I do think
  that Mendelson is one of the best introduction to classical
  mathematical logic. It gives the standard detailed account on
  computability, and on Gödel and Löb theorems.

  Note that the understanding of UDA does not rely on mathematical
  logic, just on the notion of universal machine, and Church thesis
  (which I am explaining currently). But the formal theory and the
  notion of Löbian Machine, relies on mathematical logic. Those matter
  are not well known beyond the circle of mathematical logicians.
  Gödel's theorem is  frequently abused (that does not help).

  This makes me think about the book by Torkel Franzèn, which are very
  nice. Excellent complement to Mendelson.

  Google on Torkel Franzèn inexhaustibility and Torkel Franzèn  
  abuse
  Gödel. You can't miss them.

  If and when I try to explain AUDA, I can say more. Mendelson does  
  not
  introduce to modal logic, but the little book by Bools 1979 does it
  very well, before using it for the formal self-reference.

  So for AUDA, ma suggestion, for serious studies,  is:

  1) Mendelson
  2) Boolos 1979

  Bruno

  On 18 Sep 2009, at 15:14, ronaldheld wrote:

  Bruno:
  It sounds as if the way to begin is  with the latest Mendelson  
  book.
                                  Ronald

  On Sep 18, 2:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
  Hi Ronald,

  You may ask Günther Greindl, who asked me references for the UDA  
  and
  AUDA, and he put them on the list archive.

  guenther.grei...@gmail.com

  You can take a look on the references in my  
  theses.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/lillethesis/these/node79.html#SECTIO
  ...
  ://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume4CC/7%20biblio
  %20gen...

  An excellent introduction to mathematical logic is the book by  
  Eliot
  Mendelson. Classical treatises on the self-reference logic are the
  book by Boolos 1979 (recently reedited), or the later version:  
  Boolos
  1993. The book by Smorynski is very good too, but those books
  presuppose knowledge of logic (Like explained in Mendelson).

  Then all books, technical or recreative by Raymond Smullyan, are
  introduction to diagonalization, self-reference, Gödel and Tarski
  theorem, and they are quite excellent. Notably his little  
  recreative
  (but not so easy apparently) introduction to the modal G system;
  Forever Undecided.

  Ask if you have a problem to find them, or if you search for other
  books. Logicians like to write book, and there are many of them.
  Original papers on the UDA and AUDA can be found on my web pages  
  (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
  ).

  Bruno

  On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:48

Re: books on logic/computing

[ronaldheld]

My book has arrived. Perhaps in several months, I will be able to
follow the symbolic arguments better?
   Ronald

On Sep 19, 5:38 pm, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks, Bruno. Mendelson is on its way to me.
                           Ronald

 On Sep 18, 10:10 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



  Hi Ronald,

  Mendelson' book is an excellent book.

  The many editions of Boolos and Jeffrey are very good, but the  
  mathematical logic part is not really self-contained. I like very much  
  also the book by Epstein and Carnielli, and Epstein alone wrote nice  
  big books on both classical and non classical logics, but I do think  
  that Mendelson is one of the best introduction to classical  
  mathematical logic. It gives the standard detailed account on  
  computability, and on Gödel and Löb theorems.

  Note that the understanding of UDA does not rely on mathematical  
  logic, just on the notion of universal machine, and Church thesis  
  (which I am explaining currently). But the formal theory and the  
  notion of Löbian Machine, relies on mathematical logic. Those matter  
  are not well known beyond the circle of mathematical logicians.  
  Gödel's theorem is  frequently abused (that does not help).

  This makes me think about the book by Torkel Franzèn, which are very  
  nice. Excellent complement to Mendelson.

  Google on Torkel Franzèn inexhaustibility and Torkel Franzèn abuse  
  Gödel. You can't miss them.

  If and when I try to explain AUDA, I can say more. Mendelson does not  
  introduce to modal logic, but the little book by Bools 1979 does it  
  very well, before using it for the formal self-reference.

  So for AUDA, ma suggestion, for serious studies,  is:

  1) Mendelson
  2) Boolos 1979

  Bruno

  On 18 Sep 2009, at 15:14, ronaldheld wrote:

   Bruno:
   It sounds as if the way to begin is  with the latest Mendelson book.
                                   Ronald

   On Sep 18, 2:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
   Hi Ronald,

   You may ask Günther Greindl, who asked me references for the UDA and
   AUDA, and he put them on the list archive.

   guenther.grei...@gmail.com

   You can take a look on the references in my  
   theses.http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/lillethesis/these/node79.html#SECTIO...
   ://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume4CC/7%20biblio%20gen...

   An excellent introduction to mathematical logic is the book by Eliot
   Mendelson. Classical treatises on the self-reference logic are the
   book by Boolos 1979 (recently reedited), or the later version: Boolos
   1993. The book by Smorynski is very good too, but those books
   presuppose knowledge of logic (Like explained in Mendelson).

   Then all books, technical or recreative by Raymond Smullyan, are
   introduction to diagonalization, self-reference, Gödel and Tarski
   theorem, and they are quite excellent. Notably his little recreative
   (but not so easy apparently) introduction to the modal G system;
   Forever Undecided.

   Ask if you have a problem to find them, or if you search for other
   books. Logicians like to write book, and there are many of them.
   Original papers on the UDA and AUDA can be found on my web pages 
   (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
   ).

   Bruno

   On 10 Sep 2009, at 21:48, ronaldheld wrote:

   I thought that I would start a thread to consolidate some of the  
   books
   useful in following current and old threads. if people alos want to
   post key papers here, I do not see a problem with that.- Hide  
   quoted text -

   - Show quoted text -

 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-Hide quoted text -

  - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

 - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Yablo, Quine and Carnap on ontology

[ronaldheld]

in TOS: the enemy within On stardate 1672.1, in 2266, a strange ore
had altered the function of the transporter, causing one of the most
bizarre transporter accidents on record, in which Captain James T.
Kirk was split into two separate entities. No mention of where the
extra matter came from.
in TNG:second chances  In 2361, on Nervala IV, the USS Potemkin was
conducting an evacuation of the science outpost on the planet.
Lieutenant William T. Riker was part of the away team at the time.
in VOY tuvix  Lysosomal enzymes of an alien orchid were the cause of
another accident in that same year. Tuvok, Neelix and the orchid were
temporarily merged into one being during transport. Tuvix, as he named
himself (or themselves), was a complete mixture of the talents of both
crewmembers.

After discovering how to separate the two patterns and retrieve both
Tuvok and Neelix, Tuvix protested that such a procedure would be
equivalent to murdering him, but the procedure was undertaken anyway,
and Tuvok and Neelix were restored

in TNGrascals Coming back from a botanic expedition on planet
Marlonia where Keiko O'Brien found a specimen of Draebidium calimus,
the Fermi shuttle piloted by Ro Laren, Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Keiko
and Guinan falls victim of an energy anomaly. The emergency transport
back is difficult, and the USS Enterprise-D crew is shocked by the
return of a twelve year old Captain, bartender, botanist and Bajoran
Ensign instead of their adult selves.

These are all I had the time to remember, retrieve and post from
work.The descriptive text come from Memory Alpha
Ronald




An unusual distortion field meant the Potemkin had difficulty beaming
up Riker. A second confinement beam was initiated to overcome these
difficulties, with the intent of reintegrating the two beams in the
transporter buffer.

This was unnecessary as only one beam was successful at transporting
Riker, the modulation of the distortion caused the second beam to be
reflected back down to the surface, materializing two Rikers, one on
the ship, and one on the planet's surface. Unlike the two Kirks
created in 2266, both Rikers were functionally identical to the
original man.




On Sep 23, 4:39 am, Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
 On 23 Sep, 07:06, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





  On 22 Sep 2009, at 19:07, Flammarion wrote:

   On 22 Sep, 16:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
   On 22 Sep 2009, at 16:32, Flammarion wrote:

   You have said nothing about the seventh first steps, which does  
   not
   invoke the materiality issue. Any problem there?

   Instead of linking [the pain I feel] at space-time (x,t) to [a
   machine state] at space-time (x,t), we are obliged to associate  
   [the
   pain I feel at space-time (x,t)] to a type or a sheaf of
   computations
   (existing forever in the arithmetical Platonia which is accepted  
   as
   existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism). 

   This is in the eight step.

   I don't know which game you are playing, Peter, you never address  
   the
   point.

   I have no clue what you mean by an immaterial UD, or actual  
   existing
   numbers.

   I mean exactly what you mean by existing forever in the  
   arithmetical
   Platonia which is accepted as
   existing independently of our selves with arithmetical realism

   I mean that the truth status of statement having the shape ExP(x),
   with P written in first order arithmetic is true or false
   independently of me or of any consideration.

   But that doesn't mean the same thing at all.

  Assuming comp, this is necessarily enough.

   Formalists
   can accept such truths, they just don't think that truths
   about what exists mathematically use a literal sense of
   truth.

  What is a 'literal' sense of truth
  Also, what is primary matter and where does it comes from, and why  
  does it organize into living being if it is propertyless?

 It only lacks essential properties. It can have any property as
 an accident.





   I believe that to say yes to someone who will replace my brain by a
   digital machine, in this in the sense of believing that it is the
   computation that matter at some level, I have to trust a minimal
   amount of computer science.

   If you agree that the proof of the existence of two irrational
   numbers
   such that x^y is rational does provide information, then by MG
   Argument you may understand the point or find a flaw, fatal or not.
   Who knows?

   How do you get from providing information to an immaterial UD?

   It is program without input which generates all the Pi, that is
   programs computing the phi_i, together with their arguments and
   dovetel on the execution of the computations. It is equivalent with
   the finite + infinite proof of the Sigma_1 sentences (those with the
   shape ExP(x) with P decidable).

   I don;t see what that has to do with information.

  Which information? The