subject:"RE\\\: How can a grown man be an atheist \\\?"

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Richard and Stephen,
>
> ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
> doesn't exist!
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
How do you know it doesn't exist?

Jason


>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>> step...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>
>> Something to think about: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/
>> 2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
>>
>> Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that
>> ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.
>> http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R  wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
>> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
>> proposed. Do
>>
>>
>> Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or
>> we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and
>> some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly
>> improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that
>> are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that
>> the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.
>>
>> you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
>> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
>> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
>> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially
>> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new
>> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion
>> years! Just try to calculate the
>>
>>
>> The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an
>> interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse,
>> pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant
>> equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one
>> leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The
>> equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event,
>> or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves,
>> capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose
>> "entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is,
>> I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal
>> wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally
>> characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" bu
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made.
>

How can a computation make a random choice?

Jason


> But the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
> actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
> probabilities of choices.
>
> Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> > Brent,
>> >
>> > What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality
>> math that
>> > compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events
>> actually happen.
>> > But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce
>> probabilistic results.
>>
>> Right.  So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden
>> variables, or t'Hooft's
>> ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines
>> which of the
>> probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized?  Is it in
>> principle possible for
>> us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>> > This is a good example of how reality math and human math are
>> different. The
>> > Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human
>> equations which are
>> > just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human
>> quantum equations
>> > somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely
>> assumes an
>> > interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with
>> reality but it
>> > doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in
>> particular MWI
>> > doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to
>> actual reality.
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Richard and Stephen,

ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul 
doesn't exist! 

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> step...@provensecure.com > wrote:
>
> Something to think about: 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
>
> Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that 
> ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html 
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R >wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>  
> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all 
> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was 
> proposed. Do
>
>
> Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or 
> we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and 
> some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly 
> improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that 
> are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that 
> the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.
>
> you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every 
> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an 
> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every 
> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially 
> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new 
> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion 
> years! Just try to calculate the
>
>
> The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an 
> interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, 
> pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant 
> equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one 
> leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The 
> equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, 
> or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, 
> capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose 
> "entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, 
> I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal 
> wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally 
> characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" bu
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But 
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality 
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the 
probabilities of choices.

Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't.

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:39:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality 
> math that 
> > compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events 
> actually happen. 
> > But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce 
> probabilistic results. 
>
> Right.  So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden 
> variables, or t'Hooft's 
> ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines 
> which of the 
> probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized?  Is it in 
> principle possible for 
> us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden? 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> > This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. 
> The 
> > Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human 
> equations which are 
> > just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human 
> quantum equations 
> > somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely 
> assumes an 
> > interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with 
> reality but it 
> > doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in 
> particular MWI 
> > doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to 
> actual reality. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Something to think about:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
>
Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that
ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html

>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R  wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
>>> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
>>> proposed. Do
>>>
>>
>> Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or
>> we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and
>> some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly
>> improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that
>> are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that
>> the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.
>>
>> you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
>>> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
>>> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
>>> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially
>>> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new
>>> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion
>>> years! Just try to calculate the
>>>
>>
>> The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an
>> interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse,
>> pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant
>> equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one
>> leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The
>> equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event,
>> or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves,
>> capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose
>> "entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is,
>> I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal
>> wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally
>> characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" but that isn't
>> a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible
>> that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction).
>>
>>
>>> number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest
>>> number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not
>>> enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire
>>> universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use
>>> common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And
>>> it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied
>>> exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up
>>> with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that
>>> decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.
>>>
>>
>> If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but
>> it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of
>> them on this very list. Have you read "The Fabric of Reality" by David
>> Deutsch? That's what Americans would call "MWI 101" or "The MWI for
>> dummies". If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of
>> "worlds" which can only ever differentiate, not "split" or "branch" or any
>> of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate
>> greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain
>> physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the
>> fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under
>> certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR)
>> is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the
>> continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time
>> (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders
>> of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI
>> violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A
>> simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The
>> equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have
>> trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably
>> prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to
>> obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2
>> to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 5:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is happening is
independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and there is no deterministic way
to align separate independent spaces (in the absence of a common background reference
space which does not exist), thus nature is forced to act probabilistically. This
phenomena is the source of all randomness.

Ok, so your theory is inherently random. It doesn't have some hidden determinism. And
it's not just the uncertainty of our predictions. It's really random, so some things
happen and some don't. I have no problem with the possibility of fundamental randomness -
but you'll find others on this list (like Bruno) that consider it as preposterous as you
consider many-worlds. :-)

But I've pointed out that there is a somewhat arbitrary step in decoherence, the tracing
over the environmental variables. This has to be done in a certain basis in order to get
a diagonal density matrix for the system+instrument. Finding or justifying this basis is
usually referred to as "the basis problem". It is hoped that the form of the interaction
Hamiltonian between the system+instrument and the environment will define the right basis,
e.g. if the interaction potential is a function of position then a coordinate position
basis will be the one that diagonalizes the density matrix. But this hasn't really been
worked out yet, and your theory would seem to have more difficulties in doing this because
you don't want to assume spacial coordinates, but rather derive them.

Incidentally, if you haven't read it already, I highly recommend the review article by
Maximilian Schlosshauer, arXiv:quant-ph/0312059v4, on decoherence theory.

There's also an interesting report of the opinions of physicists about interpretations of
QM in 2011 comparing them to Max Tegmark's poll in 1997. arXiv:quant-ph/1301.1069v1

Brent
"Pluralitas non sunt ponenda sine necessitate"
--- William of Ockham

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 5:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality math that
compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because events actually happen.
But the human math equations of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results.

Right. So are you saying there is some 'hidden math', like hidden variables, or t'Hooft's
ultradeterminism, or Bohm's universal potential, that secretly determines which of the
probabilities predicted by our QM is actually realized? Is it in principle possible for
us to find this reality math or is it forever hidden?

Brent

This is a good example of how reality math and human math are different. The
Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are
just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations
somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an
interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it
doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and in particular MWI
doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and thus doesn't apply to actual reality.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

Sure, the alignment is the actual source of all randomness, because what is 
happening is independent spaces are being aligned by common events, and 
there is no deterministic way to align separate independent spaces (in the 
absence of a common background reference space which does not exist), thus 
nature is forced to act probabilistically. This phenomena is the source of 
all randomness.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:19:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important.  In 
> Copenhagen  you have to apply the Born rule and then say those are the 
> probabilities of my observation and *one* of them occurs.  Everett says 
> they all occur and different instances of *you* observe them.  So which is 
> your theory.  You did not answer my question below.
>
> Brent
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it 
> wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence 
> that produces results but of course we do...
>
>  Edgar
>
>  
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
>  On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted 
> interpretations on them...
>  
>
> But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result.  It produces a set of 
> probabilities.  How do you get from there to the definite observation?
>
> And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT "in the 
> equations".  That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some 
> particular basis (the "pointer" basis).  This is not an evolution of the 
> Schrodinger equation.
>
> Brent
>
>  
>  EDgar
>
>  
>  
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>
>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Jason, 
>
>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for 
> them.
>
>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in 
> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>
>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>
>
> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

OK, I like Omnes too, and Fuchs and Peres.  But their view is that the wavefunction is 
just a calculational device thru which we make predictions.  So the collapse of the 
wavefunction is just us learning new results and revising our prediction.

But you seem to have a more physical model of what happens, "...when the frame of the 
particles and the observer are aligned by a common dimensional event (the measurement of 
the spin of one particle by the observer) that both frames become aligned and thus the 
spin of the second particle becomes apparent in the observer's frame."  Does this 
alignment have a randomness?

Brent

On 12/28/2013 4:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. That's what the 
equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. It's Everett who is off his 
rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish alternative interpretation

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
decoherence results
> yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such 
problem in
> calculating them with no reference at all to either of your 
interpretations or
choosing
> between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces 
predictable
> results...

But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
measured values
are
random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only produces 
one of the
probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, 
which is
what
QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just says 
what do you
expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
time with
different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
experiences.

What do you say?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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.

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Stephen,

In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the 
computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.

This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its information 
only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could equally say that 
'everything is its computation only, and the computation is the thing'.

I have no problem with that, it's a good way to express it.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:03:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>
>Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter 
> and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did 
> you have with this idea?
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality 
> math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because 
> events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. 
> only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality 
> math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations 
> mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, 
> not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations 
> somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes 
> an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with 
> reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual 
> reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality 
> and thus doesn't apply to actual reality.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
> decoherence results 
> > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no 
> such problem in 
> > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your 
> interpretations or choosing 
> > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
> produces predictable 
> > results... 
>
> But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
> measured values are 
> random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
> produces one of the 
> probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
> probabilities, which is what 
> QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
> says what do you 
> expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
> time with 
> different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
> experiences. 
>
> What do you say? 
>
> Brent 
>
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit 
> https://groups
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to
apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one*
of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe
them. So which is your theory. You did not answer my question below.

Brent

On 12/28/2013 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it
couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results
but of course we do...

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
interpretations on them...

But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities.
How do you get from there to the definite observation?

And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT "in the equations".
That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the

"pointer" basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation.

Brent

EDgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
them.

There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in
this
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.

Why do you think there is a connection?

simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them
obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with
different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our
consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

Brent

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

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
.

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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
> them.
>
> There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this
> world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>
> Why do you think there is a connection?
>

I disagree. Deocherence explains the appearance of collapse without
supposing it is a real phenomenon. It was first developed by Bohm, and it
was used by Everett in his thesis. If collapse never happens then there are
many worlds.  You continue to ignore this point despite that I and others
have repeatedly pointed it out.


>
> To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident in the main points of
> my theories though still working on some of the details, and of course
> their validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both
> internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of
> their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen
> any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main
> points of my theories I do however agree they need to be developed more
> and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though
> I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them.
>
> All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've
> really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your
> misunderstandings of my theories.
>

It is true I do not grasp your theories, but I believe the points I have
raised apply in general to all QM interpretations.  E.g., no collapse
yields many-worlds, no FTL implies to many-worlds, hidden local
single-valued variables are impossible, the possibility of quantum
computers requires the reality of the superposition, and so on.

Jason



>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:
>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
>> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
>> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>> If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in
>> it?  What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed?
>>
>> Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own
>> theories?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
>> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
>> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>>
>> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable
>> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually
>> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the
>> very notion of collapse.
>>
>>
>> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.
>> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only
>> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the
>> position observable as important for thought process and measurement.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
>> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
>> you are saying.
>>
>> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
>> experience
>>
>>
>> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
>> the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
>> self-evident.
>>
>>
>> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
>> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>>
>>
>> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume
>> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
>> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
>> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
>> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>>
>> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
>> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
>> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
>> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
>> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
>> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
>> t

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Edgar,


   Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of matter
and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so, what problem did
you have with this idea?


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality
> math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because
> events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc.
> only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality
> math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations
> mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions,
> not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations
> somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes
> an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with
> reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual
> reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality
> and thus doesn't apply to actual reality.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> > Brent,
>> >
>> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
>> decoherence results
>> > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no
>> such problem in
>> > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your
>> interpretations or choosing
>> > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and
>> produces predictable
>> > results...
>>
>> But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the
>> measured values are
>> random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only
>> produces one of the
>> probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the
>> probabilities, which is what
>> QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just
>> says what do you
>> expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every
>> time with
>> different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated
>> experiences.
>>
>> What do you say?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of reality 
math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They have to because 
events actually happen. But the human math equations of decoherence etc. 
only produce probabilistic results. This is a good example of how reality 
math and human math are different. The Omnes/Everett interpretations 
mistakenly apply only to the human equations which are just descriptions, 
not actuators. E.g. Everett assumes that the human quantum equations 
somehow calculate reality but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes 
an interpretation of the human math equations has something to do with 
reality but it doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual 
reality and in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality 
and thus doesn't apply to actual reality.

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
> decoherence results 
> > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no 
> such problem in 
> > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your 
> interpretations or choosing 
> > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
> produces predictable 
> > results... 
>
> But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
> measured values are 
> random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
> produces one of the 
> probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
> probabilities, which is what 
> QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
> says what do you 
> expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
> time with 
> different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
> experiences. 
>
> What do you say? 
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi Brent,

   Allow me to use your words directly:

Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities
and so one of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of
them exist with different measures and the apparent randomness is an
illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

  AFAIK, the first possibility could be seen as what a single observer
might perceive and calculate of its world. The latter tries to take
the perceptions of many observers and organize them into a single
structure. I see no necessary conflict between them.

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:56 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  Dear Brent,
>
>Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in
> a sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function
> formulation...
>
>
> I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation.
> You might consult a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is
> not necessary to test and apply a theory.  The interpretation is only of
> philosophical interest because it may lead to other, better theories.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>  On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
>> them.
>>
>>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in
>> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>>
>>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>>
>>
>> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under
>> a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the
>> probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement
>> operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  Do you,
>> like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one
>> of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist
>> with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to
>> our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

Sure, of course. I see what you mean now. Omnes is of course correct. 
That's what the equations tell us, that the results will be probabilistic. 
It's Everett who is off his rocker here by trying to impose some outlandish 
alternative interpretation

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Brent, 
> > 
> > You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
> decoherence results 
> > yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no 
> such problem in 
> > calculating them with no reference at all to either of your 
> interpretations or choosing 
> > between them... The math works just fine in our single world and 
> produces predictable 
> > results... 
>
> But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the 
> measured values are 
> random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only 
> produces one of the 
> probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the 
> probabilities, which is what 
> QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just 
> says what do you 
> expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every 
> time with 
> different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated 
> experiences. 
>
> What do you say? 
>
> Brent 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it 
wasn't, it couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence 
that produces results but of course we do...

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Brent, 
>
>  The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted 
> interpretations on them...
>  
>
> But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result.  It produces a set of 
> probabilities.  How do you get from there to the definite observation?
>
> And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT "in the 
> equations".  That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some 
> particular basis (the "pointer" basis).  This is not an evolution of the 
> Schrodinger equation.
>
> Brent
>
>  
>  EDgar
>
>  
>  
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>  
>> Jason, 
>>
>>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for 
>> them.
>>
>>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in 
>> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>>
>>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>>
>>
>> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
>> a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
>> probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
>> operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  Do you, 
>> like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one 
>> of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist 
>> with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to 
>> our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
>>
>> Brent
>>  
>  -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific decoherence results 
yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have no such problem in 
calculating them with no reference at all to either of your interpretations or choosing 
between them... The math works just fine in our single world and produces predictable 
results...


But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the measured values are 
random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only produces one of the 
probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the probabilities, which is what 
QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes just says what do you 
expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen every time with 
different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with correlated experiences.


What do you say?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Liz,

OK, this is an extremely important issue. I agree that "we are unaware of 
the parts of the universal wavefunction with which we aren't entangled 
(correlated), and decoherence explains why this is so." That is precisely 
what my approach to quantum mini-spacetimes is. 

But the next step is we have to discard the background spacetime notion and 
replace it with individual private spacetimes created as entanglement 
networks.

But this is NOT MW, what actually happens is those mini-spacetimes merge 
via common events to create the single world.

I know this probably isn't clear, but it's immensely important and is the 
theory that I propose in Part III: Elementals of my book.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:11:31 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many 
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave 
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>
> The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal 
> wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single 
> world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction 
> with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why 
> this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which 
> *supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.
>
>
>
> On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many 
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave 
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just 
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual 
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>
> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable 
> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
> very notion of collapse.
>
>
> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
> position observable as important for thought process and measurement.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
> experience 
>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>  
>
> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted interpretations
on them...

But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities. How do
you get from there to the definite observation?

And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT "in the equations". That is
taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the "pointer"
basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation.

Brent

EDgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.

There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this
world.
It says nothing about MW whatsoever.

Why do you think there is a connection?

Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a
partial
trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the probability
values for
the different eigenstates of the measurement operator. So then how do you
get from
there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you
have
predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains. Or do you go with
Evertt and
say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent
randomness is an
illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

Brent

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific 
decoherence results yet the people who are performing experiments in 
decoherence have no such problem in calculating them with no reference at 
all to either of your interpretations or choosing between them... The math 
works just fine in our single world and produces predictable results...

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Jason, 
>
>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for 
> them.
>
>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in 
> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>
>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>
>
> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
> a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
> probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
> operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  Do you, 
> like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one 
> of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist 
> with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to 
> our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Brent,

The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted 
interpretations on them...

EDgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>  
> Jason, 
>
>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for 
> them.
>
>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in 
> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>
>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>
>
> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under 
> a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the 
> probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement 
> operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  Do you, 
> like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one 
> of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist 
> with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to 
> our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
>
> Brent
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 12/28/2013 3:17 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Brent,

  Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a sense? 
Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function formulation...


I don't think so - it would require a somewhat tortured interpretation. You might consult 
a theologian. But more to the point, an interpretation is not necessary to test and apply 
a theory.  The interpretation is only of philosophical interest because it may lead to 
other, better theories.


Brent




On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.

There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this 
world.
It says nothing about MW whatsoever.

Why do you think there is a connection?


Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a 
partial
trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability 
values for
the different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you 
get from
there to a definite result?  Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you 
have
predicted probabilities and so one of them obtains.  Or do you go with 
Evertt and
say that all of them exist with different measures and the apparent 
randomness is an
illusion due to our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?

Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Brent,

  Does it necessarily have to be one or the other? Could both be true in a
sense? Consider how QM has a matrix formulation and a wave function
formulation...


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
>  You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
> them.
>
>  There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in
> this world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
>
>  Why do you think there is a connection?
>
>
> Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under
> a partial trace (over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the
> probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement
> operator.  So then how do you get from there to a definite result?  Do you,
> like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one
> of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist
> with different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to
> our consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.

There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this world. It 
says nothing about MW whatsoever.


Why do you think there is a connection?


Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix under a partial trace 
(over the environment).  The diagonal them contains the probability values for the 
different eigenstates of the measurement operator.  So then how do you get from there to a 
definite result?  Do you, like Omnes, simply observe that you have predicted probabilities 
and so one of them obtains.  Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with 
different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our consciousness 
being relative to the different outcomes?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Something to think about:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R  wrote:

> On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
>> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
>> proposed. Do
>>
>
> Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or
> we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and
> some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly
> improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that
> are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that
> the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.
>
> you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
>> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
>> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
>> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially
>> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new
>> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion
>> years! Just try to calculate the
>>
>
> The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an
> interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse,
> pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant
> equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one
> leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The
> equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event,
> or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves,
> capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose
> "entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is,
> I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal
> wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally
> characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" but that isn't
> a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible
> that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction).
>
>
>> number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest
>> number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not
>> enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire
>> universe to even express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use
>> common sense and think through these things to see how stupid they are? And
>> it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied
>> exponentially beyond counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up
>> with something dumber, especially when it is completely clear that
>> decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.
>>
>
> If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but
> it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of
> them on this very list. Have you read "The Fabric of Reality" by David
> Deutsch? That's what Americans would call "MWI 101" or "The MWI for
> dummies". If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of
> "worlds" which can only ever differentiate, not "split" or "branch" or any
> of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate
> greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain
> physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the
> fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under
> certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR)
> is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the
> continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time
> (if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders
> of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI
> violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A
> simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The
> equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have
> trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably
> prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to
> obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2
> to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator
> is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into
> 2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that
> 99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do
> all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in "our
> universe" (which the MWI claims is a conveni

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Liz R

On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>
> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all 
> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was 
> proposed. Do
>

Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or we 
would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and some 
lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly 
improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that 
are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that 
the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.

you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every 
> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an 
> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every 
> one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially 
> escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new 
> universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion 
> years! Just try to calculate the
>

The MWI is a straight interpretation of our best theory of matter - an 
interpretation that removes any extra assumptions (wave function collapse, 
pilot waves, wave-particle duality etc). It is simply what the relevant 
equations say, converted without interpretation to human language (if one 
leaves aside the actual phrase "many worlds", which is misleading). The 
equations imply that all possible outcomes occur for a given quantum event, 
or to be exact that the entities we regard as particles are in fact waves, 
capable of interfering with themselves, but only detectable (I suppose 
"entanglable" would be a better word) by a process of localisation that is, 
I'm told, neatly explained by decoherence. This implies that the universal 
wavefunction is constantly spreading and differentiating. This is generally 
characterised as "parallel universes coming into existence" but that isn't 
a completely accurate description (and in any case it is quite possible 
that space and time are emergent properties of the universal wavefunction).

> number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number 
> that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper 
> in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even 
> express a number this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think 
> through these things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts 
> of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond 
> counting. Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, 
> especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it 
> conclusively.
>

If that was a correct description of the MWI, you might have a point, but 
it isn't. Oddly enough clever people *have* thought about this, some of 
them on this very list. Have you read "The Fabric of Reality" by David 
Deutsch? That's what Americans would call "MWI 101" or "The MWI for 
dummies". If you have, you will know that the MWI posits a continuum of 
"worlds" which can only ever differentiate, not "split" or "branch" or any 
of the other common misconceptions. The fact that the universe can generate 
greater and greater detail indefinitely (or possibly only to certain 
physical limits, like the Bekenstein bound) is no more surprising than the 
fact that in GR a finite universe can expand to infinite size (under 
certain conditions), or that the centre of a black hole (according to GR) 
is a singularity of infinite density. These are all properties of the 
continuum, a mathematical object that may or may not describe space-time 
(if it doesn't, it does so to very high precision, apparently many orders 
of magnitude smaller than the Planck length). The idea that the MWI 
violates the conservation of energy was laid to rest a long time ago. A 
simple example is a quantum computer factoring a 500 bit number. The 
equations of QM say that this is physically possible, even if we have 
trouble doing it in practice - it requires 500 qubits to be suitably 
prepared and then shaken down somehow (with Shor's algorithm, I think) to 
obtain the result. QM says this happens by generating a superposition of 2 
to the power of 500 quantum states, which according to my trusty calculator 
is quite a lot. These superpositions are in fact capable of decohering into 
2^500 possible states, although Shor's algo or whatever ensures that 
99.999...% of these give the right answer. The question is, how or where do 
all these states exist? QM says they all exist right here, in "our 
universe" (which the MWI claims is a convenient fiction, of course) - but 
how can 2^500 states exist at the same time for the same qubits (which are 
normally atoms, but could in theory be photons, electrons, etc) ? Where is 
the calculation perform

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread LizR

On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>
> The MWI assumes a background space-time in which the universal
wavefunction evolves deterministically, so in that sense it is a single
world. However, we are unaware of the parts of the universal wavefunction
with which we aren't entangled (correlated), and decoherence explains why
this is so. Hence decoherence is an *alternative* to collapse which
*supports* the (so-called) many worlds interpretation.



On 29 December 2013 07:30, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
>> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
>> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>>
>> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable
>> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually
>> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the
>> very notion of collapse.
>>
>>
>> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.
>> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only
>> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the
>> position observable as important for thought process and measurement.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
>> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
>> you are saying.
>>
>> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
>> experience
>>
>>
>> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
>> the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
>> self-evident.
>>
>>
>> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
>> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>>
>>
>> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume
>> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
>> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
>> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
>> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>>
>> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
>> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
>> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
>> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
>> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
>> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
>> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>>
>>
>> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>>
>>
>> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
>> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
>> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
>> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
>> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason,

You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for them.

There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in this 
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.

Why do you think there is a connection?

To answer your last question, I'm pretty confident in the main points of my 
theories though still working on some of the details, and of course their 
validity is always subject to empirical evidence and consistency both 
internally, and with the equations of science (but NOT with a number of 
their interpretations) as are all theories, but I certainly haven't seen 
any evidence that falsifies, or even casts serious doubts on the main 
points of my theories I do however agree they need to be developed more 
and even more carefully examined for errors and inconsistencies, though 
I've already done plenty of that in developing them and testing them. 

All the points you kindly raise really don't apply as I don't think you've 
really grasped my theories, and are instead arguing against your 
misunderstandings of my theories.

Best,
Edgar





On Saturday, December 28, 2013 4:12:06 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" > 
> wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many 
> worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave 
> functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.
>
> Edgar
>
>
> If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in it? 
>  What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed?
>
> Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your own 
> theories?
>
> Jason
>
>
>
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just 
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual 
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>
> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable 
> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
> very notion of collapse.
>
>
> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
> position observable as important for thought process and measurement.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
> experience 
>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>  
>
> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 
>
>
> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume 
> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>
> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>  
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Mikes

Dear Bruno, when you wrote:

*"...arithmetic > number's dreams => physics*

*OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. *
*And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science..."*

for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!)  "incoherent".
That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist' seems
overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short
with his remark that "first: we need an identification for whatever we
call: god".
Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL stuff we
may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them.
Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism).
My idrentification for what many people call "god" is known to this list:
"infinite complexity" - not better than anyone else's: it is MY belief.

Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN stuff,
humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer to some
universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to our human
ways
of thinking.

Respectfully
John Mikes



On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
> whatever) of humans
> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
> consciousness.
>
>
> I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is
> elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science
> (mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by
> incompleteness).
>
> True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is based on
> the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from arithmetic,
> not experience. So we have, roughly put:
>
> arithmetic > number's dreams => physics
>
> OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And experiences
> are based on arithmetic/computer-science.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
> Richard
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>> >> He did answer and did it correctly,

>>>
>>> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>>
>>> I quote myself:
>>>
>>> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
>>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
>>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
>>> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
>>> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
>>> right now?
>>>
>>>
>>> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>>>
>>> No you did not.
>>
>>>  > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>>>
>>> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
>>
>> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
>> John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
>>
>> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now?
>> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>>
>>
>> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now.
>> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Can you explain why you ask?
>>>
>>
>> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and
>> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the
>> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and
>> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
>> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
>> first person experiences views from their first person points of view
>> existed on planet Earth right now.
>> It is a simple question, what is the number?
>>
>>
>> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such
>> human 1-view.
>> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated
>> iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and
>> after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views. But assuming comp and the
>> default hypotheses, each of the
>> copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W
>> or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the
>> vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or
>> incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time).
>>
>> You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you
>> seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.
>>
>> So what about step 7?
>> How do you predict "conceptually" the result of any physical experiences
>> and experiments, when as

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?




On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:30 PM, "Edgar L. Owen"  wrote:


Bruno,

Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies  
many worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those  
wave functions just keep on going and interacting in this single  
world.


Edgar



If decoherence falsified MW why do so many physicists still believe in  
it?  What do you see in decoherence that everyone else has missed?


Please answer this question for me: Do you have any doubt about your  
own theories?


Jason




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just  
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual  
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.


Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable  
results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it  
actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence  
conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse.


OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.  
Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It  
explains only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and  
seems to pick the position observable as important for thought  
process and measurement.


Bruno



Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
"us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function
...
--
You received this message because you 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.


--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

John,

Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence results rather 
than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's standard QM. 
I'm just using common parlance. But this is irrelevant to my points.

Edgar




On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:47:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > With decoherence everything is a wavefunction 
>>
>
> No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no 
> observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no 
> more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk 
> about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you 
> get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function 
> contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the 
> exact same probability when you square it.
>
>   John K Clark
>  
>  
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> With decoherence everything is a wavefunction
>

No. With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you
get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function
contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the
exact same probability when you square it.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
> time
>

Yes Many Worlds is absolutely outlandish but that doesn't mean it's
incorrect because if there is one thing that quantum mechanics has taught
us it's that whatever the true nature of reality is it's outlandish! If
Many Worlds isn't true then something even weirder is.

> and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed.
>

Is Many Worlds more laughable than the present changing the past, or you
and me and the entire universe being a simulation in a gargantuan
supercomputer somewhere, or the mainstream Copenhagen idea that things only
become real when you look at it? Copenhagen is nuts because things aren't
real enough, Many Worlds is nuts because things are too real and everything
that could exist does exist. As I say if Many Worlds isn't true then
something even weirder is.

> every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe
> spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event
> in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately
> exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into
> uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since
> over 14.7 billion years!

That would be ridiculous and nobody would dream of suggesting such a looney
idea if they weren't desperate. They were desperate.

> > Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's
> larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written
> down.
>

I know, it's nuts, but is it true?

> There is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in
> the entire universe to even express a number this large!
>

I know, it's nuts, but is it true?

> Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things
>

Common sense is of absolutely no help in questions of this sort, Evolution
didn't make our monkey brains to deal with them.

> to see how stupid they are?
>

I would use the word crazy not stupid and Many Worlds is certainly crazy,
but is it crazy enough to be true?

> And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied
> exponentially
>

Face the facts, something important about the way we think the world works
has got to go, and to my mind dumping the conservations laws is less
drastic than dumping the idea the the moon exists even when I'm not looking
at it. And besides conservation laws are not based on some logical
imperative but were just empirically derived, and they could still hold
within each branch of the multiverse.

> it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.
>

I have no idea what you mean by that.

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Bruno,

Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Decoherence falsifies many 
worlds. With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave 
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.

Edgar



On Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:48:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just 
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual 
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>
> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable 
> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
> very notion of collapse.
>
>
> OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture. 
> Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains only 
> why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to pick the 
> position observable as important for thought process and measurement.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
> experience 
>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>  
>
> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 
>
>
> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume 
> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>
> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>  
>
> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>
>
> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations 
> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is 
> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to 
> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I 
> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>  
>
> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function 
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote

> >> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right
> now?
> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>
> > I answered this two times already. The answer is 1.
>

At last a straight answer, the answer is 1. So there is only one unique
1-view from the 1-view on planet Earth right now; that is to say if a one
to one correspondence was attempted between the infinite set of UNIQUE
integers and the set of all the UNIQUE 1-views from the 1-view on planet
Earth right now only ONE such pairing can be made. So the set of all UNIQUE
one views of the one view has only 1 element in it. Well who is this "one",
who is he, what's his name? I'd love to meet him (or her), can you
introduce me?

>  infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>

Yet another straight answer, this time the answer is infinity;
unfortunately it's a very different answer to the exact same question. So
is the answer 1 or infinity or your previous answer of 7 billion?

> OK?
>

No, that is very far from OK.

> So what about step 7?
>

I don't see why anybody should read step 7 of your "proof" when it has
already been demonstrated that you throw around terms like "the 1-view from
the 1-view" that you can't put a number to. If you can't put a number to it
you have no clear understanding of it.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Bruno,

  I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions
between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the
many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be
shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not
be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high
level version is subject to GR "adjustments" and so will not be nice and
well behaved.


On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac
> equation, not Shrodinger's equation
>
>
>
> This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is
> "many-world".
> If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I
> decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice
> on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being
> superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be
> considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person
> indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not
> duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be
> seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic.
> With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a local
> physical reality "unique" in QM. The collapse does not make any sense. But
> there is no need to be realist on many "world", as there is no world at
> all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the arithmetical
> reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared to the whole
> arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a unique local
> physical cosmos.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
>>> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
>>> you are saying.
>>>
>>> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
>>> experience
>>>
>>
>> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
>> the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
>> self-evident.
>>
>>
>>> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of
>>> quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>>>
>>
>> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume
>> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
>> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
>> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
>> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>>
>> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
>> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
>> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
>> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
>> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
>> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
>> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>>
>>
>>> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>>>
>>
>> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
>> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
>> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
>> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
>> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>>
>>
>>> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long
>>> ago
>>>
>>
>>
>> You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
>> collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still
>> treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation).
>> Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the
>> "appearance of collapse", while maintaining that the wave function  never
>> collapses.
>>
>> If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de
>> facto "many-worlds".
>>
>>
>>
>>> but the self-evident experience
>>>
>>
>> As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out
>> that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your
>> experience to rule out that all points in time exist.
>>
>>
>>> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>>>
>>
>> The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special
>> relativity.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:51, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just  
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual  
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.


Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable  
results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it  
actually does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence  
conclusively falsifies the very notion of collapse.


OK, but decoherence solve the problem in the Many-World picture.  
Decoherence does not justify an unique physical universe. It explains  
only why the universe seems unique and quasi-classical, and seems to  
pick the position observable as important for thought process and  
measurement.


Bruno




Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
"us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest  
long ago



You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when  
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is  
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by  
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds  
to justify the "appearance of collapse", while maintaining that the  
wave function  never collapses.


If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that  
is de facto "many-worlds".



but the self-evident experience

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule  
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use  
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.


of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special  
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno,

I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or  
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human  
consciousness.

I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is  
elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science  
(mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by  
incompleteness).

True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is  
based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes from  
arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put:

arithmetic > number's dreams => physics

OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And  
experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science.

Bruno

Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> He did answer and did it correctly,

> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

I quote myself:
>>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to  
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything  
about  "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will  
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person  
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does  
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

>1  (I already answered this, note)

No you did not.

> from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
John Clark's answer: 7 billion.

How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right  
now?

Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.

I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right  
now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- 
view.

> Can you explain why you ask?

Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between  
1P and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno  
Marchal said "the first person experiences viewed from their first  
person points of view" and it would greatly help John Clark  
understand what Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at  
all) if John Clark knew approximately how many first person  
experiences views from their first person points of view existed on  
planet Earth right now.

It is a simple question, what is the number?

In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such  
human 1-view.

In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.

OK?

This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am  
duplicated iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow  
exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views.  
But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the
copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they  
write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly  
unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when  
iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a  
long enough time).

You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason  
you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.

So what about step 7?
How do you predict "conceptually" the result of any physical  
experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and  
assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal  
Dovetailer?

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you 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.

--
You received this message because you 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.

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

--
You received this message because you 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@googlegro

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-28 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the  
Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation



This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is  
"many-world".
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that  
if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base  
my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1  
view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the unicity  
of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the  
computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here, the  
physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist in  
any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the  
consciousness flux in arithmetic.
With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a  
local physical reality "unique" in QM. The collapse does not make any  
sense. But there is no need to be realist on many "world", as there is  
no world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of  
the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small  
compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big  
compared to a unique local physical cosmos.


Bruno






On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen   
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but  
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are  
saying what you are saying.


As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct  
experience


Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,  
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is  
self-evident.


whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of  
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,


I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to  
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we  
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory  
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is  
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular  
vantage point.


To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the  
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for  
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply  
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did not  
experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence they  
presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others. This  
"us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says that only  
one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.


or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual  
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to  
many-worlds. It is only by added additional postulates (such as  
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a  
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc and  
completely unnecessary.


Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest  
long ago



You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when  
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is  
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by  
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds  
to justify the "appearance of collapse", while maintaining that the  
wave function  never collapses.


If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that  
is de facto "many-worlds".



but the self-evident experience

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule  
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use  
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.


of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special  
relativity.



Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds,  
you must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can  
travel faster than light, (or as you and I say, that everything  
travels at the speed of light)"


I'm not familiar with this result

I am  referring to Bell's theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
explained well here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables  
can explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum  
measurements. Without local hidden variables, there remain two  
possible explanations:
1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately  
effects the state of the other particle
2. when the state of the partic

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason,

See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply

Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just 
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual 
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>
> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable 
> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
> very notion of collapse.
>
>
> Thanks Edgar,
>
> If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is 
> preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known 
> today as many-worlds).
>
> Jason
>  
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
> experience 
>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>  
>
> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 
>
>
> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume 
> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>
> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>   
>
> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>
>
> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations 
> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is 
> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to 
> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I 
> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>   
>
> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long 
> ago 
> 
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
> interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
> (measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
>
> Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable
> results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually
> does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the
> very notion of collapse.
>
>
Thanks Edgar,

If the wave-function does not collapse then the superposition of states is
preserved. This was the essence of Hugh Everett's theory (which is known
today as many-worlds).

Jason


>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
>> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
>> you are saying.
>>
>> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
>> experience
>>
>>
>> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
>> the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
>> self-evident.
>>
>>
>> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
>> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>>
>>
>> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume
>> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
>> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
>> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
>> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>>
>> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
>> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
>> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
>> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
>> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
>> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
>> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>>
>>
>> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>>
>>
>> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
>> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
>> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
>> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
>> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long
>> ago
>>
>>
>>
>> You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
>> collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still
>> treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation).
>> Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the
>> "appearance of collapse", while maintaining that the wave function  never
>> collapses.
>>
>> If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de
>> facto "many-worlds".
>>
>>
>>
>> but the self-evident experience
>>
>>
>> As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out
>> that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your
>> experience to rule out that all points in time exist.
>>
>>
>> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>>
>>
>> The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special
>> 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 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason,

To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just 
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual 
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.

Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable 
results, and the above is the reasonable interpretation of what it actually 
does. In spite of what some believe, decoherence conclusively falsifies the 
very notion of collapse.

Edgar



On Friday, December 27, 2013 1:14:01 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct 
> experience 
>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the 
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>  
>
> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, 
>
>
> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume 
> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? 
> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function 
> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we 
> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>
> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of 
> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose 
> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our 
> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points 
> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion 
> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says 
> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>  
>
> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>
>
> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations 
> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is 
> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to 
> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I 
> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>  
>
> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long 
> ago 
>
>
>
> You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse 
> happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a 
> real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use 
> decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the "appearance of 
> collapse", while maintaining that the wave function  never collapses.
>
> If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de 
> facto "many-worlds".
>
>  
>
> but the self-evident experience 
>
>
> As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that 
> more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience 
> to rule out that all points in time exist.
>  
>
> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>
>
> The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Richard Ruquist

Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I
don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.

Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the
probability measure.
For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50% alive or dead
every time.
I read the explanation on the basis of frequency but that did not make
sense to me either.



On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
>  Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
> you are saying.
>
>  As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
> experience whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation
> of quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in
> quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put
> wave function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of
> the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>
>  Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you
> must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster
> than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of
> light)"
>
>  I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with
> it.
>
>  Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
> time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
> proposed.
>
>
> And it was for a long time.  But recent polls of physicist have found it
> be favored by a large fraction if not a plurality.
>
>  Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
> quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
> one of those new universes does the same.
>
>
> That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version.  All
> those "unobserved", i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions.
> Only decoherence resolves them (almost) to classically distinct "worlds".
> And as Scott Aaronson points out they can't really be entirely distinct
> since they have to interfere with each other destructively to eliminate the
> cross-terms.
>
>  This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the
> universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding
> exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the
> number of new universe that now exist. It's larger than the largest number
> that could ever be imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper
> in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even
> express a number this large!
>
>
> Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those
> numbers you mention are finite.  And in any case both QM and GR assume
> continuum backgrounds that imply uncountable possible states.
>
>  Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to
> see how stupid they are?
>
>
> But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong.
>
>  And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is
> multiplied exponentially beyond counting.
>
>
> But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't
> think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.
>
>   Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber,
> especially when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it
> conclusively.
>
>
> Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that
> only approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables.  From an
> epistemic persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, "Quantum
> mechanics is a probabilistic theory, so one should not be surprised that it
> predicts probabilities.".  But that does not make the Everett
> interpretation wrong.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread meekerdb

On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express
them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying.

As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience whereas wave
function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum equations which has no
basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum theory = the actual equations. Anyway
the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long ago but the
self-evident experience of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject
special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or as you and I
say, that everything travels at the speed of light)"

I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it.

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, and should
have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed.

And it was for a long time. But recent polls of physicist have found it be favored by a
large fraction if not a plurality.

Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every quantum event
that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an entire new universe of all
its possible outcomes and every event in every one of those new universes does the same.

That's an overly literal interpretation of the popularized version. All those
"unobserved", i.e. still coherent, events exist in superpositions. Only decoherence
resolves them (almost) to classically distinct "worlds". And as Scott Aaronson points out
they can't really be entirely distinct since they have to interfere with each other
destructively to eliminate the cross-terms.

This immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into
uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7
billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe that now exist. It's
larger than the largest number that could ever be imagined or even written down. There
is not enough paper in the universe, or enough computer memory in the entire universe to
even express a number this large!

Of course Bruno, or any mathematician, will point out that all those numbers you mention
are finite. And in any case both QM and GR assume continuum backgrounds that imply
uncountable possible states.

Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these things to see how stupid
they are?

But common sense gave us the flat Earth told us Darwin was wrong.

And it violates all sorts of conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially
beyond counting.

But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I don't think
conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.

Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially when it is
completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it conclusively.

Decoherence can only diagonalize the partial density matrix (and even that only
approximately) by tracing over the environmental variables. From an epistemic
persepective that may be enough; as Omnes says, "Quantum mechanics is a probabilistic
theory, so one should not be surprised that it predicts probabilities.". But that does
not make the Everett interpretation wrong.

Brent

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Richard Ruquist

I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac
equation, not Shrodinger's equation


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
>> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
>> you are saying.
>>
>> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
>> experience
>>
>
> Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the
> exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.
>
>
>> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
>> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>>
>
> I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume
> past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
> It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
> collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
> are aware of from our particular vantage point.
>
> To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
> quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
> that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
> vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
> in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
> of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
> that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
>
>
>> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>>
>
> If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
> (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
> only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
> restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
> have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.
>
>
>> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long
>> ago
>>
>
>
> You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse
> happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a
> real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use
> decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the "appearance of
> collapse", while maintaining that the wave function  never collapses.
>
> If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de
> facto "many-worlds".
>
>
>
>> but the self-evident experience
>>
>
> As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that
> more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience
> to rule out that all points in time exist.
>
>
>> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>>
>
> The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity.
>
>
>>
>> Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you
>> must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster
>> than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of
>> light)"
>>
>> I'm not familiar with this result
>>
>
> I am  referring to Bell's theorem:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
> explained well here:
> http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm
>
> It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can
> explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements.
> Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations:
> 1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the
> state of the other particle
> 2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite
> outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement
>
>
>
>> and something is clearly wrong with it.
>>
>
> You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many
> decades since its publication.
>
>
>> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
>> time,
>>
>
> It is only QM, without wave function collapse.
>
> Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous.  So if if it
> ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds.  Which is
> less ridiculous?
>
>
>> and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed.
>>
>
> Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever
> growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking,
> Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it.
>
> If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality,
> determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility,
> linearity in QM, and realism.  Further, you are unable to explain the
> operation of quantum computers.
>
>
>> Do you actuall

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jason,
>
> Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
> don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
> you are saying.
>
> As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
> experience
>

Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to the
exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is self-evident.

> whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum
> equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,
>

I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also "outlandish" to presume past
moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them? It
seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
are aware of from our particular vantage point.

To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
of all others. This "us-centered" thinking is how I see presentism. It says
that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.

> or in quantum theory = the actual equations.
>

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
(e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.

> Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest long
> ago
>

You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when collapse
happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is still treated as a
real phenomenon (just one not triggered by observation). Others, use
decoherence in the context of many-worlds to justify the "appearance of
collapse", while maintaining that the wave function  never collapses.

If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that is de
facto "many-worlds".

> but the self-evident experience
>

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule out that
more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use your experience
to rule out that all points in time exist.

> of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.
>

The exclusive existence of a unique present contradicts special relativity.

>
> Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you
> must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster
> than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of
> light)"
>
> I'm not familiar with this result
>

I am  referring to Bell's theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
explained well here:
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

It is a statistical proof that no system of local hidden variables can
explain the statistics of experimentally observed quantum measurements.
Without local hidden variables, there remain two possible explanations:
1. measuring one entangled particle instantly and immediately effects the
state of the other particle
2. when the state of the particle is measured, there is not one definite
outcome: multiple outcomes result from the measurement

> and something is clearly wrong with it.
>

You are welcome to try to find a flaw in it, but no one has in the many
decades since its publication.

> Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
> time,
>

It is only QM, without wave function collapse.

Above you said wave function collapse was ridiculous.  So if if it
ridiculous and you get rid of it, you are back to many-worlds.  Which is
less ridiculous?

> and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was proposed.
>

Unfortunately it was, but despite that it re-emerged and has been ever
growing in popularity. Feynman, Gell-man, Steve Weinberg, Stephen Hawking,
Erwin Shrodinger, etc. all came to accept it.

If you reject many-worlds, you must give up: locality, causality,
determinism, special relativity, time-symmetry, time-reversibility,
linearity in QM, and realism.  Further, you are unable to explain the
operation of quantum computers.

> Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
> quantum event that ever occurred in the history of the universe spawns an
> entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
> one of those new universes does the same.
>

Not quite. It implies that the properties of particles can be multi-valued,
and when such a partic

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you 
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what 
you are saying.

As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience 
whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of quantum 
equations which has no basis at all in direct experience, or in quantum 
theory = the actual equations. Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave 
function collapse to rest long ago but the self-evident experience of the 
present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

Please explain why "Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you 
must also reject special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster 
than light, (or as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of 
light)"

I'm not familiar with this result and something is clearly wrong with it. 

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all 
time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was 
proposed. Do you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically 
that every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe 
spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event 
in every one of those new universes does the same. This immediately 
exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into 
uncountable new universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since 
over 14.7 billion years! Just try to calculate the number of new universe 
that now exist. It's larger than the largest number that could ever be 
imagined or even written down. There is not enough paper in the universe, 
or enough computer memory in the entire universe to even express a number 
this large! Doesn't anyone ever use common sense and think through these 
things to see how stupid they are? And it violates all sorts of 
conservations since energy eg. is multiplied exponentially beyond counting. 
Geeez, it would be impossible to come up with something dumber, especially 
when it is completely clear that decoherence theory falsifies it 
conclusively.

Edgar 

On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Richard, and Bruno,
>
> I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. 
> Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of 
> the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever 
> come up with. It's right up there with block time, 
>
>
> That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of time 
> with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and 
> make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world, 
> or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional 
> suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other 
> times and other branches of the wave function.
>
> "Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers.  They 
> have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own 
> senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience 
> plainly showed them." -- Galileo
>  
>
> and many worlds nonsense.
>
>
> Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject 
> special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or 
> as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what 
> are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light 
> influences?
>  
>
>
> Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all 
> reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans.
>
>
> The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations 
> between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious 
> experience and appearances of physical realities.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or 
> whatever) of humans
> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human 
> consciousness.
> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
> Richard
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Jason Resch

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Richard, and Bruno,
>
> I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
> Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of
> the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever
> come up with. It's right up there with block time,
>

That's funny, I've always lumped together "presentist" theories of time
with wave function collapse, since they both have the same motivation and
make the same error: they explain away why we are aware of only one world,
or one point in time, when there is no reason to add these additional
suppositions, since the theory itself tells us why we are unaware of other
times and other branches of the wave function.

"Nor can I ever sufficiently admire Copernicus and his followers.  They
have through sheer force of intellect, done such violence to their own
senses, as to prefer what reason told them over what sensible experience
plainly showed them." -- Galileo


> and many worlds nonsense.
>

Given Bell's result, If you reject many-worlds, you must also reject
special relativity's edict that nothing can travel faster than light, (or
as you and I say, that everything travels at the speed of light). So what
are you giving up: single outcomes of measurements or no faster-than-light
influences?


>
> Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all
> reality worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans.
>

The UDA doesn't base reality on experience, it bases reality on relations
between numbers. All we see emerges from this: including conscious
experience and appearances of physical realities.

Jason



>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
>> whatever) of humans
>> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
>> consciousness.
>> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> >> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>
>>
>> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>
>> I quote myself:
>>
>> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
>> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
>> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
>> right now?
>>
>>
>> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>>
>> No you did not.
>>
>>  > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>>
>> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
>>
>> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
>> John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
>>
>> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now?
>> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>>
>>
>> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now.
>> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Can you explain why you ask?
>>
>>
>> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and
>> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the
>> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and
>> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
>> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
>> first person experiences views from their first person points of view
>> existed on planet Earth right now.
>> It is a simple question, what is the number?
>>
>>
>> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such
>> human 1-view.
>> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated
>> iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and
>> after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views. But assuming comp and the
>> default hypotheses, each of the
>> copies get one bi
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Richard, and Bruno,

I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing. 
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of 
the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever 
come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many worlds nonsense.

Surely Bruno can't be basing reality on human experience? After all reality 
worked just fine for multiple billions of years before humans.

Edgar


On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:34:57 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or 
> whatever) of humans
> strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human 
> consciousness.
> Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
> Richard
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>
> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
> >> He did answer and did it correctly, 
>
>
> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>
> I quote myself:
>
> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the 
> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p 
> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a 
> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first 
> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth 
> right now?
>
>
> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>
> No you did not.
>
>  > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>
> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
>
> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers? 
> John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
>
> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now? 
> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>
>
> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now. 
> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>
>
>  
>
> > Can you explain why you ask? 
>
>
> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 
> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the 
> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and 
> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by 
> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many 
> first person experiences views from their first person points of view 
> existed on planet Earth right now.
> It is a simple question, what is the number?
>
>
> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human 
> 1-view.
> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
>
> OK? 
>
> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated 
> iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and 
> after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views. But assuming comp and the 
> default hypotheses, each of the 
> copies get one bi
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Richard Ruquist

Bruno,

I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard


On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> >> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>>
>>
>> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>
>> I quote myself:
>>
>> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
>> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
>> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
>> right now?
>>
>>
>> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>>
>> No you did not.
>
>>  > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>>
>> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.
>
> How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
> John Clark's answer: 7 billion.
>
> How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now?
> Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.
>
>
> I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right now.
> Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.
>
>
>
>
>> > Can you explain why you ask?
>>
>
> Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and
> 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the
> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and
> it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
> this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
> first person experiences views from their first person points of view
> existed on planet Earth right now.
> It is a simple question, what is the number?
>
>
> In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such human
> 1-view.
> In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.
>
> OK?
>
> This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated
> iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow exponentially, and
> after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views. But assuming comp and the
> default hypotheses, each of the
> copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they write W
> or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly unique, and the
> vast majority get a non computable history when iterating infinitely (or
> incompressible when iterating finitely a long enough time).
>
> You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason you
> seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.
>
> So what about step 7?
> How do you predict "conceptually" the result of any physical experiences
> and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and assuming it
> executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal Dovetailer?
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> He did answer and did it correctly,

> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

I quote myself:
>>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to  
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything  
about  "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will  
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person  
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does  
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

>1  (I already answered this, note)

No you did not.

> from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
John Clark's answer: 7 billion.

How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right  
now?

Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.

I answered this two times already. The answer is 1. Not just right  
now. Always. The infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1- 
view.

> Can you explain why you ask?

Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P  
and 3P and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal  
said "the first person experiences viewed from their first person  
points of view" and it would greatly help John Clark understand what  
Bruno Marchal meant by this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark  
knew approximately how many first person experiences views from  
their first person points of view existed on planet Earth right now.

It is a simple question, what is the number?

In the 3-views on the 1-views, there are right now about 7.10^6 such  
human 1-view.

In the 1-view there is only one, from her 1-view.

OK?

This explains the existence of the 1-indeterminacy. If I am duplicated  
iteratively ten times: the number of 3-1-views will grow  
exponentially, and after the 10th duplication, there 2^10  1-views.  
But assuming comp and the default hypotheses, each of the
copies get one bit of information, at each duplication step (they  
write W or they wrote M, never both). All of them feel constantly  
unique, and the vast majority get a non computable history when  
iterating infinitely (or incompressible when iterating finitely a long  
enough time).

You seem to have understood the point, and in a recent post to Jason  
you seem to assess steps 3, 4, 5, 6.

So what about step 7?
How do you predict "conceptually" the result of any physical  
experiences and experiments, when assuming a physical universe, and  
assuming it executes integrally (without ever stopping) a Universal  
Dovetailer?

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-25 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:59, Edgar Owen wrote:


Jason, John, and Bruno,

One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject  
of the Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their  
structure (the subjects of the Easy Problems).


The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the  
minds of organisms, but the fact that the results of these  
computations are conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent  
nature of reality as I explained in more detail in a post  
yesterday


That is where we might agree. It works with reality = arithmetical  
truth (when assuming comp). The immanent truth is just that  
proposition like "the machine i stops on argument j" are true  
independent of me, like "17 is prime".


Bruno




Edgar



On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:





On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:

'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the  
platform of physical sciences -


I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that  
Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an  
arithmetical platform instead.




John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that  
he doe not.  I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am  
assuming which he was not.  To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical  
truth and the idea that the correct computation can instantiate our  
consciousness.


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 post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread Quentin Anciaux

Vu
Le 24 déc. 2013 19:44, "John Clark"  a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
wrote:
>
 >>> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>>
>>>
>>> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>
>>
>> > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.
>
>
> Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw
Bruno give.

After going to the store and bought your new eyes, you'll notice I already
did.

Quentin
>
>   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 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.

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>>> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>>
>>
>> >> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>>
>
> > Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.
>

Take pity on a poor old blind man and just tell me what number you saw
Bruno give.

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> >> He did answer and did it correctly,
>>
>
> > I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>
> I quote myself:
>
> >>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
> right now?
>
>
> >1  (I already answered this, note)
>
> No you did not.

> > from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.
>
> That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?
John Clark's answer: 7 billion.

How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth right now?
Bruno Marchal's answer: Bruno Marchal refuses to answer.

> the question is still ambiguous,
>

To repeat, if the question is ambiguous it is because it contains the words
"the first person experiences viewed from their first person points of
view" and those are NOT John Clark's words, they are Bruno Marchal's
words!! Does this mean Bruno Marchal retracts the words because they are
meaningless? John Clark thinks the words have meaning but apparently Bruno
Marchal disagrees and maintains that Bruno Marchal was talking gibberish.

> > Can you explain why you ask?
>

Because Bruno Marchal claims to understand the difference between 1P and 3P
and says that John Clark does not. And because Bruno Marchal said "the
first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" and
it would greatly help John Clark understand what Bruno Marchal meant by
this (assuming anything at all) if John Clark knew approximately how many
first person experiences views from their first person points of view
existed on planet Earth right now.
It is a simple question, what is the number?

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread Stephen Paul King

Dear Edgar,

  Have you considered reflexivity based theories of consciousness, such as
thus proposed by Greg
Zuckermanand
Louis
H. 
Kauffman?
(Kauffman does not explicitly mention consciousness in his work, but the
connection is obvious!)


On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Edgar Owen  wrote:

> Jason, John, and Bruno,
>
> One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the
> Hard Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the
> subjects of the Easy Problems).
>
> The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds
> of organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are
> conscious is due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I
> explained in more detail in a post yesterday
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
>> physical sciences -
>>
>>
>> I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason
>> is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical
>> platform instead.
>>
>>
>>
> John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe
> not.  I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he
> was not.  To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that
> the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness.
>
> 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 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.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread Edgar Owen

Jason, John, and Bruno,

One must distinguish here between consciousness itself (the subject of the Hard 
Problem), and the contents of consciousness and their structure (the subjects 
of the Easy Problems).

The contents and their structure are most certainly computed by the minds of 
organisms, but the fact that the results of these computations are conscious is 
due to the self-manifesting immanent nature of reality as I explained in more 
detail in a post yesterday

Edgar



On Dec 22, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
> 
>> 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of 
>> physical sciences -
> 
> I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason is 
> quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical platform 
> instead. 
> 
> 
> 
> John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe 
> not.  I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he was 
> not.  To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that the 
> correct computation can instantiate our consciousness.
> 
> 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 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.

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 23 Dec 2013, at 19:43, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:

> He did answer and did it correctly,

I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

I quote myself:

<<
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the  
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about   
"the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat  
the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences  
viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal  
believe exists on planet Earth right now?

1  (I already answered this, note).
from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

>>

Of course the question is still ambiguous, it looks like "how many  
3-1-1 = 3-1 views, which is 7 billions.
Can you explain why you ask? Does it change anything about the  
indeterminacy in the WM duplication. If "yes" explain, please.

(I might answer late as the next days will be busy)

Bruno

> Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying.

 Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant.

  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 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.

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/12/23 John Clark 

> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > He did answer and did it correctly,
>>
>
> I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
>

Buy some pair of eyes and come back here.


>
> > Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying.
>>
>
>  Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant.
>

Not redundant at all for Liar Clark.


>
>   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 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> He did answer and did it correctly,
>

I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

> Liar Clark is dodging questions and lying.
>

 Dodging AND lying? That seems redundant.

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/12/23 John Clark 

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrot
>
>  >>> The question is ambiguous.
>>>
>>
>> >> If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the
>> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" !
>> If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give
>> or take a few orders of magnitude)  "first person experiences viewed from
>> their first person points of view" exist on planet Earth right now, but of
>> course if it means nothing then you can't.
>>
>> > In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view?
>>
>
> Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or
> it's you and not me that "confuses the 1P with the 3P" because I quote you
> clear as day in the above "first person experiences viewed from their first
> person points of view". So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER?
>
>
He did answer and did it correctly, only Liar Clark is dodging questions
and lying.

Quentin


>   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 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrot

> >>> The question is ambiguous.
>>
>
> >> If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the
> first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" !
> If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give
> or take a few orders of magnitude)  "first person experiences viewed from
> their first person points of view" exist on planet Earth right now, but of
> course if it means nothing then you can't.
>
> > In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view?
>

Either you're stalling because you don't want to answer the question or
it's you and not me that "confuses the 1P with the 3P" because I quote you
clear as day in the above "first person experiences viewed from their first
person points of view". So for the sixth time WHAT IS THE NUMBER?

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

>
> > I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means.
> The number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person
> experience.
>

I know that, what I don't know is what number Bruno believes that number to
be. Although I can't prove it I think the number is probably about 7
billion; if I am correct about that then Bruno's never ending chant "you
confuse the 1p with the 3p" is not correct. But even after asking the
question five times I still don't know if Bruno thinks it's 1 or 0 or 7
billion or infinity or something in between.

> The point here is that each entity can only experience their own.
>

That's real nice but it is NOT the point and it plays no part in the
question "how many first person experiences viewed from their first person
points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right
now?".

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 22 Dec 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:

 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to  
the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything  
about  "the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will  
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person  
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does  
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

>>> 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view  
is always unique.

>> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet  
there is only one "first person experience viewed from their first  
person points of view". Is that what you're saying?

> No. What I said  is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person  
view possible, it is felt as being unique

So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact  
that is precisely why it is meaningful to speak of "the first 7  
billion integers", otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as  
would the very idea of integers.

I can't agree more.

> The question is ambiguous.

If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the  
first person experiences viewed from their first person points of  
view" !  If your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me  
how many ( give or take a few orders of magnitude)  "first person  
experiences viewed from their first person points of view" exist on  
planet Earth right now, but of course if it means nothing then you  
can't.

In the 1-views or in the 3-1 view?

(the 3-1 view = the view which uses the third person attribution of  
first-personhood to 3p countable entities).

Bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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.

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:55, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable
infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of
it, in other words, can its proof be found?

If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required
axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead
of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this
universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a
definite answer to the question.

The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent
axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point
of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf
A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic,

In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic.

That's the point of the paper, that a "truth" predicate can be
defined for arithmetic. I put "truth" in scare quotes because the
predicate is really 1-Probability(x)-->0.

OK. It is not a *truth* predicate, only an approximation. In fact, for
each sigma_i or pi_i sentence, Löbian theories or machine can define a
corresponding sigma_i or pi_i truth, and even limiting approximations,
which are far enough for practical purposes, but our concern here is
not a practical one, but a conceptual one.

And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical
predicate for set theoretical truth.

In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF
+kappa can prove the consistency of ZF).

Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth
sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions.

Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel)
Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self
(Tarski, and also Gödel, note).

but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model.

Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic,
except for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence
of axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like <>[]f
(the consistency of inconsistency).

But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the
unprovable truths of arithmetic. If you allowed other models this
set would be ill defined.

Exactly, and that is why I "don't allow them". This leads to a
technical difficulty in AUDA here (alluded to in Torkel's book on the
misuse of Gödel's incompleteness), which is solved by the use of the
intensional nuances, but that would be lengthy and technical to
describe here right now.
I am not sure we are disagreeing on something here, but if it is the
case, let me know, thanks.

Best,

Bruno

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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Jason Resch

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:
>
> 'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
> physical sciences -
>
>
> I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that Jason
> is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an arithmetical
> platform instead.
>
>
>
John's initial critique was that I seemed to be assuming a lot that he doe
not.  I replied to ask what specifically he thinks I am assuming which he
was not.  To clarify, I was assuming arithmetical truth and the idea that
the correct computation can instantiate our consciousness.

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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi Brent,

  Is there a reason why we only consider the 'standard" models to apply
when we are considering foundation theory (or whatever you might denote
what we are studying)? Have you ever looked at the Tennenbaum
theorem
and
wondered if it could be weakened to allow for computations that are
"outside" of the countable recursive functions?

  I suspect that the "standard" model (of arithmetic) is a type of
invariant under a strong restricted group of transformations, I do not have
the proper language to explain this further at this time. :_( There is more
...

  Just because we can prove that N x N ->N mapping can represent all
possible computations we forget that the proof assumes that the quantity of
resources and the number of computational steps is irrelevant. As a
researcher of computer science and physics, why is the tractability of a
computation given a quantity of resources not relevant in considerations of
what, say, the UD* can accomplish?

  I believe that the quest of a universal rule or "measure" that determines
"Everything" is already excluded as a possibility; have we not learned that
a measure zero set is? Why not instead look at how computations can
"interact" with each other, how they might "evolve", how entropy may be
involved, what does it mean for truths to be finitely accessible and
infinite truths to be inaccessible, etc.

  We look like monkeys chasing the weasel 'round the mulberry tree...

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 2:55 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires
>> a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist
>> of it, in other words, can its proof be found?
>>
>
>  If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms
> needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so
> large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't
> be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question.
>
>
> The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that
> can be added.  As I understand it, that was the point of
> http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf
> A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic,
>
>
>  In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic.
>
>
> That's the point of the paper, that a "truth" predicate can be defined for
> arithmetic.  I put "truth" in scare quotes because the predicate is really
> 1-Probability(x)-->0.
>
>
>
>  And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical
> predicate for set theoretical truth.
>
>  In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa.
> (ZF+kappa can prove the consistency of ZF).
>
>  Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth
> sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions.
>
>  Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel)
> Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and
> also Gödel, note).
>
>
>
>  but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model.
>
>
>  Computationalism  uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for
> indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for
> modeling the weird sentences of G*, like <>[]f (the consistency of
> inconsistency).
>
>
> But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the
> unprovable truths of arithmetic.  If you allowed other models this set
> would be ill defined.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying o

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread meekerdb

On 12/22/2013 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words,
can its
proof be found?

If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop
a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent
them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite
answer to the question.

The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be
added. As I understand it, that was the point of
http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf
A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic,

In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic.

That's the point of the paper, that a "truth" predicate can be defined for arithmetic. I
put "truth" in scare quotes because the predicate is really 1-Probability(x)-->0.

And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical predicate for set
theoretical truth.

In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF+kappa can prove the
consistency of ZF).

Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth sufficiently large to
encompass all its possible assertions.

Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel)
Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski, and also Gödel,
note).

but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model.

Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except for indirect
metamathematical use like proof of independence of axioms, or for modeling the weird
sentences of G*, like <>[]f (the consistency of inconsistency).

But aren't you assuming the standard model when you refer to the unprovable truths of
arithmetic. If you allowed other models this set would be ill defined.

Brent

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi John,

  I will try to answer for Bruno as I think I understand what he means. The
number is equal to the number of entities that have a first person
experience. The point here is that each entity can only experience their
own. The notion of a 3rd person experience can only consider the evidence
that such exists, for example I cannot "prove" that you have a 1st person
experience to myself or any one else. My own 1st person experience it
incontrovertible to me and me alone.


On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 1:48 PM, John Clark  wrote:

>  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>   That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
 question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
 view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
 fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
 person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
 right now?

>>>
>>> >>> 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
>>> always unique.
>>>
>>
>> >> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there
>> is only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points
>> of view". Is that what you're saying?
>>
>> > No. What I said  is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view
>> possible, it is felt as being unique
>>
>
> So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is
> precisely why it is meaningful to speak of "the first 7 billion integers",
> otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of
> integers.
>
> > The question is ambiguous.
>>
>
> If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the first
> person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" !  If
> your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or
> take a few orders of magnitude)  "first person experiences viewed from
> their first person points of view" exist on planet Earth right now, but of
> course if it means nothing then you can't.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread John Clark

 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the
>>> question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p
>>> view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a
>>> fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first
>>> person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth
>>> right now?
>>>
>>
>> >>> 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
>> always unique.
>>
>
> >> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there
> is only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points
> of view". Is that what you're saying?
>
> > No. What I said  is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view
> possible, it is felt as being unique
>

So what? The first 7 billion integers are all unique too, in fact that is
precisely why it is meaningful to speak of "the first 7 billion integers",
otherwise the phrase would be meaningless as would the very idea of
integers.

> The question is ambiguous.
>

If the question is ambiguous it is because I used YOUR phrase " the first
person experiences viewed from their first person points of view" !  If
your phrase means anything you should be able to tell me how many ( give or
take a few orders of magnitude)  "first person experiences viewed from
their first person points of view" exist on planet Earth right now, but of
course if it means nothing then you can't.

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there
>> is only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points
>> of view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?
>>
>
> > Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ?
> If you say "yes", then you're proving once more what a liar you are.
>

OK maybe I am dumb and a liar (although in this instance the 2 states would
seem to be mutually exclusive) and maybe the answer is not 1, so then what
is the answer? Give me a number!

  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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 21 Dec 2013, at 23:28, meekerdb wrote:

If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms
needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of
infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe),
then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite
answer to the question.

The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms
that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf
A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic,

In set theory, OK. But not in arithmetic.
And in a set theory (like ZF) you cannot define a set theoretical
predicate for set theoretical truth.

In ZF+kappa, you can define truth for ZF, but not for ZF+kappa. (ZF
+kappa can prove the consistency of ZF).

Shortly put, no correct machine can *define* a notion of truth
sufficiently large to encompass all its possible assertions.

Self-consistency is not provable by the consistent self (Gödel)
Self-correctness is not even definable by the consistent self (Tarski,
and also Gödel, note).

but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model.

Computationalism uses only the standard model of arithmetic, except
for indirect metamathematical use like proof of independence of
axioms, or for modeling the weird sentences of G*, like <>[]f (the
consistency of inconsistency).

Bruno

Brent

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

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Dec 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote:





On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the  
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about   
"the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the  
question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed  
from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe  
exists on planet Earth right now?


> 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is  
always unique.


Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet  
there is only one "first person experience viewed from their first  
person points of view". Is that what you're saying?


No. What I said  is that *for* each (3p-numerous) first person view  
possible, it is felt as being unique and entire.


Bruno




If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?

 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 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.


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



--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-22 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 21 Dec 2013, at 17:09, John Mikes wrote:

'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the  
platform of physical sciences -


I let Jason answer, but this is not my feeling. It seems to me that  
Jason is quite cautious on this, and open to put physics on an  
arithmetical platform instead.




at least on a mthematical justification of theorems. Even Bruno's  
"we see" is suspect: we THINK we see, in adjusted ways as we can  
absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know  
about 'today'..


"seeing" is an 1-p experience. "seeing" is always "thinking seeing".  
Even provably so with the comp assumption.






About Bruno's remark on 'agnosticism' (also callable: ignorance) : I  
don't know (!) if a 'theory' (the partial one within our existent  
knowledge) is working indeed, or it just SEEMS working within the  
limited circumstances.


Here, even without comp, I would say that a theory can only seem to be  
working. WE never know if our theories are true or not. We might know  
that they are refuted, as just one element of reality can demolish a  
theory, locally.





Refuted? No one can include into a 'refutation' the totality, only  
the elements of a content of the present model.


At some level, you are right, we might have dreamed the refutation!.

But that level is impractical, and we will say that a theory is  
empirically refuted if it is contradicted by a sufficiently repeatable  
fact (a notion which ask in some faith in or waking state!). If comp  
predicts that the electron has a mass of one tun, then comp is  
refuted, (again, unless I wake up, and realize that electron does  
weight one tun), which needs we have to make small or big change in  
the assumption.




Finally: I don't consider agnosticism a philosophy (oxymoron). The  
'practical' results we achieve in our limited science-technology are  
commendable and useful, subject to Bruno's "just be cautious to not  
draw conclusions".


OK.




(Scientific humility?)


Yes.



I may include a whole wide world beyond the mathematical  
computations into the term of 'compute'. That is semantic and  
requires a wider vocabulary than just ONE language.


Comp offers an infinity of equivalent language. Your last remark would  
make sense if Church thesis is false, which I doubt, but is part of my  
assumption anyway.
If you doubt Church thesis, it will be up to you to explain why.  
Church thesis is very solid for two main reason:
1) all attempts to define computable give rise to the same class of  
functions (be it by Babbage machine or quantum topological functors,  
etc.)
2) that class of computable functions is immune to the universality- 
destructive cantor diagonalization.


Bruno




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



--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi Brent,

  I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in
their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite
entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world
computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local notion
of truth values that can oscillate:
http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/TimeParadox.pdf

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>  If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires
>> a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist
>> of it, in other words, can its proof be found?
>>
>
>  If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms
> needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so
> large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't
> be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question.
>
>
> The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that
> can be added.  As I understand it, that was the point of
> http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf
> A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or
> arithmetic are the same as the standard model.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread meekerdb


On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of
integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, 
can its
proof be found?


If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a 
finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them 
in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer 
to the question.


The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As 
I understand it, that was the point of 
http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf 
A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or arithmetic are the 
same as the standard model.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread LizR

On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
>

"Immaterial" indeed :-)

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  Can you clone the number 2?  Is it classical or quantum?
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread LizR

On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
>>> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p view",
>>> it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
>>> time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person
>>> points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?
>>>
>>
>> > 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
>> always unique.
>>
>
> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is
> only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points of
> view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?
>

ROTFLMAO!

OK not *quite* literally, but almost. Surely you're joking, Mr 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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/12/21 Quentin Anciaux 

>
>
>
> 2013/12/21 John Clark 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
 John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p view",
 it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
 time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person
 points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

>>>
>>> > 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
>>> always unique.
>>>
>>
>> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is
>> only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points of
>> view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?
>>
>
> Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ?
> If you say "yes", then you're proving once more what a liar you are.
>
> Quentin
>


The thing is *for all of us* the only 1 POV accessible is our own. From our
1 POV, there is only one POV, but from the 3 POV there is 7 billions 1
POV... but only one is ever accessible to everyone of us, which is our
own... playing with words like you do and pretend you don't understand that
for so long is a shame.

Quentin


>
>
>
>>
>>  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 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/12/21 John Clark 

>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
>>> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p view",
>>> it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
>>> time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person
>>> points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?
>>>
>>
>> > 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
>> always unique.
>>
>
> Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is
> only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points of
> view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?
>

Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ? If
you say "yes", then you're proving once more what a liar you are.

Quentin



>
>  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 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question
>> John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about  "the 3p view",
>> it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth
>> time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person
>> points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?
>>
>
> > 1  (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is
> always unique.
>

Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is
only one "first person experience viewed from their first person points of
view". Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy?

 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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King  wrote:

>> I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise,
>> if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about
>> 10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a
>> consciousness.
>>
>
> > Do you see consciousness as a thing or as a process?
>

A process.

>> The real question is about our minds, and despite what some like Roger
>> Penrose say I think our minds are probably entirely classical.
>>
>
> > Why? If minds are classical then they are easy to copy, in principle.
> Why then are there not lots of John Clarks running around?
>

Because the difference between in principle and in practice can be huge.
There is no scientific or philosophical reason there are not lots of John
Clarks running around , it's purely technological; in less than a hundred
years, probably less than 50, things will be very different .

 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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of
>> mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
>>
>
> If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they
> remind us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist.
>

They don't just "remind us" of ourselves, they would be like us in every
way.  They have working brains; hopes, fears, desires. They are not puppets
because they are autonomous and self-driven. They evolved to use the
mathematical relations to drive themselves just as our biology and
mentality evolved to use the physical laws. From their point of view, those
mathematical relations they are a part of constitute their "physical laws".
Note: from our point of view, we can't rule out that we ourselves are also
driven by some particular mathematical relation(s).

>
>
>>
>> Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if
>> they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy
>> courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these
>> functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in
>> pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are
>> conscious.
>>
>
> By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in
> a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of
> the painting.
>

It's what they do, not what they look like to us.  Paint on a canvas
behaves very different from an artist. If you could examine some particular
mathematical function, you might find patterns within it that behave just
like a painter making a painting. They are the same in the sense that the
computation performed by the evolving function is at some level the same as
the computation performed by some painter you know from Earth. And by
computationalism (which I know you reject) we would accept the two are
equivalently conscious.

>
>
>> These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of
>> them via simulation on physical computers.
>>
>
> But arithmetic truths may not "exist" independently of *all* verification.
> Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths
> are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of
> "existence" at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience
> no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all,
> so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the
> world.
>

If we assume "sensory experience" only, then we can't explain mathematical
truth.  If we assume mathematical truth, then we can explain mathematical
truth and quite possibly, sensory experience. It's two (explanations) for
one (assumption).

> From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed
> theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that
> which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation).
> Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is
> proprietary and uniquely local.
>

What about a given particular mathematical function? From the inside it
could appear proprietary and local.

> Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather than abstract, participatory
> rather than aloof and indirect.
>
>
I would say the difference between concrete and abstract is only a matter
of perspective.

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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread John Mikes

'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of
physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems.
Even Bruno's "we see" is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we
can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about
'today'..

About Bruno's remark on 'agnosticism' (also callable: ignorance) : I don't
know (!) if a 'theory' (the partial one *within* our existent knowledge) is
working indeed, or it just SEEMS working within the limited circumstances.
Refuted? No one can include into a 'refutation' the totality, only the
elements of a content of the present model.
Finally: I don't consider agnosticism a philosophy (oxymoron). The
'practical' results we achieve in our limited science-technology are
commendable and useful, subject to Bruno's "just be cautious to not draw
conclusions". (Scientific humility?)
I may include a whole wide world beyond the mathematical computations into
the term of 'compute'. That is semantic and requires a wider vocabulary
than just ONE language.

John M


On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
>
>
> Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you
> list the implicit assumptions?
>
>
>
> I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional
> research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its
> 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my
> life-practice)  -  as  - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly
> if at all understood) phenomena  received in formats how the actual
> developmental level of our mentality could handle it.
>
> I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one
> acceptable.
> Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to "TRUTH" - we just
> think of it.
> Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I
> mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' 
> *computability
> *may
> include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the
> word.
>
>
> Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical
> definition of an otherwise epistemic notion.
> yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although
> mathematically we can eliminate it.
>
>
>
>
> I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when
> zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?).
>
>
> ?
> It is the same arithmetic.
>
>
>
> I am not ready to debate my ideas: my "agnostic" thinking is NG for
> argumentation.
>
>
> Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw
> conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted).
>
> If not, agnosticism become another "don't ask" philosophy.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John M
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the 
>>> *fantasy-play*'teleportation':
>>> It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances
>>> never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
>>> explanations.
>>> Wana play? be my guest.
>>> In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to
>>> receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory
>>> arased of the old one.
>>> YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).
>>>
>>
>> If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is
>> possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the
>> reasoning is based).
>>
>> Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are
>> substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts
>> are not important so long as the pattern is preserved.  Further, no known
>> laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of
>> yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>>  JM
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
 I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
 If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
 Richard


 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> > Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would
>>> please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
>>> John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)
>>>
>>
>> I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of
>> the first 3 steps
>>
>
>
> What is the error in step 3?
>
>
>
>>  (and I can't think why it would be

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-21 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of 
> mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist.
>

If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind 
us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist.

>
> Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if 
> they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy 
> courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these 
> functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in 
> pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are 
> conscious.  
>

By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in 
a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of 
the painting.

> These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them 
> via simulation on physical computers.
>

But arithmetic truths may not "exist" independently of *all* verification. 
Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths 
are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of 
"existence" at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience 
no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all, 
so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the 
world. From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed 
theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that 
which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation). 
Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is 
proprietary and uniquely local. Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather 
than abstract, participatory rather than aloof and indirect.

Thanks,
Craig

>  
>
>
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote:





On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.

What specifically?

The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical  
realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there.


Yes. Although, if you indulge the nitpicking, i would say that  
aithmetical realism is part of comp (even part of Church thesis).  
Computationalism needs the notion of computation, which needs the  
notion of computational steps, which needs arithmetical realism (to  
say, for example, that a running machine stop or does not stop.







I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional  
research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix  
and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use  
happily in my life-practice)  -  as  - some explanatory sweat to  
comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena  received in  
formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could  
handle it.


I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one  
acceptable.


You need not "accept" or "believe in" these assumptions for them to  
be useful to progress.  Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true,  
it implies R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we  
see, and use it as evidence for or against (P & Q).


Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to "TRUTH" - we  
just think of it.
Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get  
results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use,  
however a 'wider' computability may
include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware  
the word.
I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time  
when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an  
exception?).


I am not ready to debate my ideas: my "agnostic" thinking is NG for  
argumentation.


I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation.


I agree and said so. John Mikes often talk like if we were pretending  
that something is true, which no (serious) scientists ever do.
We just argue *in* the frame of some theories. As scientists we doubt  
all theories.




You can, for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without  
believing they are true), might they lead to consequences that are  
either absurd or generally accepted.  Of course, whether some idea  
is considered absurd or not might be matter of someone's beliefs.


Yes. We can mention our personal belief ... at the pause café. We  
better do that when people get the "scientific" (sharable) point, so  
as not mixing what is proved to everybody, and the degree of  
plausibility of our assumptions.


Bruno





Jason



On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play  
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances  
never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary  
physical(?) explanations.

Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to  
receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with  
memory arased of the old one.

YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).

If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which  
is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of  
the reasoning is based).


Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are  
substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the  
particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is  
preserved.  Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so  
then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in  
order to assert computationalism is false.


Jason


JM


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist   
wrote:

I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
Richard


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark   
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:


> Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would  
please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.

John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)

I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of  
the first 3 steps



What is the error in step 3?


(and I can't think why it would be called "step 4" if it were not)  
then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim  
it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps.


I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next  
few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so  
much trouble understanding the point of the third step.


I will summarize them for you

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?



On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote:


Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.


Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can  
you list the implicit assumptions?




I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional  
research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix  
and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use  
happily in my life-practice)  -  as  - some explanatory sweat to  
comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena  received in  
formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could  
handle it.


I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one  
acceptable.
Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to "TRUTH" - we  
just think of it.
Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get  
results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use,  
however a 'wider' computability may
include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware  
the word.


Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical  
definition of an otherwise epistemic notion.
yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although  
mathematically we can eliminate it.





I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time  
when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an  
exception?).


?
It is the same arithmetic.




I am not ready to debate my ideas: my "agnostic" thinking is NG for  
argumentation.


Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw  
conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted).


If not, agnosticism become another "don't ask" philosophy.

Bruno





John M



On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play  
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances  
never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary  
physical(?) explanations.

Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to  
receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with  
memory arased of the old one.

YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).

If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which  
is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of  
the reasoning is based).


Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are  
substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the  
particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is  
preserved.  Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so  
then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in  
order to assert computationalism is false.


Jason


JM


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist   
wrote:

I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
Richard


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark   
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch   
wrote:


> Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would  
please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.

John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)

I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of  
the first 3 steps



What is the error in step 3?


(and I can't think why it would be called "step 4" if it were not)  
then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim  
it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps.


I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next  
few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so  
much trouble understanding the point of the third step.


I will summarize them for you here:

1: Teleportation is survivable
2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay  
is imperceptible to the person teleported
3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one  
unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50%  
chance of finding oneself at the intended destination
4. Duplication with delay changes nothing.  If duplicate to the  
intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the  
unintended destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of  
finding oneself at the intended destination
5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to  
the duplication with delay.  If someone creates a copy of you  
somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that  
alternate location.
6. If a virtual copy of you is instantiated in a computer somewhere,  
then as in step 5, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself  
trapped in that computer simulation.
7. A computer with enough time and memory, that iteratively executes

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:
>>> and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding  
oneself at the intended destination

>> JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100%  
chance Jason Resch will be at the intended destination.

> Yes, but the question is asked before the duplication.

Then why did it include the words "following duplication" in the  
above?

You did not quote me.
Then, I understand the quote as alluding to the confirmation of the  
prediction done before.

> If you say 100% for this city, the guy in the other city will  
understand that he was mistaken,

For a logician you sure aren't very logical. If today I predict that  
tomorrow a green object will be found in Washington and tomorrow you  
show me a red stop sign that you found in Washington does that  
provide enough information to prove that my prediction of yesterday  
was wrong?

No. But that's a different experience. if you predict now that you  
will see Washington after pushing on the button and opening the door,  
and that after pushing the button and opening the door  you (the one  
in front of me to who I ask the question in Moscow) see Moscow, that  
will refute (from his 1p, as the question conerns the 1p) his  
prediction.

>>> If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50%  
chance you will find yourself in that alternate location.

>> JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If someone creates a copy of Jason  
Resch somewhere, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason  
Resch to be in that alternate location.

> After the duplication. Not before

Obviously after the duplication!!  Before the duplication or  
teleportation nothing unusual has happened yet so there is a 0%  
chance that Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be in a alternate  
location.

So before I bought the quantum lottery ticket, there is 100% choice  
that I will win?

Correct from the 3p view: I do win in some universe.
Incorrect from the QM statistics: I do lose in most universes.

So here, you are oscillating between a confusion between before/after  
doing the duplication and the 1p/3p confusion.

The fact that you have to make a confusion at all cost, illustrate  
well the inconsistencies you need to refute step 3.

bruno

  John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To 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.

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

> How many first person experiences viewed from their first person  
points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth  
right now?

> The question is ambiguous.

I provided all the information needed to be crystal clear and  
unambiguous.

> In the 3p view, and the answer stays the same 7 billions (+  
animals ...).

That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the  
question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about   
"the 3p view", it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the  
question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed  
from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe  
exists on planet Earth right now?

1  (I already answered this, note).
from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

>> it's the sort of indeterminacy caused by a simple lack of  
information and first discovered by Og the caveman;

> Do you think Og was aware of the possibility of self-duplication?

No but the self duplicating machine in your thought experiment adds  
nothing to our understanding of indeterminacy or of anything else,  
it's just another useless wheel within a wheel.

Not at all. It proves (for the first time) the necessity of an  
indeterminacy, brought by the comp 3p *determinacy*.

But no problem if you disagree, as that point is not in the topic.

Now that you do agree with the point of step 3, what is your take on  
step 4?

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't.
>

What specifically?

The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism.
All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there.



> I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional
> research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its
> 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my
> life-practice)  -  as  - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly
> if at all understood) phenomena  received in formats how the actual
> developmental level of our mentality could handle it.
>
> I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one
> acceptable.
>

You need not "accept" or "believe in" these assumptions for them to be
useful to progress.  Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true, it implies
R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we see, and use it as
evidence for or against (P & Q).


> Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to "TRUTH" - we just
> think of it.
> Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I
> mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' 
> *computability
> *may
> include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the
> word.
> I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when
> zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?).
>
> I am not ready to debate my ideas: my "agnostic" thinking is NG for
> argumentation.
>

I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation.  You can,
for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without believing they
are true), might they lead to consequences that are either absurd or
generally accepted.  Of course, whether some idea is considered absurd or
not might be matter of someone's beliefs.

Jason


>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the 
>>> *fantasy-play*'teleportation':
>>> It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances
>>> never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
>>> explanations.
>>> Wana play? be my guest.
>>> In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to
>>> receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory
>>> arased of the old one.
>>> YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).
>>>
>>
>> If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is
>> possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the
>> reasoning is based).
>>
>> Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are
>> substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts
>> are not important so long as the pattern is preserved.  Further, no known
>> laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of
>> yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>
>>>  JM
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
 I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem.
 If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem.
 Richard


 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> > Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would
>>> please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect.
>>> John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question)
>>>
>>
>> I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of
>> the first 3 steps
>>
>
>
> What is the error in step 3?
>
>
>
>>  (and I can't think why it would be called "step 4" if it were not)
>> then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is
>> the only thing) is the previous 3 steps.
>>
>
> I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few
> steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much
> trouble understanding the point of the third step.
>
> I will summarize them for you here:
>
> 1: Teleportation is survivable
> 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay
> is imperceptible to the person teleported
> 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one
> unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance
> of finding oneself at the intended destination
> 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing.  If duplicate to the
> intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended
> destination, subjectively there

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

  Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an  
observer (using your definition of an observer) is the "truth" of  
that observer? I apologize for the weirdness of this question, but  
consider that nothing is more "true" than the 1st person experience  
that an observer has.

Truth enter in the picture in two ways:

1) by the inetnsional nuance when we add the "& p", like in the first  
and second application of Theaetetus:

  Bp ===> Bp & p
  Bp & Dt > Bp & Dt & p
and
2) By the splitting between G and G* inherited by such variants, which  
is a spliiting between true about the machine and what the machine can  
prove.

An observer could doubt that what it experiences is "real" and even  
have a sophisticated argument for how it could not possibly be real,  
but nonetheless the illusion of a physical world persist...

Yes, that is captured by the Theatetus "& p" nuance.

  One property of Truth (at least the Platonic notion of truth) is  
that it is eternal and immutable.

OK. I would say that it is not even temporal.

There is another property that can be teased out! There is no  
contingency in that 2 + 2 = 4 and that 17 is prime.

OK.

Could it be that this 'non-contingency' is the result of the fact  
that at least a countable infinity of observers (numbers!) can  
verify to themselves that they are numbers (they cannot know which  
number they are) and thus are members of the set of numbers.
  This leads me to guess that maybe a physical world is a finite  
truth of sorts in the way that a arithmetic fact is an infinite truth.

I don't see this. Normally the physical reality inherits the computer  
science infinities.

  What would happen if we considered your UD idea on finite sets of  
numbers that are very large but still finite?

?
The UD generates and execute programs, which are all finite, by  
definition, on all data, which are 3p-finite, but 1p-infinite.

Would we still have the permanence and non-contingency of truth for  
such sets?

?

Bruno

  I like to see you speculating out loud so that I can add my own  
speculation. It could all be nonsense... :-)

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:46, Jason Resch wrote:

> 8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the  
executions of all programs exist within the relations between large  
numbers.

That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist,  
and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true.

It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one  
particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer.  This  
program and its execution exist within mathematics.

Yes, even in arithmetic, and under different important forms. Its  
many descriptions exist, and the computation are "truly" emulated in  
the truth referred by the theorems concerning those description.  
That is a point which met some difficulties for non-logician, as it  
is impossible to ever point a computation, without mentioning a  
description of it. The computation itself is captured by the truth  
of certain arithmetical statements, not by the existence of a  
description of those computations. The nuance is subtle, because we  
infer the existence of the computation by looking at the existence  
of some description of them, and to show that this is equivalent is  
by no means a trivial affair, linking the syntax of the theory and  
its intended meaning (and that is why we need AR). There is a need  
to really study how simple theories (like RA) can represent in some  
strong sense the partial recursive function. It is well done in  
Boolos and Jeffrey, or in Epstein & Carnielli.
The whole difficulty of step 8 is in this paragraph. Those who  
believe that a filmed boolean graph can be thinking commit a  
confusion between use and mention (like I have just described).

For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program  
after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular  
value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step  
has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that  
the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for  
the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John  
Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a  
computer in a physical universe.

OK.

> Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE.

A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not  
obvious.

Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we  
can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for  
the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great  
confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a  
single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, th

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear LizR,
>
>   Is math  "in our heads" or is it somehow "out there". If it is "out
> there" how does it connect to what is in our heads?
>

Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their heads,
computers, or paper, etc. to learn and discover their properties.  This is
no different than some alien who lives in a different universe, simulating
the laws of our own universes, and learning about galaxies, red-shift,
black holes, etc.  These things might have no correlation to anything in
the universe of the alien, but you might rightfully ask "where does the
information about black holes and red-shift come from?", the answer in both
cases is the same: simulation of other mathematical structures.

Jason


> If it is all in our heads, what does that say about Arithmetic Realism? I
> am trying to get back to some basic concepts...
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jason,
>>>
>>>   I think it was you that wrote (to me):
>>> "I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it
>>> would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
>>> someone somewhere."
>>>
>>>I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous,
>>> exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires
>>> a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist
>>> of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that "makes it
>>> true"? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that
>>> theorem's possible truth value?
>>>
>>> The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true
>> whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems
>> continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law
>> was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for
>> billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing
>> distant galaxies.
>>
>> It also seems unlikely that simple arithmetic didn't work until Ug the
>> caveman (or woman) discovered it. The big bang seems to have done
>> nucleosynthesis by adding particles together quite happily when presumably
>> there was no one around to know about it.
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> You received this message because you 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013  Jason Resch  wrote:

> Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it  
run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100%  
chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer

Yes, in fact it may have already happened.

>> That would only be true if everything that could exist does  
exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously  
true.

>It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one  
particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer.  This program  
and its execution exist within mathematics.

I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics,  
but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists  
at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it  
does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on  
software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without  
hardware to run it on.

But the hardware/software distinction might be a relative indexical.  
If you got the step 8 (or even step 7) this should easily be  
understood (or conceived).

> For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program  
after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value  
X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some  
other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the  
program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the  
Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark  
believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a  
computer in a physical universe.

For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or  
virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the  
19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan  
number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized,  
but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is  
spatially infinite  10^1000 light years away (give or take a few  
hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt  
that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about  
Boltzmann's idea.

Boltzman still use physicalism, and Boltzman brain cannot clealry grow  
infinitely in some stable way, unlike the arithmetical UD, which  
exists in the same sense that the distribution of primes exists in  
arithmetic;

Bruno

  John K Clark

> Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE.

A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not  
obvious.

Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we  
can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for  
the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great  
confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a  
single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there are  
several physical concepts that provide support for the UD being a  
valid TOE:

Quantum uncertainty
Non clonability of matter
Determinism in physical laws
Information as a fundamental "physical" quantity
(I think there is something I am forgetting, but Bruno can fill in  
the gaps)

> This is the "grand conclusion" you have been missing for all these  
years. I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman.

Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman.

Nice.

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 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.

--
You received this message because you 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.

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

--
You received this message because you 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Dear Jason,
>
>   I think it was you that wrote (to me):
> "I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would
> be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by
> someone somewhere."
>

Yes, I wrote that.

>
>I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous,
> exactly?
>

It seems to get cause and effect completely backwards. 7 isn't prime
because I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors besides
1 and 7, rather, I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors
besides 1 and 7 because the truth of the matter is that 1 and 7 are its
only factors.

> If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity
> of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other
> words, can its proof be found?
>

If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed
to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large
we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be
found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question.  Let's say
it is the question of whether or not some program will ever terminate.
Certainly, all programs either terminate or they don't.  There is some
truth value concerning whether it does or does not, despite that the answer
might be unknown to us.

> What is it that "makes it true"?
>

You could say "God".  Or that it just is, and always has been.  What makes
it possible for this universe to exist?

> If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that
> theorem's possible truth value?
>

Something not knowable by us, (as are a answers to a lot lot of questions).

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 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?