Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Stathis, you put me on the spot (as Brent did, to whom I still owe a reply). I have NO theory. I started to speculate about things I never had the time to read a bout, keep pace with novelties, or even contemplate while I was busy as the nonexistent hell in my day-to day D and consulting workload. I read some 2-300 NEW books o n new worldview-related topics, starting as probably the oldest one: David Bohm. Then I argued (neophyte hassle) with physicists and conservative neuro-philosophers and wrote a sci-fi. I concluded in an unlimited complexity of everything existing (another questionmark, since I was not on the basis of the physical measurements) of which human thinking formulates topics, maps, territories (=models, within boundaries) and we have a 'science' closed into our models. So I formulated a NARRATIVE for myself. (Plenitude etc.) This (answering your question: ...how it could be immune to being proved wrong? makes me immune as it is MY narrative. You don't like it? fine. It gives me easier explanations in MY (common sense) logic to many (not all) questions. Primitive? of course. Are we not all? I found similar thinkers (different theories and bases) galore and have interesting discussions on - I think - 8 lists. Counterarguments help me develop my ideas. The only one I stick to is the total interconnectedness and intereffectiveness in the totality irrespective topics we identify. Complexity exceeds the systems. We are complexity of not separable mind (what is it?) and body (our historical figment of matter, just explaining phenomena in the evolving empirical enrichment). None exists without the other. I better stop because I could not hold water in a detailed wide discussion against all that knowledge stuffed in this list. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 9:25 PM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp John, Perhaps I have misunderstood if you were presenting an alternative theory: it's easy to misunderstand the often complex ideas discussed on this list. Could you explain your theory, and how it could be immune to being proved wrong? Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, you (of all people) underestimate human optimism and self confidence. MY THEORY? the 'others' maybe, they become proven wrong and false, not mine! Then again where is an acceptable evidence? to whom? Ask Goedel, ask Popper, ask all people who 'think' differently. Bruno has different evidence for his position in his reply to my question today than I had when I asked it. Not even a (confirmed?) Pysicalexperiment is 'evidendce'. wHO do you call a 'scientist'? the one who accepts an evidence, or who does not? Best wishes John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp John M writes: Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the theory in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they ideally should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing the right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
From: Brent Meeker ... But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat steak is not perfect for me. People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a PU will be. I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU would be. I can't even imagine exactly what would be a perfect universe for me. Do I want more security...or more adventure? Sure I want to suceed...but maybe not too easily. Do I really need to be the world's greatest tennis, chess, and billiards player? Don't worry. I already have a solution for this: Before I adjust the universe to become perfect, I will send everyone one message (by telepathy) to let you decide: (1) Stay with the current universe if you like. (2) Change to PU and become perfect. Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
W. C. wrote: From: Brent Meeker ... But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat steak is not perfect for me. People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a PU will be. I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU would be. I can't even imagine exactly what would be a perfect universe for me. Do I want more security...or more adventure? Sure I want to suceed...but maybe not too easily. Do I really need to be the world's greatest tennis, chess, and billiards player? Don't worry. I already have a solution for this: Before I adjust the universe to become perfect, I will send everyone one message (by telepathy) to let you decide: (1) Stay with the current universe if you like. (2) Change to PU and become perfect. Aye, there's the rub. I can't become WC-perfect and remain me. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John, Perhaps I have misunderstood if you were presenting an alternative theory: it's easy to misunderstand the often complex ideas discussed on this list. Could you explain your theory, and how it could be immune to being proved wrong? Stathis Papaioannou Stathis, you (of all people) underestimate human optimism and self confidence. MY THEORY? the 'others' maybe, they become proven wrong and false, not mine! Then again where is an acceptable evidence? to whom? Ask Goedel, ask Popper, ask all people who 'think' differently. Bruno has different evidence for his position in his reply to my question today than I had when I asked it. Not even a (confirmed?) Pysicalexperiment is 'evidendce'. wHO do you call a 'scientist'? the one who accepts an evidence, or who does not? Best wishes John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp John M writes: Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the theory in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they ideally should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing the right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
John M writes: Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the theory in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they ideally should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing the right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Stathis Papaioannou I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: 1Z, I don't know what you mean. That is unfortunate, because as far as I am concerned everyhting I am saying is obvious. (Have you read The fabric of Reality ?) Perhaps I can understand your statement, but only after I get answers to the following questions: 1) What do you mean by Quantum computer? A computer that exploits quantum superpositions to achieve parallelism. 2) What do you mean by Quantum universe? A universe (or multiverse) in which quantum physics is a true description of reality. 3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe? It exploits quantum physics. 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without computational assistance? Superpositions are an implication of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's Cat was mooted decades before anyone even thought of quantum computaion. Norman - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your statement. It seems to boil down to Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum superpositions. Fair enough. When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. Norman Samish ~~~` - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:35 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: 1Z, I don't know what you mean. That is unfortunate, because as far as I am concerned everyhting I am saying is obvious. (Have you read The fabric of Reality ?) Perhaps I can understand your statement, but only after I get answers to the following questions: 1) What do you mean by Quantum computer? A computer that exploits quantum superpositions to achieve parallelism. 2) What do you mean by Quantum universe? A universe (or multiverse) in which quantum physics is a true description of reality. 3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe? It exploits quantum physics. 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without computational assistance? Superpositions are an implication of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's Cat was mooted decades before anyone even thought of quantum computaion. Norman - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your statement. It seems to boil down to Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum superpositions. Correct. Fair enough. When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. That's just standard MWI. BTW, you didn't answer my question about FoR. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I intuitivelyagree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI too-flagrantly violatesOccam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again. I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did. While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries,I remainagnostic."MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds." (Wikipedia)I also can't buy "wavefunction collapse." Perhaps some undiscovered phenomenon is responsible for quantum mysteries - e.g., maybe the explanation lies inone or moreof the ten dimensions that string theory requires. Maybe these undiscovered dimensions somehow allow the fabled paired photons to instantly communicate with each other over astronomical distances. This is a WAG (wild-ass guess) of course, but it's more believable to me than new universes being constantly generated. However, I CAN see some logic to the idea that Tegmark introduced me to - the idea that, in infinite space, a multiverse exists containing all possible universes - and we inhabit one of them. I believe that, in infinite time and space, anything that can happen must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. I freely admit that there are a lot of things I can't understand, e.g. more than three physical dimensions, the concept of infinity, time without beginniing or end, and the like. The reason I lurk on this list is to try to gainunderstanding. I sit at the feet of brilliant thinkers and listen.Norman~~- Original Message - From: "1Z" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Everything List" everything-list@googlegroups.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum superpositions." Correct. Fair enough. When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. That's just standard MWI. BTW, you didn't answer my question about FoR. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again. I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did. While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries, I remain agnostic. MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds. (Wikipedia) I also can't buy wavefunction collapse. If you don't buy MWI (or the more modestly name relative state version, which is what Everett called it) then you have to collapse the wavefunction some way. Decoherence theory has shown that a density matrix for any instrument or observer is quickly diagonalized FAPP. So if you can just ignored those 1e-100 cross-terms you're back to ordinary probabilities. Then as Omnes' remarks, it's a probabilistic theory - which means it predicts one thing happens and the others don't. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Stathis, you (of all people) underestimate human optimism and self confidence. MY THEORY? the 'others' maybe, they become proven wrong and false, not mine! Then again where is an acceptable evidence? to whom? Ask Goedel, ask Popper, ask all people who 'think' differently. Bruno has different evidence for his position in his reply to my question today than I had when I asked it. Not even a (confirmed?) Pysicalexperiment is 'evidendce'. wHO do you call a 'scientist'? the one who accepts an evidence, or who does not? Best wishes John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp John M writes: Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the theory in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they ideally should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing the right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Stathis Papaioannou I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Apologies to the list and to Stathis especially! I replied to Stathis - and lost the text - at least I thought so. That happens in Yahoo-mail sometimes and so far I could not detect which 'key' did I touch wrong? So I wrote another one and mailed it all right. Then in the mail I detected my 'original' and lost text, it was snatched away and mailed. The two are pretty different. Redface John - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:12 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Stathis: I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Funny that you of all people come up with such a supposition so different from fundamental basic human nature! We all hope to be smarter than , And speculate. Even those scientists you refer to. Evidence? that is what I scrutinize. It is subject to the level of our ongoing epistemic enrichment and without later findings one settles with insufficient ones that become soon obsolete. I was challenged to propose technical levels 50 years ahead. It is impossible. I rather try to compose what and why of our present technological and theoretical status could we NOT imagine 60 years ago...it is entertaining. Man is optimist. Even myself with a cynical pessimism. John M - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John M everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:22 AM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp John M writes: Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. Very droll, very true! But what, then, must we do? Scientists come up with the best theory consistent with the evidence, with a willingness to revise the theory in the light of new evidence. They might not be quite as willing as they ideally should be, but that's just human nature, and they all come around to doing the right thing eventually. It would not be very helpful if we all thought, I know that whatever theory I come up with will almost certainly be proved wrong given enough time, so I won't bother coming up with a theory at all. Stathis Papaioannou I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 8/5/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I intuitively agree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI too-flagrantly violates Occam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again. This is diusputed, e.g. in http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm Q21 Does many-worlds violate Ockham's Razor? William of Ockham, 1285-1349(?) English philosopher and one of the founders of logic, proposed a maxim for judging theories which says that hypotheses should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This is known as Ockham's razor and is interpreted, today, as meaning that to account for any set of facts the simplest theories are to be preferred over more complex ones. Many-worlds is viewed as unnecessarily complex, by some, by requiring the existence of a multiplicity of worlds to explain what we see, at any time, in just one world. This is to mistake what is meant by complex. Here's an example. Analysis of starlight reveals that starlight is very similar to faint sunlight, both with spectroscopic absorption and emission lines. Assuming the universality of physical law we are led to conclude that other stars and worlds are scattered, in great numbers, across the cosmos. The theory that the stars are distant suns is the simplest theory and so to be preferred by Ockham's Razor to other geocentric theories. Similarly many-worlds is the simplest and most economical quantum theory because it proposes that same laws of physics apply to animate observers as has been observed for inanimate objects. The multiplicity of worlds predicted by the theory is not a weakness of many-worlds, any more than the multiplicity of stars are for astronomers, since the non-interacting worlds emerge from a simpler theory. (As an historical aside it is worth noting that Ockham's razor was also falsely used to argue in favour of the older heliocentric theories against Galileo's notion of the vastness of the cosmos. The notion of vast empty interstellar spaces was too uneconomical to be believable to the Medieval mind. Again they were confusing the notion of vastness with complexity [15].) I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did. While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries, I remain agnostic. MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds. (Wikipedia) I also can't buy wavefunction collapse. That is unofortunate, because if you do not have collapse, you have MW, and if you do nto have MW, you have collapse. Perhaps some undiscovered phenomenon is responsible for quantum mysteries - e.g., maybe the explanation lies in one or more of the ten dimensions that string theory requires. What is responsible for quantum phenomena is the way the universe works. What needs explaining is how the appearance of a classical world-re-emerges. Maybe these undiscovered dimensions somehow allow the fabled paired photons to instantly communicate with each other over astronomical distances. This is a WAG (wild-ass guess) of course, but it's more believable to me than new universes being constantly generated. This is already explained: what allows them to communicate is the fact that they occupy an infinitely-dimensional Hilbert space. What needs explaining is how that ends up looking like 3D classical/relativistic space. However, I CAN see some logic to the idea that Tegmark introduced me to - the idea that, in infinite space, a multiverse exists containing all possible universes - and we inhabit one of them. Then the quantum universe will be one of them. But why shouldn't it be the only one ? I believe that, in infinite time and space, anything that can happen must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
From: Brent Meeker I don't think it's possible, because perfect is subjective. Perfect for the lion is bad for the antelope. Such problem doesn't exist in PU. In PU, there is no food chain like A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.. Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no unhappiness (you don't feel happy when you are eaten, right?). Why living beings need to eat? People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a PU will be. The difficult thing is how to make it. (The rule is always simple: If I can't make it, it's just dream.) Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
W. C. wrote: From: Brent Meeker I don't think it's possible, because perfect is subjective. Perfect for the lion is bad for the antelope. Such problem doesn't exist in PU. In PU, there is no food chain like A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.. Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no unhappiness (you don't feel happy when you are eaten, right?). Why living beings need to eat? But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat steak is not perfect for me. People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a PU will be. I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU would be. I can't even imagine exactly what would be a perfect universe for me. Do I want more security...or more adventure? Sure I want to suceed...but maybe not too easily. Do I really need to be the world's greatest tennis, chess, and billiards player? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain our universe. Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by our limitations (as designed by the so-called Creator if any). So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by some way (although other theories say impossible). Then all living beings can live in a paradise-like universe. In this (infinite) universe with infinite resources, it makes sense that all living beings should be in paradise. In one sentence, there should be free lunch for all. All beings should be created perfect with everything needed forever. Maybe the solution won't come from the so-called evolution and the slow science/technology development. It could come from some magic (sorry if you think I am unscientific). There should be some magic to make the universe perfect instantly. Thanks. WC. From: John M To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Hi, The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning. Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning. Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a serial killer cannot be in a perfect world (I'd say he cannot be in your perfect world, not his). So unless there exists an absolute meaning of perfection, PU seems impossible or I should say meaningless. Quentin Le Samedi 5 Août 2006 12:41, W. C. a écrit : I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain our universe. Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by our limitations (as designed by the so-called Creator if any). So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by some way (although other theories say impossible). Then all living beings can live in a paradise-like universe. In this (infinite) universe with infinite resources, it makes sense that all living beings should be in paradise. In one sentence, there should be free lunch for all. All beings should be created perfect with everything needed forever. Maybe the solution won't come from the so-called evolution and the slow science/technology development. It could come from some magic (sorry if you think I am unscientific). There should be some magic to make the universe perfect instantly. Thanks. WC. From: John M To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect. You can check the dictionary to know its meaning. Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning. Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning. Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a serial killer cannot be in a perfect world (I'd say he cannot be in your perfect world, not his). So unless there exists an absolute meaning of perfection, PU seems impossible or I should say meaningless. Quentin _ No masks required! Use MSN Messenger to chat with friends and family. http://go.msnserver.com/HK/25382.asp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection. Le Samedi 5 Août 2006 13:12, W. C. a écrit : Good question. But I don't think we need to define perfect. You can check the dictionary to know its meaning. Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU. It won't be in *your view* of *your* PU... That shows that PU notion has no meaning... or I should say the meaning is tied to the person who think of it. Regards, Quentin From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that this word has *no* absolute meaning. Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning. Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you would be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a serial killer cannot be in a perfect world (I'd say he cannot be in your perfect world, not his). So unless there exists an absolute meaning of perfection, PU seems impossible or I should say meaningless. Quentin _ No masks required! Use MSN Messenger to chat with friends and family. http://go.msnserver.com/HK/25382.asp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit : Are we reinventing the religion? Yes. Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the scientific attitude, and then deduce testable facts. That scientific attitude has ALWAYS been in conflict, of course, with all form of scientism or religionism or whatever based on authoritative arguments. It is fair to say that Aristotelism has probably saved the observation of nature from the influence of such authoritative arguments, but it has saved only that, and I think it could perhaps be time to dare, at least, reformulate unsolved old question. Comp gives an opportunity to do that. It clearly provides the tools. As Rudy Rucker, Judson Webb, Paul Benacerraf, and others have already shown, notably, is that computer science and mathematical logic makes it possible to develop theories putting light on those questions. About the nature of matter, Comp, then, appears to go more in the direction of Plato and Plotinus than Aristotle. Is that even astonishing? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
OK John, I say more on your post. Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit : To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. Sure. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? Space and movement would be how numbers see themselves, in case comp is assumed (that is in case you say yes to the doctor). I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Even without comp, but with the weaker everything idea we have already throw out the intelligent design idea. The problem is what is everything?. With comp, actually with just Church thesis, we do have a notion of universality which is formalism and theory independent. It is one of the major discovery of last century. It is unique in math. Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? See my preceding post. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Bruno: I am sorry to have asked that question. I meant 'religion' as assigning those 'unanswered' questions to some super-authority and 'believe' an answer assigned as if a higher authority-wisdom would have provided them, whilst they came from (definitely wise) humans of THAT age (i.e. level of epistemic readiness). Mostly with mystical painting. Then later on powers picked it up, formulated those ideas into formats according to their goals (any, according to the 'times') and waged brutal wars all the way to this day. Instead of in a - as you said - modestly scientific manner admitting our ignorance. Which does not interfere with trying to find solutions How about steering 'comp' in the direction of the 3rd millennium level of ideas AD instead of BC times? Sorry, I don't know those gentlemen you mention, but it seems they want to explain the fundamentally unknown by parts (ideas) of the same fundamentally unknown . Matter? Math-cal logic? Computer science? all embedded into the age-old ways. Even the last one, unless it 'forms' out itself from its rather embryonic phase of the early development. (Digital that is). John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Le 03-août-06, à 23:05, John M a écrit : Are we reinventing the religion? Yes. Now, it is not that science is suddenly so clever that it can solve the problem in religion. It is (justifiably assuming comp) that we can approach some religion's problem with the modesty inherent in the scientific attitude, and then deduce testable facts. That scientific attitude has ALWAYS been in conflict, of course, with all form of scientism or religionism or whatever based on authoritative arguments. It is fair to say that Aristotelism has probably saved the observation of nature from the influence of such authoritative arguments, but it has saved only that, and I think it could perhaps be time to dare, at least, reformulate unsolved old question. Comp gives an opportunity to do that. It clearly provides the tools. As Rudy Rucker, Judson Webb, Paul Benacerraf, and others have already shown, notably, is that computer science and mathematical logic makes it possible to develop theories putting light on those questions. About the nature of matter, Comp, then, appears to go more in the direction of Plato and Plotinus than Aristotle. Is that even astonishing? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/409 - Release Date: 8/4/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Earlier we lived in a telephone central switchboard, further back in a steam-engine. Not to mention the Turtle. The 'cat' specifies IMO ignorance without prejudice. John M - Original Message - From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 9:04 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
From: Quentin Anciaux Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection. OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*. This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have different special functions. But they are all perfect. They are born with highest self-fulfillment and happiness (if needed) and all resources, no need to follow life cycles (born, aged, sick, death etc.). So a PU is without any wars/crimes/conflicts, any bad things, any natural disasters ... etc. If you want even more, I think I need to write down some math. formulas/theorems etc. But it takes time. Thanks. WC. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
1Z, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps I can understand your statement, but only after I get answers to the following questions: 1) What do you mean by Quantum computer? 2) What do you mean by Quantum universe? 3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe? 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without computational assistance? Norman - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
