Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Roger Clough Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 09:19:40 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Hi Stathis Papaioannou Computation can give you letters on a page. Are they conscious ? There's no way that I can think of however, to prove or disprove that objects are conscious or not, only that they may simulate consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 10:45:10 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Computation can give you letters on a page. Are they conscious ? There's no way that I can think of however, to prove or disprove that objects are conscious or not, only that they may simulate consciousness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 10:45:10 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Richard Ruquist Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:17:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Nature, or god- samething. There may be a programmer that initiated the chain of universes. But that programmer is far removed from us. The god or cosmic consciousness that relates to us and life in general in this universe is manifested by the CYMs who were created during the big bang according to string theory.. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 10:39:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Richard Ruquist Fine, except I think that intelligence, since it was needed for the Big Bang, had to be there beforehand, where time did not yet exist. But intelligence is beyond spacetime anyway, so it always was. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:17:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Nature, or god- samething. There may be a programmer that initiated the chain of universes. But that programmer is far removed from us. The god or cosmic consciousness that relates to us and life in general in this universe is manifested by the CYMs who were created during the big bang according to string theory.. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 10:39:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
*RS:I'm not sure how that comment is restricted to anything???* JM: I think it is: to practicality. I allowed myself to be in the ivory tower. J On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:58:13PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell, you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call 'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later on. Then it is not magic. It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it seems you consider a limited one: *RS: (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any particular emergent phenomenon in mind).* Restricted to the so far emerged ones? or those not showing up in our limited search (fantasy)? John M What I meant by this, is if you assemble some system, and produce (or discover) some emergent phenomenon, then that would be a legitimate ALife study. Particularly, if there is some vague working analogy with life. By contrast, if you assemble an ecomomy of agents, but the emergent economy doesn't behave in the slightest like the economy your trying to model, then you can hardly claim to be doing economics. I'm not sure how that comment is restricted to anything??? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Richard Ruquist Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 10:39:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Don't avoid my question please. Where do the laws of physics come from ? One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Don't avoid my question please. Where do the laws of physics come from ? One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness and physics, therefore no need for a separate physical reality. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Nature, or god- samething. There may be a programmer that initiated the chain of universes. But that programmer is far removed from us. The god or cosmic consciousness that relates to us and life in general in this universe is manifested by the CYMs who were created during the big bang according to string theory.. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Then where do the CYMs and their properties come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 10:39:34 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On 07 Oct 2012, at 16:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: One theory is that existence of platonic entities such as numbers is not ontologically distinct from actual existence. In that case, all possible universes necessarily exist, and the one that has the laws of physics allowing observers is the one the observers observe. That is Tegmark error. It cannot work. First it is obvious that numbers have a distinct existence than, say, this table or that chair, and secondly, once you accept comp, whatever meaning you give to the existence of numbers as long as you agree that 2+2=4 is independent of you, the global indeterminacy on arithmetic, or on the UD, has to be taken into account, and physics has to be explained in term of *all* computation. That is what Tegmark and Schmidhuber have missed, and which I have explained when entering on this mailing list. Even in the case one (little program), like DeWitt-Wheeler equation for example, would be correct, so that indeed there would be only one computation allowing consciousness, such a fact has to be justified in term of the measure taken on *all* computation. I thought you did grasp this sometime ago. Step 8 is not really needed here. Computation necessarily exists, computation is enough to generate consciousness OK. At least comp can explain 99,9 % of consciousness, and can explain entirely why a tiny part of consciousness cannot be explained, but that is a detail here. and physics, But how? The whole problem is there. Tegmark would answer here: by assuming that the physical reality is a computation or a mathematical structure among others, and if it sustain consciousness then it will work. But this does NOT work. (besides making physics trivial). With comp, the physical reality is not a computation, nor a priori a purely mathematical structure a priori, physics has to be the invariant pattern in the first person indeterminacy on the computational continuations, and in their resulting statistical interferences. therefore no need for a separate physical reality. It is not so much that we don't need it, it is that we cannot use it, even if true. And that we have to explain what it looks true, from a sum on all computation. Can you explain the subtlety I've missed? I think you are currently forgetting the first person indeterminacy. You seem to forget the fact that if you drop a pen on the ground, it will not fall on the ground because you are in a computation which support you and a falling pen, but because the pen fall in the majority of the computations going through you actual state. This is what makes physics reducible to machine psychology, and physics is not a structure among others: it is a sum on all (comp) structures. That is what AUDA translate in math. Now, as it might be FALSE that the pen drop in the majority of continuation, or even that such a majority does not make sense, the whole thing is testable. Comp might really be refuted here (well comp + definition of knowledge based on Theaetetus + Gödel-Löb self- reference). Deutsch criticized Schmidhuber as being trivial: explaining too much, and I gree with Deustch. But comp, when we take the first person indeterminacy into account makes this explanation not trivial at all, as we have to derive physics by extracting a measure on all computation. This is far from done. AUDA does show, though, that the measure one exists, and already obeys to quantum logic. Comp, in that way, makes the everything idea into an operative theory capable of precise predictions. The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among possible other: it is the unique (quasi) mathematical structure which makes our subjective experience persistent. Normally this should be clear at the step seven (as some Occam razor, stronger than usual but not that much, can be used to avoid step 8). OK? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think you are currently forgetting the first person indeterminacy. You seem to forget the fact that if you drop a pen on the ground, it will not fall on the ground because you are in a computation which support you and a falling pen, but because the pen fall in the majority of the computations going through you actual state. This is what makes physics reducible to machine psychology, and physics is not a structure among others: it is a sum on all (comp) structures. That is what AUDA translate in math. Now, as it might be FALSE that the pen drop in the majority of continuation, or even that such a majority does not make sense, the whole thing is testable. Comp might really be refuted here (well comp + definition of knowledge based on Theaetetus + Gödel-Löb self-reference). Deutsch criticized Schmidhuber as being trivial: explaining too much, and I gree with Deustch. But comp, when we take the first person indeterminacy into account makes this explanation not trivial at all, as we have to derive physics by extracting a measure on all computation. This is far from done. AUDA does show, though, that the measure one exists, and already obeys to quantum logic. Comp, in that way, makes the everything idea into an operative theory capable of precise predictions. The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among possible other: it is the unique (quasi) mathematical structure which makes our subjective experience persistent. Normally this should be clear at the step seven (as some Occam razor, stronger than usual but not that much, can be used to avoid step 8). OK? OK, so there are multiple computations sustaining my current experience, not just one, and my future is indeterminate. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On 07 Oct 2012, at 18:05, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I think you are currently forgetting the first person indeterminacy. You seem to forget the fact that if you drop a pen on the ground, it will not fall on the ground because you are in a computation which support you and a falling pen, but because the pen fall in the majority of the computations going through you actual state. This is what makes physics reducible to machine psychology, and physics is not a structure among others: it is a sum on all (comp) structures. That is what AUDA translate in math. Now, as it might be FALSE that the pen drop in the majority of continuation, or even that such a majority does not make sense, the whole thing is testable. Comp might really be refuted here (well comp + definition of knowledge based on Theaetetus + Gödel-Löb self-reference). Deutsch criticized Schmidhuber as being trivial: explaining too much, and I gree with Deustch. But comp, when we take the first person indeterminacy into account makes this explanation not trivial at all, as we have to derive physics by extracting a measure on all computation. This is far from done. AUDA does show, though, that the measure one exists, and already obeys to quantum logic. Comp, in that way, makes the everything idea into an operative theory capable of precise predictions. The physical reality is not a mathematical structure among possible other: it is the unique (quasi) mathematical structure which makes our subjective experience persistent. Normally this should be clear at the step seven (as some Occam razor, stronger than usual but not that much, can be used to avoid step 8). OK? OK, so there are multiple computations sustaining my current experience, not just one, and my future is indeterminate. Yes. And physics is what evaluate that indetermination, and makes (hopefully) possible the sharing of very similar computations between different universal beings, in a testable way. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Yes, the Tooth Fairy. I know this because I read it in a book, and the book said that every word was true. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Roger, In string theory the laws and constants of physics and chemistry come from the 6-d Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds which are like the Leibnitz monads and/or the Indra Pearls of Buddhism. They number about 10^90/cc through out the universe, whereas there are about 10^90 particles in the visible universe, an interesting coincidence. Richard On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-05, 19:41:44 Subject: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Don't avoid my question please. Where do the laws of physics come from ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 09:43:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Where did the laws of physics and chemistry come from that enable it to work ? The Tooth Fairy ? Yes, the Tooth Fairy. I know this because I read it in a book, and the book said that every word was true. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-04, 17:51:37 Subject: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories and calculations, that is, starting with the body and hoping to reach I'm not sure what. Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity that apparently can only be overcome by the emergence of new properties. If this isn't magic, I don't know what it is. You put together pieces of metal, plastic, hydrocarbons and you get - a car! If this isn't magic, I don't know what is. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
Russell, you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call 'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later on. Then it is not magic. It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it seems you consider a limited one: *RS: (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any particular emergent phenomenon in mind).* Restricted to the so far emerged ones? or those not showing up in our limited search (fantasy)? John M * * On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:51:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories and calculations, that is, starting with the body and hoping to reach I'm not sure what. Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity that apparently can only be overcome by the emergence of new properties. If this isn't magic, I don't know what it is. You put together pieces of metal, plastic, hydrocarbons and you get - a car! If this isn't magic, I don't know what is. Sarcasm aside, Roger does have a point. It is very difficult, bordering on impossible, in general, to specify the microphysical layer in just such a way as to reproduce a particular macrophysical phenomenon of interest. This problem is faced everyday by practitioners of agent-based modelling, and to a lesser extent by artitifical life researchers (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any particular emergent phenomenon in mind). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You left out the guy who puts together the pieces. So if the pieces just happened to fall into the right place spontaneously the car would not work? -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:58:13PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell, you seem to be restricted by OUR model-items, so far discovered. I call 'magic' the so far undiscovered, which - however - may become known later on. Then it is not magic. It would be the last thing to engage with you in discussing AL, but it seems you consider a limited one: *RS: (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any particular emergent phenomenon in mind).* Restricted to the so far emerged ones? or those not showing up in our limited search (fantasy)? John M What I meant by this, is if you assemble some system, and produce (or discover) some emergent phenomenon, then that would be a legitimate ALife study. Particularly, if there is some vague working analogy with life. By contrast, if you assemble an ecomomy of agents, but the emergent economy doesn't behave in the slightest like the economy your trying to model, then you can hardly claim to be doing economics. I'm not sure how that comment is restricted to anything??? -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories and calculations, that is, starting with the body and hoping to reach I'm not sure what. Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity that apparently can only be overcome by the emergence of new properties. If this isn't magic, I don't know what it is. You put together pieces of metal, plastic, hydrocarbons and you get - a car! If this isn't magic, I don't know what is. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On complexity and bottom-up theories and calculations
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:51:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi everything-list The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories and calculations, that is, starting with the body and hoping to reach I'm not sure what. Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity that apparently can only be overcome by the emergence of new properties. If this isn't magic, I don't know what it is. You put together pieces of metal, plastic, hydrocarbons and you get - a car! If this isn't magic, I don't know what is. Sarcasm aside, Roger does have a point. It is very difficult, bordering on impossible, in general, to specify the microphysical layer in just such a way as to reproduce a particular macrophysical phenomenon of interest. This problem is faced everyday by practitioners of agent-based modelling, and to a lesser extent by artitifical life researchers (ALife researcher at least have the liberty of researching any interesting emergent phenomenon without having any particular emergent phenomenon in mind). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
