Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 23:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't make it a fiction. If our perceptions and cognition are successfully modeled by some theory whose ontology is atoms or arithmetic, then that is reason to give some credence to that ontology. But I see no reason to say the perceptions and cognitions are now untrue and useless as a basis for inference simply because they are derivative in some successful model? I fear you may not yet have quite grasped it, based on the last sentence above. I don't mean to say that the perceptions and cognitions themselves (i.e. the 1p part) are untrue or useless, it's the fiction of their having a non-conceptual 3p correlative in a hierarchical-reductive ontology. Furthermore, it wasn't at all my intention to *equate* atomic and arithmetical ontologies, but to try to be explicit about how they might be *differentiated*. To reiterate, any theory based on atoms (i.e. some finite set of entities and relations whose behaviour is postulated to underlie all other phenomena in a hierarchical manner) is, at least in principle, straightforwardly reductive without loss. It follows that any derived level (such as a water molecule) is precisely a conceptual fiction, convenient or otherwise, in the strong *ontological* (though not in the explanatory) sense, as a molecule is ex hypothesi a composite concept, not a member of the putatively basic set of ontological entities. This is hardly a surprise as it falls directly out of the strategy of reductionism. I appreciate, nonetheless, that it is an unusual distinction to make (as Bruno remarked, not many people see it) because in any purely 3p discourse it may seem to be a distinction without consequence, since there is in principle no loss of theoretical effectiveness after the reduction. But the selfsame distinction has crucial consequences in the unique context of perception and cognition, when we wish to associate a 1p part with a 3p part, because it then becomes starkly apparent (or at least it should) that no such non-conceptual part lies to hand, in the latter case, beyond the entities of the basement level ontology. As an example, let's consider computation in the role of the putative 3p part. On this analysis, any instantiation of computation based on atomic reductionism must be seen, from the ontological perspective, as instantly degenerating to the primitive relations of atoms. Of course (and this is what continues to confuse the picture) nothing prevents our continuing to *conceptualise* the behaviour of particularised composites of atoms as constituting computation *at the 1p level* of perception and cognition. But the selfsame theory originates all 3p phenomena effectively at the level of the atomic primitives, *independent* of any higher-level conceptualisation. Hence, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of seeking to justify the correlation of a specific 1p concept (e.g. computation) with some 3p composite activity that has no independent ontological legitimacy or effectiveness outside the confines of that very conceptualisation! This seems to me to be arguing in a particularly vicious circle. I suspect it is this inherent circularity that drives some to dismiss the 1p part as illusory and the 3p composition as real, but the desperation of this move is revealed in the consequence that the elimination of the first inevitably implies the simultaneous disappearance of both! In my view the above argument exposes an actual contradiction, or at least a serious inconsistency, in hierarchical-reductive attempts to associate 3p and 1p phenomena in general, without effectively eliminating the latter. Indeed, I think it may be a more general and ultimately more convincing argument than those deployed in Step 8 of the UDA. This brings us to the consideration of whether the selfsame argument can be deployed against an arithmetical ontology. If we can show that such an ontology (as you have suggested) is a straightforward reductionism then indeed the same criticism should go through. However, I think we can discern that this is not the case. Arithmetical relations, as deployed in comp, do indeed serve in a certain sense as the primitives of the theory, but they are not thereby a basement-level foundation on which the remainder of the theoretical structure rests in a hierarchical-reductive organisation. Rather, they appear in the theory as the minimum necessary to justify the constructive existence of a computational domain in terms of which logico-computational features of a generally epistemological nature (notably self-reference) can be derived. It is the epistemological consequences of the latter (notably the FPI) that then take over the explanatory thrust, and it is impossible thereafter to
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 27 June 2014 05:02, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Well my original phrase was convenient fiction and it was only intended to be considered relevant in a context of what is and isn't fundamental / primitive. Obviously the convenient fictions ARE very convenient, for example I prefer to be thought of as Liz rather than a collection of 10^24 atoms (or an infinite sheaf of computations as the case may be). Yes, it does seem to be quite hard to stay on topic :-( David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 04:33, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: *All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings.* Yes of course, but that was my point. I offered the analogy as a toy model of 3p reductionism per se. It's pretty clear that when we talking about, say, a country having opinions or character, that this is merely a manner of speaking. If we cared to, this manner of speaking could be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of the individual human beings who play the role of the fundamental entities in this reduction. However it seems, for some reason, to be less obvious to most people in the case of *physical* reductionism. Actually the reason is perhaps not so mysterious after all, as it is difficult not to take for granted what is constantly staring us in the face - hence the frequent confusion between what should be considered ontologically, as opposed to epistemologically, basic. But on reflection, can we really countenance an appeal to one convenient fiction (computation) to explain another (consciousness) given a prior commitment to the exhaustive hierarchical reducibility of both to the ontological basement level of explanation? And in relying on epistemological fictions in general to account for *epistemology itself* are we not thereby in serious peril of merely arguing in a circle? *If Bruno is right the only thing that is real are persons who are essentially minds or computational relations anyway. Bruno is not saying there is no sunstrate or 'hypothese'. He's dropping continual heavy hints as to what it is. But, we just can't really describe that with a mind. The hammer cannot hit itself. Blame Gödel or someone...* Well, I've said before that I originally had misgivings that Bruno's schema was vulnerable to a similar analysis as I have given above - i.e. that it was in the end an exhaustive reductionism, in this case with number relations as the basement level. But actually, on reflection, this cannot be the case as it turns out to be impossible to reduce comp to number relations tout court *without loss*. In fact, not less than everything would be lost in such a reduction (assuming comp to be correct, of course): the whole of physics, the entire possibility of observation, the whole kit and caboodle. The emulation of computation and the universal machine in arithmetic - with the concomitant umbilical connection to arithmetical truth - make any straightforward hierarchical 3p reduction, along the lines of physicalism, impossible in principle. The totality of computation implies both the FPI (the indeterminism at the heart of determinism) and a fundamental asymmetry of measure. Taken together, these motivate a principled explanation of a consistent set of observable (indexical) physical appearances, abstracted, as it were, from the dross of the totality, by the unequal attention of a generalised universal observer. Indeed the systemic inter-dependence of its explanatory entities make a schema of this sort, as Bruno is wont to say, a veritable vaccine against reductionism. But is it correct? That's another question. David On 26 Jun 2014, at 8:07 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings (i.e. what Margaret Thatcher presumably intended by there's no such thing as society). David All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings. In addition, when was Margaret Thatcher ever wrong about something? ;-) So you lose a few 'isms' in this view...sounds like a good idea to me. If Bruno is right the only thing that is real are persons who are essentially minds or computational relations anyway. Bruno is not saying there is no sunstrate or 'hypothese'. He's dropping continual heavy hints as to what it is. But, we just can't really describe that with a mind. The hammer cannot hit itself. Blame Gödel or someone... Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 23:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. No, I mean the precise opposite: eliminable in fact, but not in explanation. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. There is indeed. But as you yourself say below, we do suppose that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced and hence that any intermediate level in the hierarchy of reduction IS eliminable (i.e. surplus to requirements) *in fact*. Such intermediate levels (be they in terms of temperature or kinetic energy of molecules) are by contrast NOT eliminable from our explanations, simply because we lack the capability to follow through any explanation at the fully-reduced level. The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Or that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced. Which is what I suppose. There may remain 1p phenomena (qualia?) which are not explicitly part of the reductive description, but which we suppose are still there because of the similarity of the 3p part to our 3p part which is consistently correlated with our 1p part (i.e. the reason we don't believe in p-zombies). But our 3p part turns out to be one of the convenient epistemological fictions that we have (inconveniently) eliminated *in fact*. This is no kind of a problem for a purely 3p reduction, in terms of which which all such intermediate levels are in the end fictional, but every kind of a problem for the remaining 1p part, which it is (to say the least) inconvenient to consider such a fiction. Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss I think without loss is ambiguous. It could mean that in a simulation of the phenomena we would not have to consider it (because it would arise from the lower level, e.g. markets) or it could mean that it wouldn't occur. No, it just means that if you assembled all the relevant human players in the appropriate relations you would ex hypothesi have reproduced the higher-level phenomena. Hence the inverse reduction from the sociological to the human can be accomplished unambiguously without loss. It really is a case of bottom-up all the way down. David On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. And, should they indeed be eliminable in this way, what does that bode for any 1p accompaniments? Note, please, that I am not staking any personal belief on the reductive assumptions as stated; I'm merely attempting to articulate them somewhat explicitly in order to discern what might, and what might not, be legitimately derivable from them. The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Or that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced. Which is what I suppose. There may remain 1p phenomena (qualia?) which are not explicitly part of the reductive description, but which we suppose are still there because of the similarity of the 3p part to our 3p part which is consistently correlated with our 1p part (i.e. the reason we don't believe in p-zombies). Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Spot on, Liz. Actually, we can consider both or either to be such fictions, in terms of their mutual reducibility to some (exhaustive and assumptively irreducible) basement level (string, anyone?). My point is that the fundamental tenet of any 3p reductionism is bottom-up all the way down. If that leads to inconvenient consequences (not to mention a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance) don't blame me, blame the assumptions. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/26/2014 6:10 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 00:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Spot on, Liz. Actually, we can consider both or either to be such fictions, in terms of their mutual reducibility to some (exhaustive and assumptively irreducible) basement level (string, anyone?). My point is that the fundamental tenet of any 3p reductionism is bottom-up all the way down. If that leads to inconvenient consequences (not to mention a nasty dose of cognitive dissonance) don't blame me, blame the assumptions. I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Who knows. Youmay be correct. I may be correct. Maybe we will find out one day. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Ruquist Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell? The universe is not a shell. Rather it is a toroid that turns in on itself such that radiation can go around the entire universe but not escape from it. What lies beyond the universe is the Metaverse which contains a number of similar universe. Read all about the metaverse here: http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard I just answered your second question. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-) If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. Unless I missed it, you haven't answered my question about why we don't observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts of the perception and cognition we are seeking to explain; no doubt, in the best cases (e.g. computation), of great generality and power, but nonetheless, ex hypothesi, incapable of adding anything effective to the bottom-up ontological hierarchy. If so, we seem to have arrived at the position of attempting to found the aetiology of perception and cognition on nothing more than its own fictions! But since these fictions immediately degenerate, ontologically speaking, to the basement level, it should be apparent that they are capable of offering rather less independent ontological support than the smile of the Cheshire Cat. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't make it a fiction. If our perceptions and cognition are successfully modeled by some theory whose ontology is atoms or arithmetic, then that is reason to give some credence to that ontology. But I see no reason to say the perceptions and cognitions are now untrue and useless as a basis for inference simply because they are derivative in some successful model? Brent of the perception and cognition we are seeking to explain; no doubt, in the best cases (e.g. computation), of great generality and power, but nonetheless, ex hypothesi, incapable of adding anything effective to the bottom-up ontological hierarchy. If so, we seem to have arrived at the position of attempting to found the aetiology of perception and cognition on nothing more than its own fictions! But since these fictions immediately degenerate, ontologically speaking, to the basement level, it should be apparent that they are capable of offering rather less independent ontological support than the smile of the Cheshire Cat. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 27 June 2014 10:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/26/2014 1:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 26 June 2014 20:38, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I don't understand your point? Are you saying that if there is a basement level explanation then everything above is a fiction? I think of fiction = untrue. If there is not a basement, then every explanation is a fiction, since there is always a lower level. Or are you claiming there can be no reductive explanations of anything; that something is always left out? Well, I attempted to address these points in my response to your previous post. However, to re-iterate, I'm trying to draw a clear distinction between explanatory and ontological assumptions. You may personally take the view that in the end all we have is (attempts at) explanation and in one sense (that of cognitive closure with respect to ultimate reality) I would agree. Nevertheless, any exhaustively reductive explanatory scheme is founded, ex hypothesi, on a bottom-up hierarchy, such that the basement level entities and relations, whatever we take them to be, are deemed fully adequate to support (i.e. to be re-interpreted in terms of) all the levels above them. IOW, they comprise, exhaustively, the ontology of the theory. It's in that sense that higher levels in the hierarchy are (ontologically) fictional; i.e. they are, however useful in an explanatory role, surplus to requirements from an ontological perspective. Not that, in any purely 3p reduction, anything is thereby left out. How could it be, if all the higher levels are fully reducible to the basement level? It's only when we consider the putative association of 1p phenomena with *intermediate* levels of the 3p hierarchy that a gap appears, because now we are associating such 1p phenomena with a level, that, whatever its *explanatory* power, has no independent *ontological* purchase. Furthermore, at this point it becomes easier to see that these explanatory fictions are, essentially, artefacts Ok, thanks. I think I grasp your idea. But ISTM you are taking fiction and artefact to mean untrue or non-existent. I don't see that is justified. Just because a water molecule is made of three atoms doesn't make it a fiction. If our perceptions and cognition are successfully modeled by some theory whose ontology is atoms or arithmetic, then that is reason to give some credence to that ontology. But I see no reason to say the perceptions and cognitions are now untrue and useless as a basis for inference simply because they are derivative in some successful model? Well my original phrase was *convenient* fiction and it was only intended to be considered relevant in a context of what is and isn't fundamental / primitive. Obviously the convenient fictions ARE very convenient, for example I prefer to be thought of as Liz rather than a collection of 10^24 atoms (or an infinite sheaf of computations as the case may be). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:37, David Nyman wrote: On 10 June 2014 04:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: They're along for the ride like temperature is alftr on the kinetic energy of molecules. Before stat mech, heat was regarded as an immaterial substance. It was explained by the motion of molecules; something that is 3p observable but the explanation didn't make it vanish or make it illusory. I would argue that, at the ontological level, the explanation *does indeed* make heat, or temperature, illusory. The whole point of the reduction is to show that there could not, in principle, be any supernumerary something left unaccounted for by an explanation couched exclusively at the primordial level, whatever one takes that to be. Given that this is the specific goal of explanatory reduction, what we have here is a precise dis-analogy, in that there *is indeed* a disturbingly irreducible something left behind, or unaccounted for, in the case of consciousness: i.e. the 1p experience itself. By contrast, there is no need to grant the phenomena of temperature or heat any such supernumerary reality. One could indeed argue with some force that all such phenomena are themselves, in fine, specific artefacts, or useful fictions, of consciousness. That is, they are epistemologically or explanatorily, as distinct from ontologically, relevant. Primordial matter, as it were, in its doings, need take no account of such intermediate levels, which, by assumption, reduce without loss to some exhaustive set of primordial entities and relations. This was the entire point of the argument (focused on steps 7 and 8 of the UDA) that Liz excerpted: that there is a reduction/ elimination impasse that needs somehow to be bridged by any theory seeking to reconcile consciousness and any primordial substratum (or, pace Bruno, hypostase) with which it is supposed to be correlated. And hence we have an unavoidable problem, up to this point, with theories based on primordially-explanatory material entities and processes. The problem is that, in the final analysis - and it is precisely the *final* analysis that we are considering here - such theories need take no account of any intermediate level of explanation in order to qualify as theories of everything, since any phenomenon whatsoever, on this species of fundamental accounting, can always be reduced without loss to the basic physical activity of the system in question. Ah! I remind you get the point. Still not sure many see it. Self consciousness can become equivalent with the knowledge of at least one non justifiable truth, but the raw consciousness remains problematical and it seems I have to attribute it to all universal numbers, perhaps in some dissociated state. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 17:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The problem is that, in the final analysis - and it is precisely the *final* analysis that we are considering here - such theories need take no account of any intermediate level of explanation in order to qualify as theories of everything, since any phenomenon whatsoever, on this species of fundamental accounting, can always be reduced without loss to the basic physical activity of the system in question. Ah! I remind you get the point. Still not sure many see it. Self consciousness can become equivalent with the knowledge of at least one non justifiable truth, but the raw consciousness remains problematical and it seems I have to attribute it to all universal numbers, perhaps in some dissociated state. In my experience it isn't just that they don't see it, but that something in them fiercely resists seeing it. And this is, I think, because it violates an implicit tenet of physicalism, which is that in the final analysis there must be an exhaustive accounting of any state of affairs that makes no fundamental appeal to the first person. From this perspective, consciousness, in the first-personal sense, is considered, in the last resort, as dispensable or else as a kind of epiphenomenal rabbit to be produced at the last moment, by some sleight-of-matter, from the physicalist hat. The problem, however, is that the process of dispensing with the first person cannot itself be achieved without recourse to the convenient fictions of that very epiphenomenon, which makes the whole enterprise self-defeating and, indeed, egregiously question-begging. It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life as analogous to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at best, a half-truth. It is true - or at least plausible - that there might be some discoverable set of physical processes that could, in principle, be shown to be correlated with the conscious states of any physical system we deem to be conscious. But we are also forced to assume - ex hypothesi physicalism - that all such processes are fully instantiated entirely at the most basic level posited by the physical theory in question. This poses no problem whatsoever, in principle, for temperature, or life, or any other of the exhaustively 3p-describable levels stacked in a virtual hierarchy on the foundation of physics. It is of no import that any higher level is eliminated in such a reduction, because it is not, in the end, required to do any work; in fact the very success of the reduction is that such levels are revealed, in essence, as convenient fictions. It is uniquely in the case of consciousness that this approach becomes self-defeating, unless we are willing to allow the convenient fiction of consciousness itself to be eliminated with all the rest. But then, if we do so allow, the very phenomena on which we have been relying instantly vanish, like the Cheshire Cat, leaving not so much as a smile behind. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/25/2014 11:27 AM, David Nyman wrote: It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life as analogous to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at best, a half-truth. It is true - or at least plausible - that there might be some discoverable set of physical processes that could, in principle, be shown to be correlated with the conscious states of any physical system we deem to be conscious. But we are also forced to assume - ex hypothesi physicalism - that all such processes are fully instantiated entirely at the most basic level posited by the physical theory in question. This poses no problem whatsoever, in principle, for temperature, or life, or any other of the exhaustively 3p-describable levels stacked in a virtual hierarchy on the foundation of physics. It is of no import that any higher level is eliminated in such a reduction, because it is not, in the end, required to do any work; in fact the very success of the reduction is that such levels are revealed, in essence, as convenient fictions. It is uniquely in the case of consciousness that this approach becomes self-defeating, unless we are willing to allow the convenient fiction of consciousness itself to be eliminated with all the rest. But then, if we do so allow, the very phenomena on which we have been relying instantly vanish, like the Cheshire Cat, leaving not so much as a smile behind. Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 09:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 11:27 AM, David Nyman wrote: It exasperates me when people adduce phenomena such as temperature or life as analogous to consciousness, without noticing that the analogy is, at best, a half-truth. It is true - or at least plausible - that there might be some discoverable set of physical processes that could, in principle, be shown to be correlated with the conscious states of any physical system we deem to be conscious. But we are also forced to assume - ex hypothesi physicalism - that all such processes are fully instantiated entirely at the most basic level posited by the physical theory in question. This poses no problem whatsoever, in principle, for temperature, or life, or any other of the exhaustively 3p-describable levels stacked in a virtual hierarchy on the foundation of physics. It is of no import that any higher level is eliminated in such a reduction, because it is not, in the end, required to do any work; in fact the very success of the reduction is that such levels are revealed, in essence, as convenient fictions. It is uniquely in the case of consciousness that this approach becomes self-defeating, unless we are willing to allow the convenient fiction of consciousness itself to be eliminated with all the rest. But then, if we do so allow, the very phenomena on which we have been relying instantly vanish, like the Cheshire Cat, leaving not so much as a smile behind. Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. Indeed it's already a fact, as any drug (or brain scan operator) user can tell you. But as you say this makes no inroads into explaining how consciousness arises or what it is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. And, should they indeed be eliminable in this way, what does that bode for any 1p accompaniments? Note, please, that I am not staking any personal belief on the reductive assumptions as stated; I'm merely attempting to articulate them somewhat explicitly in order to discern what might, and what might not, be legitimately derivable from them. The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Or that all 3p describable phenomena can be reduced. Which is what I suppose. There may remain 1p phenomena (qualia?) which are not explicitly part of the reductive description, but which we suppose are still there because of the similarity of the 3p part to our 3p part which is consistently correlated with our 1p part (i.e. the reason we don't believe in p-zombies). Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss I think without loss is ambiguous. It could mean that in a simulation of the phenomena we would not have to consider it (because it would arise from the lower level, e.g. markets) or it could mean that it wouldn't occur. Brent to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings (i.e. what Margaret Thatcher presumably intended by there's no such thing as society). David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Gravity is produced by neutrino photons produce by Black Holes with the destruction of protons and anti-protons. The neutrino entron in the neutrino photons that reach the shell will be absorbed by an electron or a positron. If it is absorbed by an electron it will increase the mass of the electron to almost the mass of a proton. If the massive electron can quickly capture two positrons the result will be a stable proton. If not the neutrino entron will be release as a neutrino photon with a 50 percent chance of heading back into the universe. If the neutrino photon is absorbed by a positron an anti-proton could be produced which will be destroyed by combining with a proton. Your guess is as good as mine as to what's beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 4:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE If you are correct, and a random pulse of gravity condenses the positioning, because it slows the positions down, it could initiate a collapse of the universe. Walls cause me to imagine regions beyond the electrons and positions, but what? -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: 24-Jun-2014 17:21:46 + Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going too fast to combine as positronium. J Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE So what is this photon reflector shell made from? Why wouldn't it absorb rather than reflect. -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:47 pm Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth's ionosphere. The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth's gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don't believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. So where does this radiation come from, that it reflects? The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth's gravity for a substantial period of time? Muons travel slower than light. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock's operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/ everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-) If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. Unless I missed it, you haven't answered my question about why we don't observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Ground state electrons and positrons have no energy. They are self propelled by their own internal Coulomb forces at 2.19 X 106 m/s. That is why electrons don’t lose energy and fall into atomic nuclei. They have no energy to lose. Electrons can capture entrons to become an energetic electron. For example if an electron capture a 6 volt entron, by being in a circuit with a 6-volt battery, it can lose that entron in the filament of a flash light to help heat the filament to the temperature of the surface of the sun. Ground state electron and positrons have a size of about 2 X 10-18 m, and they are traveling at 2.19 million meters per second. Each of them are being repelled with their own Coulomb force which is always far greater than the attractive forces of their opposites. So collisions are extremely rare. If atoms are present with orbiting electrons positrons will be attracted to the relatively stationary orbiting electrons and you will have your annihilatiorn. But atoms are not present in the shell. John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:29 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 25 June 2014 09:22, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going too fast to combine as positronium. Why is a particle moving too fast to combine into positronium - at about 1% of lightspeed - described as very cold ? Temperature is an emergent property of the average kinetic energy of particles! And why don't these particles collide and annihilate , which would give rise to a background radiation of the specific wavelength equivalent to the masses involved (corrected for doppler shift if the shell is receeding) ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Particles are accelerated in accelerators by adding entrons to the particles. This changes the particles and gives the particles additional mass. So this could explain time issues. Much of my theory is supported by equations and derivations. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 25 June 2014 05:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: “So what”. My point is you cannot prove Einstein’s relativity theories are correct by citing small variations in the ticking of clocks. You can't prove any theory is correct by any observation, you can only disprove theories. In this case the point is that the variations in clock rates are consistent with the theory that time dilation occurs (some of the variations are huge, in the case of particles in accelerators). You know of at least two explanations of gravity: Einstein’s and mine. I assume you have read my Chapter XX, “Black Holes and Gravity”. My explanation is enormously simpler than Albert’s. It isn't a theory, only a hunch, until you provide equations and show their derivation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
The shell is expanding along with the rest of our Universe. It is being inflated with photon pressure. The cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere in our Universe, the same as if our Universe was a giant integrating sphere. The relevance is that muons could be traveling much faster than the speed of light. Which would explain why more than the expected number reach sea level. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:22 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 25 June 2014 04:48, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth’s ionosphere. So is this shell expanding? Assuming that we are at an arbitrary point in the universe and not at its exact centre, why don't we observe the shell to be closed in one direction than another? The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth’s gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. Correct, but I don't see the relevance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell? I just answered your second question. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-) If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. Unless I missed it, you haven't answered my question about why we don't observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:47 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell? The universe is not a shell. Rather it is a toroid that turns in on itself such that radiation can go around the entire universe but not escape from it. What lies beyond the universe is the Metaverse which contains a number of similar universe. Read all about the metaverse here: http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194 Richard I just answered your second question. JR *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:11 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 26 June 2014 11:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Your guess is as good as mine as to what’s beyond the shell. The shell may be very thick and many universes could be combined in the shell like bubbles in a Pepsi. Well, I'm afraid that proves it isn't the Real Thing! :-) If we have our own shell, it probable gets less and less dense with distance from the center of our Universe. If there are other Universes out there, they probably have their own shell. Unless I missed it, you haven't answered my question about why we don't observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 11:47, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: What is you answer as to what is beyond our Universe if it is not a shell? That was a joke, the Coke vs Pepsi advertising campaign which used the phrase It's the real thing I just answered your second question. Would you mind repeating it, I still can't see an answer... (the question in question is: why don't we observe the shell to be closer in one direction and more distant in another, as we should unless we're at the dead centre of the universe?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/25/2014 4:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Why not say it's a convenient quantity. It's the average of some microscopic variables. If the microscopic variables are reified, why not their average? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 Jun 2014, at 8:07 am, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote: The principal assumption then is that all phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to some primitive (i.e. assumptively irreducible) basis, in which process the higher levels are effectively eliminated. Equivalently, one might say it's bottom-up all the way down. As an analogy, in the human sphere, this would be the contention that all political or sociological phenomena whatsoever can be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings (i.e. what Margaret Thatcher presumably intended by there's no such thing as society). David All political and sociological phenomena whatsoever CAN be reduced without loss to the behaviour and relations of individual human beings. In addition, when was Margaret Thatcher ever wrong about something? ;-) So you lose a few 'isms' in this view...sounds like a good idea to me. If Bruno is right the only thing that is real are persons who are essentially minds or computational relations anyway. Bruno is not saying there is no sunstrate or 'hypothese'. He's dropping continual heavy hints as to what it is. But, we just can't really describe that with a mind. The hammer cannot hit itself. Blame Gödel or someone... Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 26 June 2014 15:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 4:08 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 June 2014 10:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/25/2014 3:07 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 25 June 2014 22:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Note that I have not argued that the ability to 3p engineer consciousness will do anything to explain or diminish 1p conscious experience. I just predict it will become a peripheral fact that consciousness of kind x goes with physical processes or computations of type y. As a matter of sociology, you may well be right. But that apart, why wouldn't such putative 3p conscious processes be as vulnerable to elimination (i.e. reducible without loss to some putative ur-physical basis) as temperature, computation, or any other physically-composite phenomenon? You mean reducible in explanation, but not eliminable in fact. Temperature is explained by kinetic energy of molecules, but you can't eliminate temperature and keep kinetic energy of molecules. There's a difference between eliminating in an explanation or description and eliminating in fact. I must admit I can't see that personally. If temperature is, in fact, molecular kinetic energy, then it doesn't actually exist at any level, it's just a convenient fiction, surely? Why not say it's a convenient quantity. It's the average of some microscopic variables. If the microscopic variables are reified, why not their average? OK, it's a convenient quantity. The reason to reify the microscopic variables is that (according to primitive materialism) you aren't reifying them, they are what actually exists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth’s ionosphere. The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth’s gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. So where does this radiation come from, that it reflects? The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time? Muons travel slower than light. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
“So what”. My point is you cannot prove Einstein’s relativity theories are correct by citing small variations in the ticking of clocks. You know of at least two explanations of gravity: Einstein’s and mine. I assume you have read my Chapter XX, “Black Holes and Gravity”. My explanation is enormously simpler than Albert’s. John R. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:03 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 08:55, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: All of the GPS satellites know exactly where they are relative to some position here on earth. They are all in communication with each other and they know how fast a radio beam travels. It would be a simple matter to regularly adjust their clock speeds so all of the clocks operate at the same speed as a master clock here on earth. My guess is that is exactly what they do. I doubt if it is possible to construct a clock that keeps time infinitely correctly. So what? I think you have said before that if two theories explain the same thing, it is more likely than not that the simplest theory is correct. I see no reason why time should pass more slowly if we go fast or quicker if we are in a reduced gravity. So far I only know of one (relatively simple :-) theory that explains these observations. Here is a question for you: We on a distance galaxy are watching a separate galaxy one light-year from a Monster Black Hole and speeding toward it at a speed of c. A baby has just been born in the speeding galaxy. How old will the baby be when the galaxy is consumed by the Monster Black Hole? Our galaxy is stationary with respect to the Monster Black Hole. My answer is the simple answer. What is your answer? JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites' relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the observed result. Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given other results. Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is a more detailed description of this effect. If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some serious interest from scientists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
So what is this photon reflector shell made from? Why wouldn't it absorb rather than reflect. -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:47 pm Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth’s ionosphere. The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth’s gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. So where does this radiation come from, that it reflects? The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time? Muons travel slower than light. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going too fast to combine as positronium. J Ross From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:34 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE So what is this photon reflector shell made from? Why wouldn't it absorb rather than reflect. -Original Message- From: John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Jun 24, 2014 12:47 pm Subject: RE: TRONNIES - SPACE The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth’s ionosphere. The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth’s gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com? ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 3:05 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. So where does this radiation come from, that it reflects? The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time? Muons travel slower than light. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 04:48, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: The light reflected by the shell of our Universe is the cosmic background radiation that has been bouncing around our Universe since the Big Bang. Radio wave radiation generated in our Universe reflects from the shell of our Universe in about the same manner that radio waves generated on earth reflect from the earth’s ionosphere. So is this shell expanding? Assuming that we are at an arbitrary point in the universe and not at its exact centre, why don't we observe the shell to be closed in one direction than another? The muon or its predecessor should be accelerated by the earth’s gravity. If a canon ball is accelerated through space at the same rate as a feather, then a muon should be accelerated at the same rate as a cannon ball. Correct, but I don't see the relevance. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 05:07, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: “So what”. My point is you cannot prove Einstein’s relativity theories are correct by citing small variations in the ticking of clocks. You can't prove any theory is correct by any observation, you can only disprove theories. In this case the point is that the variations in clock rates are consistent with the theory that time dilation occurs (some of the variations are huge, in the case of particles in accelerators). You know of at least two explanations of gravity: Einstein’s and mine. I assume you have read my Chapter XX, “Black Holes and Gravity”. My explanation is enormously simpler than Albert’s. It isn't a theory, only a hunch, until you provide equations and show their derivation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 25 June 2014 09:22, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: The shell is mostly an approximately equal number of very cold electrons and positrons, all traveling randomly at 2.19 X 106 m/s. They are going too fast to combine as positronium. Why is a particle moving too fast to combine into positronium - at about 1% of lightspeed - described as very cold ? Temperature is an emergent property of the average kinetic energy of particles! And why don't these particles collide and annihilate , which would give rise to a background radiation of the specific wavelength equivalent to the masses involved (corrected for doppler shift if the shell is receeding) ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 6:53 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 20 June 2014 06:48, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe, no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang should be the same everywhere. This is simply not true, as a large number of observations have shown. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for particles moving near lightspeed, which have longer decay times than ones at rest. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for satellites orbitting the Earth every 12 hours as it does for people on the Earth. Time doesn't pass at the same rate aboard an aircraft flying around the Earth as it does on the Earth's surface. Time doesn't pass at the same rate at the top of a tower as it does at the bottom. These have all been measured. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... *https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ* There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
All of the GPS satellites know exactly where they are relative to some position here on earth. They are all in communication with each other and they know how fast a radio beam travels. It would be a simple matter to regularly adjust their clock speeds so all of the clocks operate at the same speed as a master clock here on earth. My guess is that is exactly what they do. I doubt if it is possible to construct a clock that keeps time infinitely correctly. I think you have said before that if two theories explain the same thing, it is more likely than not that the simplest theory is correct. I see no reason why time should pass more slowly if we go fast or quicker if we are in a reduced gravity. Here is a question for you: We on a distance galaxy are watching a separate galaxy one light-year from a Monster Black Hole and speeding toward it at a speed of c. A baby has just been born in the speeding galaxy. How old will the baby be when the galaxy is consumed by the Monster Black Hole? Our galaxy is stationary with respect to the Monster Black Hole. My answer is the simple answer. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites' relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the observed result. Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given other results. Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is a more detailed description of this effect. If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some serious interest from scientists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time? JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 08:55, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: All of the GPS satellites know exactly where they are relative to some position here on earth. They are all in communication with each other and they know how fast a radio beam travels. It would be a simple matter to regularly adjust their clock speeds so all of the clocks operate at the same speed as a master clock here on earth. My guess is that is exactly what they do. I doubt if it is possible to construct a clock that keeps time infinitely correctly. So what? I think you have said before that if two theories explain the same thing, it is more likely than not that the simplest theory is correct. I see no reason why time should pass more slowly if we go fast or quicker if we are in a reduced gravity. So far I only know of one (relatively simple :-) theory that explains these observations. Here is a question for you: We on a distance galaxy are watching a separate galaxy one light-year from a Monster Black Hole and speeding toward it at a speed of c. A baby has just been born in the speeding galaxy. How old will the baby be when the galaxy is consumed by the Monster Black Hole? Our galaxy is stationary with respect to the Monster Black Hole. My answer is the simple answer. What is your answer? JR *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2014 3:21 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites' relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the observed result. Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given other results. Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is a more detailed description of this effect. If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some serious interest from scientists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 24 June 2014 09:15, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don’t believe there are extra dimensions in our Universe. There may be other universes outside of the shell of our Universe. Or our shell may be thick enough to contain additional Universes. Our shell is mostly an equal number of electrons and positrons that provide a perfect reflector of the cosmic background radiation, like the shell of an integrating sphere. So where does this radiation come from, that it reflects? The muon may be more stable when traveling fast as compared to floating somewhere in a lab. Or it or its predecessor may be traveling faster than the speed of light. If a muon normally travels at the speed of light. How fast would it travel if, in addition to its normal speed, it is subjected to the pull of earth’s gravity for a substantial period of time? Muons travel slower than light. JR *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Monday, June 23, 2014 12:50 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 24 June 2014 06:08, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I agree that clock’s operate at different rates as space vehicles and high speed aircraft approach the speed of light or are located at different gravitational levels, but that does not prove that time passes at different rates. Why not? Would a faraway galaxy compute the time since the Big Bang as a time other than about 13.8 billion years? Generally speaking yes, however that doesn't prove what you think it does. This has been discussed extensively here... *https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/everything-list/block$20universe/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/lzJdRBAgPocJ* There are other logical explanations for muon’s longer life when traveling fast as compared to floating around a lab. Such as? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I greatly appreciate the criticism of you, Liz and John Clark, but I have seen nothing that has caused me to back down on any portion of my theory. I never expected that my defense of my theory would be easy, since I am up against the Standard Model and Einstein's theories of relativity. I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his Theory of Everything that science has become too complicated and that we need to discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. For more than 13 years I have been trying to discover that theory. I think I either have it or am pretty close. I think there is a good chance that this group could help me improve on my theory if its members would begin to look at it more positively than they have in the past, at least to the extent of allowing me to send the really interested people a copy of my book. John Ross On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio- state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been Thank you, I appreciate that :-) (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). I'm sorry to hear that. But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED I'm fairly sure that's a Far Side cartoon and the caption's a bit longer - listing
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 23 June 2014 04:53, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I do take some comfort in Stephen Hawking's conclusions in his Theory of Everything that science has become too complicated and that we need to discover a complete theory that in time should be understandable in broad principal by everyone, not just a few scientists. Theories tend to become easier to understand with time, as more people popularise them and find new ways to explain them. As already mentioned, this has happened to GR, which has gone from 3 people understanding it, allegedly, to now - 100 years later - anyone who is prepared to take the time and effort having a good chance. Not so sure about QM, although supposedly anyone into new age nonsense has a stake in it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio- state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been Thank you, I appreciate that :-) (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). I'm sorry to hear that. But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED I'm fairly sure that's a Far Side cartoon and the caption's a bit longer - listing symptoms (those glazed eyes, etc) - hang on a minute while I try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you mean. Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do with the ideas at all. But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who believe him) could be wrong. It is true that the measured speed of light in a vacuum is always c. On that Einstein and I agree. In accordance with my model, Coulomb grids completely fill our Universe, every cubic nanometer of it (including all vacuums) and light travels in Coulomb grids at a speed of c. Therefore, if the Coulomb grid is moving in the same direction as a beam of light at a speed of b then the beam is moving at a speed of c plus b. But we need to have a reference to know how to figure the speed b. That reference could be the center of our Universe or the cosmic background radiation. In this respect my theory includes relativity features. But it does not require that the passage of time changes with speed or gravity or that massive objects produce a curvature of space. The article Liz cited is a nice article and it attempts to explain some of Einstein's concepts simply. However, I note that the article does not attempt to explain Einstein's concept of gravity. And I admit I do not understand his concept of gravity. Liz has earlier referred to as set of equations that I gather relate to the curvature of space. Since I am convinced that space cannot be curved, I don't see how the equations can accurately explain gravity. It is possible that his equations accurately predict the path of light as it passes by the sun. But that would not prove that massive objects curve space. My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. There is a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy. The Black Hole continuously consumes portions of its galaxy. It breaks down the molecules and atoms of the consumed portions into protons, electrons and positrons and neutrino entrons and other entrons. It produces anti-protons from the electrons, positron and entrons and it allows the protons and anti-protons to destroy each other to release more neutrino entrons some of which escape the Black Hole as neutrino photons to produce the gravity of the galaxy and some of which help produce more anti-protons. Some neutrino photos are temporally stopped in stars, planets and moons and later released to give these objects their gravity. Photons have a mass that is equivalent to the energy of the photons. The paths of these photons are curved by neutrino photons released from stars, planets and moons. I have shown on page 136 of my book that the consumption per earth-day of an earth-size planet by the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would produce a neutrino photon flux here on earth of about 68,000 neutrino photons per second per square meter. Liz has my book. She can confirm that I have made this calculation. I have read that gravity travels at the speed of light. My neutrino photons travel at the speed of light. My theory also explains anti-gravity as being carried by photons, much lower energy photons that apply a photon pressure on the huge surface areas, of faraway galaxies. My theory proposes the previously unknown entron (two circling tronnies) that provide all of the mass of our Universe (except for the portion provided by electrons and positrons). if I am correct we could avoid a lot of wasted efforts looking for the Higgs boson. John Ross On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe, no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang should be the same everywhere. John R On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be effected but not time. OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime. I would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the same or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But we certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is also no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it does a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime but even if time exists it doesn't matter. I might just add, in case it isn't clear, that to say that clocks slow down is also to say that atomic vibrations and everything else slow down, including people's thoughts and perceptions. I should also mention that SR says this is a measurement effect while observers move at a constant speed relative to one another. It's only when they (or one of them) accelerates that you get a twin paradox where the overall elapsed time along one path through space-time is not equal to another one, even though they have the same start and end points. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio- state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been Thank you, I appreciate that :-) (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). I'm sorry to hear that. But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED I'm fairly sure that's a Far Side cartoon and the caption's a bit longer - listing symptoms (those glazed eyes, etc) - hang on a minute while I try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you mean. Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do with the ideas at all. But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin, thet rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for that
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 20 June 2014 06:48, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe, no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang should be the same everywhere. This is simply not true, as a large number of observations have shown. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for particles moving near lightspeed, which have longer decay times than ones at rest. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for satellites orbitting the Earth every 12 hours as it does for people on the Earth. Time doesn't pass at the same rate aboard an aircraft flying around the Earth as it does on the Earth's surface. Time doesn't pass at the same rate at the top of a tower as it does at the bottom. These have all been measured. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 20 June 2014 04:42, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who believe him) could be wrong. It is on a par with the Earth turning out to be flat after all, as far as your views on time dilation are concerned. It is true that the measured speed of light in a vacuum is always c. You've put measured in quotes - as opposed to what? The speed of light is continually being measured as constant by the fact that we can see a coherent picture of the world. When it varies we get interesting effects like mirages. We don't see many of those outside the Earth's atmosphere, indicating that c is constant in a vacuum. On that Einstein and I agree. In accordance with my model, Coulomb grids completely fill our Universe, every cubic nanometer of it (including all vacuums) and light travels in Coulomb grids at a speed of c. Therefore, if the Coulomb grid is moving in the same direction as a beam of light at a speed of b then the beam is moving at a speed of c plus b. But we need to have a reference to know how to figure the speed b. That reference could be the center of our Universe or the cosmic background radiation. In this respect my theory includes relativity features. But it does not require that the passage of time changes with speed or gravity or that massive objects produce a curvature of space. The article Liz cited is a nice article and it attempts to explain some of Einstein's concepts simply. However, I note that the article does not attempt to explain Einstein's concept of gravity. And I admit I do not understand his concept of gravity. Liz has earlier referred to as set of equations that I gather relate to the curvature of space. Since I am convinced that space cannot be curved, I don't see how the equations can accurately explain gravity. It is possible that his equations accurately predict the path of light as it passes by the sun. But that would not prove that massive objects curve space. I believe GR explains gravity by saying that space-time operates on matter in a manner that can be modelled as a curvature in a higher dimension. I don't think it says that the curvature or the higher dimension necessarily exist. However, GR has been tested to fairly high precision and shown to be accurate, regardless of how one interprets the equations. My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. Hmm. But not, so far, as accurate, as far as I can tell. To quote the man himself, a theory should be as simple as possible to explain the observed facts, but no simpler. There is a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy. The Black Hole continuously consumes portions of its galaxy. It breaks down the molecules and atoms of the consumed portions into protons, electrons and positrons and neutrino entrons and other entrons. It produces anti-protons from the electrons, positron and entrons and it allows the protons and anti-protons to destroy each other to release more neutrino entrons some of which escape the Black Hole as neutrino photons to produce the gravity of the galaxy and some of which help produce more anti-protons. This is a fascinating concept but I'm not sure it's crazy enough to be true. You need some mathematical modelling before you can claim that situation X produces result Y. Some neutrino photos are temporally stopped in stars, planets and moons and later released to give these objects their gravity. Photons have a mass that is equivalent to the energy of the photons. The paths of these photons are curved by neutrino photons released from stars, planets and moons. How does that work? I have shown on page 136 of my book that the consumption per earth-day of an earth-size planet by the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would produce a neutrino photon flux here on earth of about 68,000 neutrino photons per second per square meter. Liz has my book. She can confirm that I have made this calculation. I'm sure you have but without the mathematical underpinning for the whole theory it doesn't tell us much. For example, what is the cross section for neutrino absorption by stars, planets, etc? Current theories make this very, very low indeed, certainly not enough to provide a significant flux that somehow provides gravity as a by-product. I have read that gravity travels at the speed of light. My neutrino photons travel at the speed of light. My theory also explains anti-gravity as being carried by photons, much lower energy photons that apply a photon pressure on the huge surface areas, of faraway galaxies. As I have mentioned before, this would be a differential pressure, so lighter components should get pushed out of
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be effected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Light travels through Coulomb grids which are curved by massive objects. Gravity is produced in Black Holes with the destruction of protons to release neutrino photons that keep stars in orbit around the Black Holes. Some of the neutrino photons are absorbed by stars and planets and later released to give these objects their gravity. When Einstein developed his relativity theories, he was not aware of Coulomb grids or the internal structure of protons. John Ross On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites' relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the observed result. Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given other results. Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is a more detailed description of this effect. If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some serious interest from scientists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be effected but not time. OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime. I would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the same or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But we certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is also no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it does a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime but even if time exists it doesn't matter. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be effected but not time. OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime. I would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the same or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But we certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is also no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it does a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime but even if time exists it doesn't matter. I might just add, in case it isn't clear, that to say that clocks slow down is also to say that atomic vibrations and everything else slow down, including people's thoughts and perceptions. I should also mention that SR says this is a measurement effect while observers move at a constant speed relative to one another. It's only when they (or one of them) accelerates that you get a twin paradox where the overall elapsed time along one path through space-time is not equal to another one, even though they have the same start and end points. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: wrote: My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general relativity theories is faulty. In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely falling observers. What's wrong with the logic? Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. Clock speeds may be affected but not time. Time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe. Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I posted? If not, here is a direct link to it ... http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do with the ideas at all. But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin, thet rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for that person. In the case of John Ross, the rationalizing make this process useless for him personally. So I say this just as a pointer, that I hope there's a personal value in play for you. Which there can well be, when someone is acclepted and on the inside of a human network, which is also substantially present and taking note, or potentially. But not for John. The best anyone can do for him, is wish him well in his journey, which definitely looks to have - at some point anyway - involved a large amount of the stuff that we tend to associate with good guys. Wish him well. Maybe he'll come out the other end with a stunning theory that changes the world. If he gets through that valley of the dead theory, all by his vulnerable little self. That's the way it. Can't change it for the better. Not for him. Can only make
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 Jun 2014, at 02:01, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote: And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I should think that's obvious. What works to well was invented by us to describe the world as *we* experience it. I don't buy that solipsistic stuff. I'm fairly sure the science we've invented could have been discovered by anyone in the universe. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments and observations get better. You keep trying to slip in invented as though we aren't discovering how the world works. But we are, as having it kick back in thousands of ways (computers work, aeroplanes work, antibiotics work, rockets to the Moon work...) has shown. Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or transfinite cardinals among his perfect forms? Was there some point to that sentence? Looks like a hand waving attempt to discredit Platonism tout court. We're not supposed to be here to play silly rhetorical games (and you didn't even specify the I'm being a politician hat). So Plato didn't predict future maths, whoopy-do. You are right. Aristotle didn't predict future math too, nor future physics. The question is only which theory explains better the facts, without eliminating person and consciousness. There are huge parts of mathematics which seem to do no work whatsoever. Just look at https://oeis.org/ (try entering liz), a favorite of a mathematician friend of mine. I'd say that's a mark against Platonism; yet it's just what you'd expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game. What you wouldn't expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game is for someone to invent maths that turns out to have physical applications centuries later. Yes that's happened several times. Even Einstein eventually understood that there is a possibilly non trivial and fundamental mathematical reality. The doctrine that math is only a language is called conventionalism. It is debunked by elementary arithmetic and elementary computer science. Meanwhile, maths with no application is exactly what you'd expect if the MUH is true. Not saying this is evidence for the MUH, but at least it's consistent with it. But not with we're making up science as a logical language game / cultural construct stuff. I can understand mathematical theory, or mathematical structure or mathematical truth, but mathematical universe is quite fuzzy for me. (But then I am a mathematician, and I am aware of the failure of all serious attempt to get a unifying theory. This does not mean there is no big interest of what mathematicians found when searching for such mathematics, which go from arithmetic itself to category theory, n-category theory, toposes. Assuming comp adding anything to the natural numbers is misleading at the ontological level. The numbers themselves will add the axioms needed in their relative histories. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. How about some empirical teeth. Having any type of teeth puts it ahead of the competition. When I said I'm open to suggestions I meant ones which at least fit in with our current state of knowledge, not appeals to ideas that we're inventing science as a language game, or rhetorical tricks about Plato not inventing calculus. You're better than this, Brent, I actually feel rather insulted by the level of response you've given me this time. You should not. take it easy. Brent might have got a cold or something. He seems indeed usually more convincing. Bruno Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can just be fobbed off with postmodernist nonsense, rather than some decent arguments? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. On 17 June 2014 07:57, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results. You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works. I just don't believe space can be curved. Why not? It just needs a higher dimension. Actually there are interpretations of Einstein's equations that don't require space to be curved, but just change the distances within it to give the same result (somehow - I'm not very up on this, but I think the explanation involved a picture by MC Escher). And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved. I'm not sure what this means. How, and in what way? Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be explained with physics. We just need to use the right physics. So why is maths so effective at explaining the nature of existence? As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on Einstein's equations. You're wrong. They do. My understanding is that his equations say that time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity. The simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the time here on earth. My guess is that is what they do. They have to be adjusted constantly, since GPS would drift out by several meters / day otherwise. The point is that the time dilation of the GPS clocks is exactly what is predicted by Einstein's equations. If you're going to attempt to explain the universe, you need to do at least as well as relativity. PS I still have some questions about this cold plasma shell thing by the way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks here on earth. However, I just can't understand why we would use Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth. That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites' relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the observed result. Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters to be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given other results. Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is a more detailed description of this effect. If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some serious interest from scientists. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 04:52, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2014 7:03 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Simply because you can give something you call a basic accounting of a painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't preclude also describing it as a Monet of water lillies. You've chosen a level and called it basic and then complain that it leaves something out. I'd say it's just incomplete. You're right, it doesn't preclude it, but neither does it demand it. The painting wouldn't be any the less what it is *physically* were it to remain uninterpreted in perpetuity. Yes it would. Physics is interaction - not just existence, Physics talk only on many things, but a priori does not talk about existence, unless you mean physicist physics. and in fact QM teaches us that *things* don't exist without interacting. Like Mermin telling that today we know definitely that the moon does not exist when we don't look at it? It seems to me that this kind of weirdness exists only when we take QM +collapse. That's where I think Bruno's step 8 is misleading. If pursued rigorously I think it would require a whole world to implement all the counterfactuals. I don't think so. You need only the computations, which defines all the counterfactuals, and the logic of counterfactuals will be one (or many) among the main arithmetical modalities (hypostases). Step 8 just shows that making primitive matter genuinely necessary for consciousness reintroduce a non turing emulable, nor FPI-recoverable magic at the place where classical comp provides an experimental tool to measure that magic (which means that comp is false, or we are lied on the fundamental level (i.e. we are in an emulation done at a low level, in our hidden normal reality level). Physics just don't address the question of theology and metaphysics. The problem is that there is a widespread confusion due to the fact that many take physics for a theology, but that is physicalism. That might be true, but comp illustrates this is not necessarily the case, and evidences (from both the empirical reality, and the arithmetical reality) adds that the fundamentalreality might be not a physical one. With comp, it has to be arithmetical from outside/3p and is theological from inside, with the physical appearing to be the border of the universal mind (of the universal machine). It is the place where God loses control, and usually considered negatively by the mystics (roots of suffering, illusion, And if you only prove that an artificial consciousness can exist in an artificial world you have proved much except that artificial is relative. How could a universal machine can do would make an artificial consciousness emulated at the right level through the truth of arithmetical relations (actually deductible from the addition and multiplication axioms) wou Step 8 extends that relativity on the set of true arithmetical sentences. You need consciousness to be physical in a non Turing emulable and non FPI-recoverable sense to escape the conclusion. Logically you can always add something like holy matter to escape the conclusion, as step 8 cannot falsifies logically the primitive matter (which is not logical indeed), but step 8 shows it to be equivalent with don't ask about consciousness. The point is that the completion (i.e. the interpretation of the pigments on canvas as a particular work by Monet) is a supernumerary epistemological consequence that is not required (in the strict terms of this view) to singularise or otherwise determine the physical state of affairs. I think you are assuming the point in question, i.e. that all the physical interactions of brains with the painting and the rest of the world are irrelevant and that the physical description of the painting is *just* the pigment on the canvas. You take all that other interaction, which also has both physical and psychological description and leave it out and then you say the physical description leaves out something essential. That seems to imply that you believe philosophical zombies are possible? It is just that if you need if the physical can bring all the relevant descriptions, and that such description can be truncated digitally, and that yet you still survived, then *you* have to believe in infinitely many zombies in arithmetic. If you were able to convince me of the existence of primitive matter validly, there would be a local measure one (with respect to here and now) of Brent Meeker-zombies in arithmetic convincing validly a similar infinities of Bruno-Marchal-zombies. I think that even a zombie cannot make a valid deduction of something which we know (from the very definition of arithmetic) that it is trivially false. Comp *has* a notion of primitive matter (the sum on all
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I thought I have commented this, but my computer claims I did not. Anyway, i make precisions. On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 01:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But although we may speculate that consciousness and physical events both depend on computation (perhaps only in the sense of being consistently described) it doesn't follow that a UD exists or the conscious/ physical world is an illusion. People throw around it's an illusion so freely that it ceases to distinguish rhinoceri from unicorns. You're right, oftentimes they do. But I wouldn't include Bruno in people here (if you see what I mean). Once one assumes the existence of the UD (or rather its infinite trace) the hard problem then becomes one of justifying in detail every aspect of the *appearance* of matter through its interaction with mind. So here I would just like to insist that we don't need to assume the existence of the UD, nor of its traces. Both exist in the (sigma_1) true arithmetical sentences. Then, as Bruno is wont to say, the problem turns out to be (at least) twice as hard as we might have feared. Yes. We did have a consciousness problem, and now we have a matter problem. As to the admissibility of the UD, for me, in the end, it's just another theoretical posit. As it happens, it strikes me as sufficiently motivated, because once computation is fixed as the base, I don't see how one would justify restricting its scope to certain computations in particular. Well, we could have taken only the total computable functions (despite this is not a computable, nor even semi-computable). That set has no proper universal dovetailing, but the UD dovetails completely through it, with the price of dovetailing on the non total computable functions too, generating the infinite histories. It also suits my Everything-ist predilection (when I'm wearing that hat) to see the world-problem formulated in terms of a self-interpreting Programmatic Library of Babel. But my preferences are neither here or there, of course. What counts, as always, is how fruitful a theory turns out to be. So the proof of the comp pudding, in the end, will lie in its ultimate utility. If it helps people to conceive one can be rational and non aristotelian, then it can help us to regain with a non authoritarian theology, respectful of the person from the universal numbers to the many gods and who know the one. But utility is a quite relative and indexical notion. Truth is I think the most intrinsic useful notion, and the search for truth seems to me useful per se. (I agree that is debatable though, and this did not mean than all truth we can find can be communicated or justified, certainly not as such). By that point, should it come, I guess most people will have stopped quibbling about the existence, or otherwise, of the number 2. It should be clear then, under such assumptions, that neither a conscious state, nor any local physical mechanism through which it is manifested, can any longer be considered basic; Aren't conscious thoughts epistemologically basic. They are things of which we have unmediated knowledge. Yes, they are. But on the comp assumption, they're still in a specific sense derivative. Admittedly this is a subtle distinction that must be handled with care. For example, I don't think that it wouldn't be accurate to say that conscious thoughts are caused by arithmetic or computation. It's more that the epistemological consequences turn out to be a logical entailment of the original ontological assumptions. And part of that entailment is that there is indeed a we that can have unmediated knowledge of certain truths. With Theaetetus, knowledge becomes mediated beliefs/representation + unmediated truth. Consciousness of the mediated beliefs is mediated by the unmediated truth, I think. Bruno rather, *both* must (somehow) be complex artefacts (albeit with distinctive derivations) of a more primitive (in this case, by assumption, computational) ontology. The relevant distinction, then, is between this set of relations and the alternative, in which both consciousness and computation are assumed to be derivative on a more basic (hence primitive) formulation of matter. I can agree with that. It is consistent with my point that primitive matter is undefined and could be anything if we just called it ur- stuff instead of matter. Good. Perhaps that's all a little clearer, then. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 23:22, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. Given this scope, it must be true, ex hypothesi, that any and all higher-order derivatives, for example computational or neurological states, are re-descriptions (known or unknown) of the basic entities and relations and hence always fully reducible to them. Consequently such higher-order concepts, though explanatorily indispensible, are ontologically disposable; IOW, it's the basic physics that, by assumption, is doing all the work. By contrast, computationalism, as formulated in the UDA, leads to the hypothesis of an arithmetical ontology resulting in a vastly redundant computational infinity. This being the case, there is a dependency from the outset on a fundamental selective principle in order to justify the appearance of a lawlike observational physics; IOW before it can advance to the stage that physicalism has already assumed at the outset. That selective principle is a universal observational psychology, based on the universal digital machine, whose primary role is to justify the singularisation of a particular, lawlike physics that comports with observation. It should be clear, therefore, that the psychology of observation is not itself reducible to basic physics in this scheme of things. That would be an egregious confusion of levels. Moreover, it is not straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends on complex, computationally-instantiated epistemological states and their relation to modes of arithmetical truth. Absent those states and modes, there would be no physics, no observer and nothing to observe. Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. Well said. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? I guess David meant physical fundamental entities, that is observable. The physicalist declares that something is real if it is observable. Platonist and mystics, or believers, tends to assume that the observable has some non observable reason to exist. They bet on something else, going from numbers (Pythagorus), an intelligible reality (Plato), mathematics (Xeusippes), the one (Plotin), ... and yes the fairy tales god(s) (once research in theology get forbidden, be it with plants, dances, or logic and math, still today). Given this scope, it must be true, ex hypothesi, that any and all higher-order derivatives, for example computational or neurological states, are re-descriptions (known or unknown) of the basic entities and relations and hence always fully reducible to them. Consequently such higher-order concepts, though explanatorily indispensible, are ontologically disposable; IOW, it's the basic physics that, by assumption, is doing all the work. I see nothing in your explication that really defines or distinguishes physicalism from any other 'ism that proposes to explain everything in terms of some fundamental entities. I tried to give a definition that physical meant sharable in an operational sense. Sharable by who? By the universal numbers? I am all with you. Did you reject that definition? In the above you seem to just assume that we know what is meant by physicalism and physics and we just know it's inadequate. By contrast, computationalism, as formulated in the UDA, leads to the hypothesis of an arithmetical ontology resulting in a vastly redundant computational infinity. And this is different from string theory because string theory assumes real numbers which makes it bigger than a computational infinity? Yes. That's why Tegmark is fuzzy on the ontology. The term mathematica can't be defined in mathematics. All attempts have failed up to now. My be with Quine NF, ... But with Church thesis we do have the miracle of a something both universal, and effective. The universal machine, and the limiting border of its capacities, which by the first person delay invariance get in touch with the machines statistically stable machine's point of view. This being the case, there is a dependency from the outset on a fundamental selective principle Which is? The consciousness of the owner of the memory diary. in order to justify the appearance of a lawlike observational physics The justification of lawlike observation in physics is a topic of research, mostly centered around hopes that decoherence theory will explain the appearance of the classical world, which is necessary for observation. Decoherence theory does not need to make the other world disappearing. That would reintroduce linearity where it can't be, if QM is correct. Decoherence just explains why it is hard to get the trace of the interference effect with the macroscopic states. ; IOW before it can
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:43, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have been constructed. E.g. Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg Hmm... Liz, how quick you are here. I see the point, but for an outsider out of context, this will seem unfair. I guess you will agree that even if God did the world, God did it is still not acceptable as an explanation. We would like to know why and how, and what did God, for example. yet the formula above, which looks like a solution of the SWE for a particles in some spherical forces field, and this is pretty uself, as it gives the precise amplitude of probability to find a particle somewhere. But yes this does not explain better than God did it when we ask about a fundamental equation, where here we will ask why and how are particles, why that equation and not some others, and where do such laws come from, and why does it hurt, also. The fundamental must tackle the origin of the fundamental questions itself. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:46, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: Moreover, it is not straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends on complex, computationally-instantiated epistemological states What's an epistemological state of an arithmetical entity? Sounds like an egregious confusion of levels to me. :-) Well, our knowledge is, if comp is correct! :-) Yes. It is not different from the epistemological state of a machine, or better, of the person associated to the machine. And with Theatetus applied to the arithmetical beweisbar predicate of Gödel, we do obtain, thanks to incompleteness, the necessary nuances to have first person person ([]p p), and matter sharable first person ([]p p), although on p sigma_1, matter appears already in the first person. Those epistemological state does not apply to any arithmetical entities, but provably to those who will have relative self- referentially correct 3p discourse about themselves, including the 3p description of the other discourses. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 02:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. It's not clear what emulates means. I think Bruno proposes that arithmetical computation actually instantiates modal states like belief. But I think that may be stretching the meaning of belief. If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. Yes, as a propensity to act in a certain way, a belief is doubtless a complex data structure. (But if comp is correct it's a finite one.) Of course saying physically instantiated is assuming what you're trying to prove. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians who come armed with assumptions they call axioms. Proof is for all human beings, and alien or machines, who does not want to waste time with contradictory beliefs. Logicians just studies proofs and their working, like entomologists studies insects. But they proves their metatheorem about proofs and meaning in the usual informal ways, using english or natural languages, like all scientists. It happens that the working of universal machines has many relation with proof systems, although those are not equivalent. basically computability is sigma_1 provability, but provability is a quite different notions, it obeys different laws than the computable. Physically instantiated isn't even a sentence, so you must be referring to If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. I don't think that's just an assumption, it's an inductive inference given some ostensive definitions. Right. But you computer has been able to get the point, and send the mail. The net physically instantiantes application and their computations, and we can argued that the part of computations physically instanciated has always grown since the invention:discovery of the DNA. Acceleration occurs with the successive layers of universal systems, like DNA, cells' colony, brain (the amoebas get the cable!), languages, thought, computers, the internet, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 05:32, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 5:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 12:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. It's not clear what emulates means. I think Bruno proposes that arithmetical computation actually instantiates modal states like belief. But I think that may be stretching the meaning of belief. If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. Yes, as a propensity to act in a certain way, a belief is doubtless a complex data structure. (But if comp is correct it's a finite one.) Of course saying physically instantiated is assuming what you're trying to prove. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians who come armed with assumptions they call axioms. That's right, which is why maths and logic appear to be the only things we can know about for sure. The question is whether that has any ontological implications. I don't know of any way to prove that it does or doesn't, which is why I remain agnostic. Physically instantiated isn't even a sentence, so you must be referring to If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. I don't think that's just an assumption, it's an inductive inference given some ostensive definitions. Do you want me to wear my fingers out? Obviously I'm referring to the quote immediately above, that's why it's there! Anyway, if that's an inductive inference it appears to be one that assumes the materialist position, unless you are being explicitly agnostic on what physically means (but most people who use it like that aren't, so I'd expect you to say so). I thought I'd been pretty clear that it's ill defined, a point on which I agree with Bruno. I tried to define it in the exchange with David, but he seemed to reject my definition and just assumed everybody knows what it means. The materialist position is the starting point of comp, so it will trip over the reversal unless you can point out where Bruno's gone wrong. I wrote several paragraphs on why I don't find Bruno's arguments very persuasive. It is a 99,9% deductive argument, but in step 8 we point to reality, in which case we need Occam razor to eliminate the non relevant axioms. Step 8 shows that you have to build a very special magical theory of primitive matter to escape the conclusion, or you compare the classical comp with nature, and this might give you a clue for that experimental theory of primitive matter. My point is that we just don't know, today, but I give a way to test this, and clues, that QM is going in the comp direction, even if we might improve at some stage the knowledge theory. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 15:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Very roughly speaking, you have the materialists who believes there is a material universe with some primitive ontology (the aristotelians, with 0 ot more gods added), and those who thinks that the material reality is the sign of something else (which can be numbers (Pythagorus), or some god, or whatever. The first will tend to make physics the fundamental theory. The second will tend to make theology or mathematics, or computer science, or arithmetic (or something else) fundamental. It would be long to explain comp, which implies arithmetic will do for the ontological realm, or anything Turing equivalent) but you can read my sane04 paper and my last one, provided by Kim recently (which I should make online, but I procrastinate that kind of things). http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html I can send you the other one out of line, if you desire. Bruno John Ross On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons, positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon. Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their entrons. In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its Coulomb force wave goes through both slits. Like Bohm and de Broglie. Today, this is known to introduce non local physical action. My theory does not deal with consciousness. It might the grain of dust which forces us to revise our opinion on Plato, on mind and physics. I argue that if the brain works like a machine, that is mainly in a local causal way (no magic), then Plato is right and the physical reality is the border of the universal mind, i.e. the mind of the universal machine (Turing, Church, Post, ...). I am afraid that the Ross theory is still in the frame of taking Aristotle theology for granted. Bruno On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote: I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two theories may both be correct. QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply not useful in some context). So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about Young two slits experience?). You lost me with Turing emulable. We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much interested in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now. Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain is a natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or theology. See my URL or post, if interested. Bruno JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 Jun 2014, at 22:16, meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. The point is that he believed in physical substances. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - I think that even a cat find evident that there is milk, there, and I am pretty sure the cat believe in some primitive substance, even if he is not capable to acknowledge such a fact. and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. But with comp the point becomes that eventually primitive matter is just all magic by itself. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi attempted to produce a TOE based on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. It is neither. It is a bunch of truth though. Nothing in math is stuffy. Stuffy, like hard, soft, smelly, touchable belongs to the mathematical imagination of numbers (assuming comp and all is well), no doubt helped by long and deep (linear) histories. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 Jun 2014, at 23:49, John Mikes wrote: How much was a day before Creation? and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth? Very good question. Comp is lucky for not being asked to answer this, as the outer god can be limited to the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and it is not dependent of time or space or energy or primitive matter, or anything, actually. It does defines infinities of time, though (computations). Physical time and space and energy is an invention/discovery of the inner God, or universal soul, mathematically circumscribed at the propositional level by S4Grz1. And I am not saying it is true, but only that it follows from comp + the classical theory of knowledge, and that the theory is utterly precise about physics, and indeed is confirmed up to now by quantum mechanics (thanks to a result by Goldblatt + a result by myself). It is a theory in competition with the physicalist/materialist/ naturalist conception of reality, despite many physicalist/materialist/ naturalist believes in comp (and thus are inconsistent or vague). I would be happy if my work can help scientists to be more cautious and *agnostic* about which of Plato and Aristotle have the less wrong conception of reality. The beauty of comp is that it forces comp to be modest and agnostic on that point all by itself, preventing proselytism, and making it for what it is: a theology, with special funeral rite, like when accepting an artificial brain. Anyway, if we let the multinationals get monopolies, we might end up with artificial brain whatever we say to the doctor (like vaccination is obligatory), by social coercion or laws (mixing health and politics) in a world where people are no more encouraged to think and take responsibility. You might say yes to the doctor, because you can't afford the price of oxygen and the class of upper level types of objects. That is not for tomorrow. Bruno JM On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? According to The Pixies, God is Seven, which is just about the age he acts in most of the Old Testament. Wow. Interesting. At the creation time, God was only a seven day baby. We might not hold him/she/it for having been responsible of its act. Not sure that is consistent with the platonist God which is truth, or at least approximated by an encirclement of truth, and might not have an aging predicate. That would be like saying 23 is prime, OK, but since whence? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:03, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. Oh yes, you're quite right, it was too. But please bear in mind that the point of this post is to explain to Mr Ross the Aristotle / Plato distinction that gets bandied around on this forum. Aristotelean in this context is just shorthand for primitive materialism, as far as I know. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. Exactly my point. I don't know why you made such a fuss about saying they didn't. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. Yes, I meant specifically to physicists. Bear in mind this is supposed to be a short summary for J Ross' benefit. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi attempted to produce a TOE based on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. It is less wrong, but Tegmark is still mainly physicalist, and avoid the mind-body problem (and ignores computer science and mathematical logic). By mentioning self-reference Wheeler get closer. As in a quote of him by Jason, it seems he is only understanding now the FPI, but still not handling the points of view. (You just find him more cute than me, I think. Still, you should see me with my new glasses :) Yes physicians and theologians are like french and british digging under the see for the channel tunnel, and it is normal that we should met at some point, but note the difference in the approach. Coming from comp and math, you can take into account simultaneously the truth and the provable, and the difference, for the machine, which enrich a lot the spectrum of rational discourses (indeed it go up to the theological in the sense of some greeks and indians, and chinese). Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/16/2014 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp *has* a notion of primitive matter (the sum on all computations below the subst level, or []p t with p sigma_1), but it is defined as observable by a universal machine. And is this not the same as the defintion I gave as the physical is what is sharable? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results. I just don't believe space can be curved. And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved. Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be explained with physics. We just need to use the right physics. As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on Einstein's equations. My understanding is that his equations say that time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity. The simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the time here on earth. My guess is that is what they do. John Ross On 15 June 2014 02:13, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths of light are affected. I don't see any problem. OK, maybe you're right. It's possible all the CGs generated by all the masses involved average out to produce something akin to the smooth space-time curvature predicted by GR. Since neither of us has done the maths, who can say? Einstein and I reach the same conclusion. Hmm. He reached it via something like 13 tensor equations which can be solved to give exact results. You reach it via some vague wordy description... whether the universe is in fact a mathematical structure or similar, it sure *behaves* like it is, so personally, out of these approaches I would go for the maths and the exact predictions, which can actually be used for useful stuff like GPS and looknig for distant planets -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 17 June 2014 07:57, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results. You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works. I just don't believe space can be curved. Why not? It just needs a higher dimension. Actually there are interpretations of Einstein's equations that don't require space to be curved, but just change the distances within it to give the same result (somehow - I'm not very up on this, but I think the explanation involved a picture by MC Escher). And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved. I'm not sure what this means. How, and in what way? Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be explained with physics. We just need to use the right physics. So why is maths so effective at explaining the nature of existence? As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on Einstein's equations. You're wrong. They do. My understanding is that his equations say that time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity. The simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the time here on earth. My guess is that is what they do. They have to be adjusted constantly, since GPS would drift out by several meters / day otherwise. The point is that the time dilation of the GPS clocks is exactly what is predicted by Einstein's equations. If you're going to attempt to explain the universe, you need to do at least as well as relativity. PS I still have some questions about this cold plasma shell thing by the way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 June 2014 01:38, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I understand is not explained by QM. QM does not explain logically why electrons do not blow themselves apart. I don't believe in quantum weirdness. Please elaborate. Certain Aspects* of quantum weirdness have been very well tested experimentally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments, and shown to hold. There is a universe. The universe is a hypothesis we use to explain our observationsone that seems to have held up quite well, although Bruno may have found an unexpected hole in it. * quantum physics joke :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi attempted to produce a TOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everythingbased on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? According to The Pixies, God is Seven, which is just about the age he acts in most of the Old Testament. Wow. Interesting. At the creation time, God was only a seven day baby. We might not hold him/she/it for having been responsible of its act. Not sure that is consistent with the platonist God which is truth, or at least approximated by an encirclement of truth, and might not have an aging predicate. That would be like saying 23 is prime, OK, but since whence? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, ?? Why might that not be a truth of arithmetic that is not provable? p and ~[]p, like Gödel's sentence? In this case it would be ~p and []p. despite [] correct. In this reasoning we presuppose only arithmetic, which I think is neutral on primitive matter (even if not neutral on primitive matter appearance from inside). p is false. Would it be true, the reversal would be even more fantastic: the existence of *primitive* matter would be a theorem of arithmetic. Bruno Brent which would be false, and that is a mathematical contradiction, even if those Davids and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just logically incompatible with mechanism (and that argument is simpler than step 8). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Saturday, June 14, 2014 7:37:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote: On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, ?? Why might that not be a truth of arithmetic that is not provable? Brent Allowing the logic that a robust theory is its final product including only the consequences actually worked through, and only as far as they are worked through. The rest being philosophical or non-distinct. Also allowing that a robust theory in science speaks to an 'objective reality' in which for the same knowledge and accuracy, the same final product will materialize by *any* of whatever alternate theoretical routes exist. THEN the logic is that while there are playoffs between going for simple initial postulates and computing from there, or devising more abstracted postulated relevant to the whole domain defining the final product, there cannot be a knowledge lighter or heavier route between such alternate paths. If you go with simple initial postulates, then all you do is transfer the problem to the computation of consequence section. It is NOT logical to speak of simple postulates with non-distinct consequences for some apparently reasonable much larger domain, as equal to a theory that is robust across that domain. Like Relativity. It's immensely robust across a very large domain. Would it have been equal had Einstein or whoever, produced a theory that *suggested* a nature across the same domain, but offered no worked through methods and equations for that domain? This sort of thing was fairly understood by the geniuses of yesteryear like Richard Feynman. What happened while I was getting stoned all those years? Did someone overturn these understandings? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com mailto:jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997 tel:858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi attempted to produce aTOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everythingbased on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
How much was a day before Creation? and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth? JM On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? According to The Pixies, God is Seven, which is just about the age he acts in most of the Old Testament. Wow. Interesting. At the creation time, God was only a seven day baby. We might not hold him/she/it for having been responsible of its act. Not sure that is consistent with the platonist God which is truth, or at least approximated by an encirclement of truth, and might not have an aging predicate. That would be like saying 23 is prime, OK, but since whence? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. Oh yes, you're quite right, it was too. But please bear in mind that the point of this post is to explain to Mr Ross the Aristotle / Plato distinction that gets bandied around on this forum. Aristotelean in this context is just shorthand for primitive materialism, as far as I know. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. Exactly my point. I don't know why you made such a fuss about saying they didn't. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. Yes, I meant specifically to physicists. Bear in mind this is supposed to be a short summary for J Ross' benefit. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi attempted to produce a TOE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everythingbased on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 June 2014 09:49, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: How much was a day before Creation? and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth? The Earth Mother? She probably tidied up on the 8th day, too. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote: And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I should think that's obvious. What works to well was invented by us to describe the world as *we* experience it. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments and observations get better. Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or transfinite cardinals among his perfect forms. There are huge parts of mathematics which seem to do no work whatsoever. Just look at https://oeis.org/ (try entering liz), a favorite of a mathematician friend of mine. I'd say that's a mark against Platonism; yet it's just what you'd expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. How about some empirical teeth. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote: And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I should think that's obvious. What works to well was invented by us to describe the world as *we* experience it. I don't buy that solipsistic stuff. I'm fairly sure the science we've invented could have been *discovered *by anyone in the universe. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments and observations get better. You keep trying to slip in invented as though we aren't discovering how the world works. But we are, as having it kick back in thousands of ways (computers work, aeroplanes work, antibiotics work, rockets to the Moon work...) has shown. Did Plato include non-commutative geometry or transfinite cardinals among his perfect forms? Was there some point to that sentence? Looks like a hand waving attempt to discredit Platonism *tout court*. We're not supposed to be here to play silly rhetorical games (and you didn't even specify the I'm being a politician hat). So Plato didn't predict future maths, whoopy-do. There are huge parts of mathematics which seem to do no work whatsoever. Just look at https://oeis.org/ (try entering liz), a favorite of a mathematician friend of mine. I'd say that's a mark against Platonism; yet it's just what you'd expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game. What you *wouldn't *expect if they are just extensions of a logical language game is for someone to invent maths that turns out to have physical applications centuries later. Yes that's happened several times. Meanwhile, maths with no application is *exactly* what you'd expect if the MUH is true. Not saying this is evidence for the MUH, but at least it's consistent with it. But not with we're making up science as a logical language game / cultural construct stuff. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. How about some empirical teeth. Having any type of teeth puts it ahead of the competition. When I said I'm open to suggestions I meant ones which at least fit in with our current state of knowledge, not appeals to ideas that we're inventing science as a language game, or rhetorical tricks about Plato not inventing calculus. You're better than this, Brent, I actually feel rather insulted by the level of response you've given me this time. Do you really think I'm so stupid that I can just be fobbed off with postmodernist nonsense, rather than some decent arguments? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/15/2014 5:01 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 11:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote: And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I should think that's obvious. What works to well was invented by us to describe the world as *we* experience it. I don't buy that solipsistic stuff. I'm fairly sure the science we've invented could have been /discovered /by anyone in the universe. Notice we keep having to invent new mathematics as our instruments and observations get better. You keep trying to slip in invented as though we aren't discovering how the world works. But we are, as having it kick back in thousands of ways (computers work, aeroplanes work, antibiotics work, rockets to the Moon work...) has shown. Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem determined to look at the result only in one way. I'd say what we discover is which description's work with which phenomena. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem determined to look at the result only in one way. Because that's the way that accords with our science-based experience about the world, yes. I'd say what we discover is which description's work with which phenomena. Yes, so would I, which is how we discover the laws of physics. We don't invent them. Invent implies we made something new, created something that might never otherwise have existed. But the laws of physics don't fall into that category. If you keep using invent to mean discover you are just blurring a useful distinction for no good reason. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem determined to look at the result only in one way. Because that's the way that accords with our science-based experience about the world, yes. And how does we invented the math to fit the world *not* accord? I'd say what we discover is which description's work with which phenomena. Yes, so would I, which is how we discover the laws of physics. How can we discover them and then discover they are wrong? We don't invent them. Invent implies we made something new, created something that might never otherwise have existed. But the laws of physics don't fall into that category. That's your story and you're sticking to it. Brent If you keep using invent to mean discover you are just blurring a useful distinction for no good reason. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 June 2014 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 5:51 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 12:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Why does it show that rather than the success of our invention. You seem determined to look at the result only in one way. Because that's the way that accords with our science-based experience about the world, yes. And how does we invented the math to fit the world *not* accord? Because of the weasel word invent, and all the baggage it carries. We only invent theories in the way that natural selection invents species - it's part of the discovery process of what works. I'd say what we discover is which description's work with which phenomena. Yes, so would I, which is how we discover the laws of physics. How can we discover them and then discover they are wrong? We can fail to discover them, too. I don't see a problem with that. The important point is that they exist, and when we discover what they are, they won't be a human invention, they will be how the world works. Even if we don't discover them, they are still the way it works. We don't invent them. Invent implies we made something new, created something that might never otherwise have existed. But the laws of physics don't fall into that category. That's your story and you're sticking to it. No, it's common English usage. But if all you can do is throw around insults let's stop this discussion. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote:
You're right, oftentimes they do. But I wouldn't include Bruno in
people here (if you see what I mean). Once one assumes the existence
of the UD (or rather its infinite trace) the hard problem then becomes
one of justifying in detail every aspect of the *appearance* of matter
through its interaction with mind. Then, as Bruno is wont to say, the
problem turns out to be (at least) twice as hard as we might have
feared. As to the admissibility of the UD, for me, in the end, it's
just another theoretical posit. As it happens, it strikes me as
sufficiently motivated, because once computation is fixed as the base,
I don't see how one would justify restricting its scope to certain
computations in particular.
By Gödel's traditional textbook presentation of the incompleteness
theorem, the belief in the UD is equivalent with the believe in
elementary arithmetic.
The computable facts are those are equivalent with sigma_1 sentences,
and proof for sigma_1 sentences.
Actually p - []p is true for them. The löbian number can even prove
p - []p,
but they still will not prove []p - p for all sigma_1 propositions.
For example they still not prove t = []f - f (and f = 0=1 which
is trivially sigma_0 and thus sigma_1).
Well, I meant that to believe in the UD is a theorem in arithmetic.
Even a constructive one.
Thanks to many years of research the UD*, which is a sort of splashed
universal machine, dovetailing on all her abilities, can be put in the
explicit form below. You need only to believe in the existence of the
solution of the following universal system of diophantine equations:
Nu = ((ZUY)^2 + U)^2 + Y
ELG^2 + Al = (B - XY)Q^2
Qu = B^(5^60)
La + Qu^4 = 1 + LaB^5
Th + 2Z = B^5
L = U + TTh
E = Y + MTh
N = Q^16
R = [G + EQ^3 + LQ^5 + (2(E - ZLa)(1 + XB^5 + G)^4 + LaB^5 + +
LaB^5Q^4)Q^4](N^2 -N)
+ [Q^3 -BL + L + ThLaQ^3 + (B^5 - 2)Q^5] (N^2 - 1)
P = 2W(S^2)(R^2)N^2
(P^2)K^2 - K^2 + 1 = Ta^2
4(c - KSN^2)^2 + Et = K^2
K = R + 1 + HP - H
A = (WN^2 + 1)RSN^2
C = 2R + 1 Ph
D = BW + CA -2C + 4AGa -5Ga
D^2 = (A^2 - 1)C^2 + 1
F^2 = (A^2 - 1)(I^2)C^4 + 1
(D + OF)^2 = ((A + F^2(D^2 - A^2))^2 - 1)(2R + 1 + JC)^2 + 1
I don't show this to impress, but to illustrate that arithmetic is
effectively universal at a rather law level of complexity
(polynomials!). This results from the works of Putnam, Davis,
Robinson, Matiyazevich, solving negatively Hilbert tenth problem, and
Jones, getting a not to big universal (and thus Turing complete)
system of polynomials.
Ontologically, you need only to believe in the solutions or non
solutions of those equations.
Of course B^(5^60) is an abbreviation of B * (B * (B * ( ... 5^60
times, when written in the {s, 0, +, *} language.
The solutions of that system emulates all Turing emulable processes.
Each choice of the values of the variables A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta,
Ph, and the two parameters: Nu and X will do, or not do. In fact
phi_Nu(X) converges iff the numbers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,
L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, W, Z, U, Y, Al, Ga, Et, Th, La, Ta, Ph
exist verifying the universal diophantine equation. So (even without
CT) anything computational is automatically provided by the minimal
arithmetical realism (subtheory of any current physical theory).
In that sense, comp assumes less than any other theory.
If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select
and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which
would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and
proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, which
would be false, and that is a mathematical contradiction, even if
those Davids and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just
logically incompatible with mechanism (and that argument is simpler
than step 8).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 9:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:29, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2014 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Further more, I'm not even sure that the reductionist program of looking for what's most fundamental (in a TOE) and reifying it is the right way to look at things. It leads to making strings or numbers, which we never experience, real and everything we experience (on which we base or theories) illusory. I think this called the error of the misplaced concrete. In that case we are just no machine and should never accept an artificial brain (or UDA is invalid of course). That doesn't follow. The doctor can still make a prosthetic brain. Then you have to assume matter, and some magical non Turing emulable essential property, like its real existence to get consciousness (and prevent it in the arithmetical reality). that is akin to non-comp. That's confusing (computation theory of mind)-(doctor can make artificial brain) with (doctor can make artificial brain)- (computational theory of mind). Well, I was assuming you intended the guy to survive with the prosthetic brain. We have by definition: comp theory of mind - doctor can make (in principle) a successful artificial brain. But I think you equivocate on comp theory of mind. Your eight step argument is trying to get from (doctor can make an artificial brain) to (comp theory of mind); so it's circular to assume it by definition unless you mean two different things by comp theory of mind depending on which way the - or - goes. ? Comp theory of mind is defined (with -, not - nor -) by yes doctor. It assumes nothing about existence or not of primitive matter. It assumes some physical reality rich enough to emulate universal machine like brain and doctors. Then the reasoning show that any possible physical reality has to be recovered uniquely from arithmetic. You introduce a difference between comp theory of mind (which is the comp hypothesis) and yes doctor, which is just a tool to explain what we mean by comp theory of mind. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
My model provides an explanation of everything including gravity which I understand is not explained by QM. QM does not explain logically why electrons do not blow themselves apart. I don't believe in quantum weirdness. There is a universe. John Ross On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:51, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don't see how consciousness is important is describing how our Universe was created and how it works. Our Universe existed for billions of years before there was intelligent life to be conscious. IF there is a universe. We don't know that. But we do know that the computations exists in arithmetic, and that from the machine's points of view, an infinity of universal machines competes to continue them, below our substitution level. It explains intuitively and formally some quantum weirdness. Quantum mechanics is ok so long as it is consistent with my model. If the people are not happy, change the people! (Stalin, I think). If my theory does not fit nature, change nature! QM is not just positively confirmed since a long time, but it is confirmed in its most startling aspects. It is also the only theory which makes sense of liquid, solid, gaz, atoms and molecules, stars and black holes, particles and their relations (bosons, fermions, fractional spins, condensed states theory). My theory includes an explanation of the results of the two-slit experiment. If is not a MW theory, or a Many Dream theory, I am afraid you will need non local indeterminist sort of magic. Bruno On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything - my theory, The Ross Model. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. John Ross On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons, positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon. Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their entrons. In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its Coulomb force wave goes through both slits. Like Bohm and de Broglie. Today, this is known to introduce non local physical action. My theory does not deal with consciousness. It might the grain of dust which forces us to revise our opinion on Plato, on mind and physics. I argue that if the brain works like a machine, that is mainly in a local causal way (no magic), then Plato is right and the physical reality is the border of the universal mind, i.e. the mind of the universal machine (Turing, Church, Post, ...). I am afraid that the Ross theory is still in the frame of taking Aristotle theology for granted. Bruno On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote: I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two theories may both be correct. QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply not useful in some context). So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about Young two slits experience?). You lost me with Turing emulable. We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much interested in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now. Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain is a natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or theology. See my URL or post, if interested. Bruno JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything - my theory, The Ross Model. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths of light are affected. I don't see any problem. Einstein and I reach the same conclusion. John R On 13 June 2014 03:50, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Yes, light changes speeds many time as it passes through our Universe, but it is always traveling at the speed of light through the grid it is currently traveling through. There is no reason for it to become blurred. When light travels through a good prism or a microscope or a telescope it can change speeds several times and it does not necessarily become blurred. My point is that a distant extended object will send light through regions of space which are at a large distances from each other on its way to our telescopes. So a galaxy which appears to us to be partly hidden by another galaxy is sending light through a region of space thousands of light years across. This region contains a large number of massive objects, such as stars. If these all have their own CGs, each one travelling at a different speed, the light signal would be effectively scrambled as it passed through this varying landscape on its way to us. But it isn't, as thousands of astronomical pictures of galaxies at different distances which happen to lie along the same line of sight show. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 June 2014 04:32, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I thought I'd been pretty clear that it's ill defined, a point on which I agree with Bruno. I tried to define it in the exchange with David, but he seemed to reject my definition and just assumed everybody knows what it means. As I recall you proposed that physical might equate to sharable, in an operational sense, and indeed I wouldn't demur from that as an operational definition. But the question I was focusing on was the mode of derivation of that particular set of operationally definable entities and relations from whatever universe of possibility is postulated by the underlying theory. And it is here that I would contrast Bruno's approach with, say, string theory or the MUH, in that the mode of derivation relies on epistemological logic from the bottom up, as it were. This is why for me, if it can indeed be made to work, such an approach seems to take more than a step or two towards explicating the co-emergence of matter and mind from the computational universe of possibility. In many, if not most, other formulations, the latter is treated more like a metaphysical rabbit that is assumed to pop out of the hat just in time, so to speak, purely as an epiphenomenon of physical processes. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have been constructed. E.g. Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT Physical theory with numbers and so on: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
6 6 6 ! Boo! Actually, The numerical number of God reminds me of some of the writings of Clifford Pickover, so sort of half-believes in his math magic. I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have been constructed. E.g. Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT Physical theory with numbers and so on: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
Is 666 not the Apokalyps number? JM On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:42 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *6 6 6 ! Boo! * Actually, The numerical number of God reminds me of some of the writings of Clifford Pickover, so sort of half-believes in his math magic. I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M -Original Message- From: John Mikes jami...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 14, 2014 10:37 am Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? John M On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 7:43 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have been constructed. E.g. Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT Physical theory with numbers and so on: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, ?? Why might that not be a truth of arithmetic that is not provable? Brent which would be false, and that is a mathematical contradiction, even if those Davids and Brunos are zombies. That makes physicalism just logically incompatible with mechanism (and that argument is simpler than step 8). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 June 2014 02:13, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths of light are affected. I don't see any problem. OK, maybe you're right. It's possible all the CGs generated by all the masses involved average out to produce something akin to the smooth space-time curvature predicted by GR. Since neither of us has done the maths, who can say? Einstein and I reach the same conclusion. Hmm. He reached it via something like 13 tensor equations which can be solved to give exact results. You reach it via some vague wordy description... whether the universe is in fact a mathematical structure or similar, it sure *behaves* like it is, so personally, out of these approaches I would go for the maths and the exact predictions, which can actually be used for useful stuff like GPS and looknig for distant planets -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 June 2014 02:42, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *6 6 6 ! Boo! * As anyone who watches QI will tell you, it's actually 616 (it's there in Revelations, altho I forget the exact wording). Someone miscalculated. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? According to The Pixies, God is Seven, which is just about the age he acts in most of the Old Testament. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
