date:20140306

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that  
it

> is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop
> being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass

>
> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
> to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
> (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over

> days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
> to normal until all the REM is made up for)
> i
> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
> to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
> ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
> kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
> that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
> ion
> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
> in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
> heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
> where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
> our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
> experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
> object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?
> If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
>
> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
> experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
> conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
> hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
> software, such that the experience is able to think the next
> thought? The processor? RAM?
>
> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
> and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
> can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
> be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

> would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
> intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
> our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
>  of that code?
> ,
> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

> past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
> having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
> runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
> consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
> only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
> is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
> on the footprint issue?

A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation  
of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?

You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in  
Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from their  
views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
"affirmatively", we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are "invoking God" implicitly in  
the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.

Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.

OK.

I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do  
totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in  
which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!

Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like "a machine can think" or even "computation can be conscious" in  
some context, as a shortening for "a machine can support  
consciousness", or "a computation can make possible for a conscious  
person to manifest itself relatively to some environment".

The basic rule is simple: we cannot identify any 1p thing with any 3p  
thing. The nice happening in AUDA, is that we

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>
>>> > So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
>>> > is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
>>> > being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
>>> > 
>>> > Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
>>> > to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
>>> > (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
>>> > days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
>>> > to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
>>> > i 
>>> > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
>>> > to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
>>> > ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
>>> > kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
>>> > that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
>>> > ion 
>>> > If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
>>> > in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
>>> > heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
>>> > where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
>>> > our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
>>> > experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
>>> > object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
>>> > If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
>>> > 
>>> > If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
>>> > experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
>>> > conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
>>> > hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
>>> > software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
>>> > thought? The processor? RAM? 
>>> > 
>>> > Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
>>> > and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
>>> > can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
>>> > be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
>>> > would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
>>> > intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
>>> > our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
>>> >  of that code? 
>>> > , 
>>> > Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
>>> > past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
>>> > having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
>>> > runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
>>> > consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
>>> > only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
>>> > is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
>>> > on the footprint issue? 
>>>
>>>
>>> A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 
>>>
>>> And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
>>> consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
>>> the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 
>>>
>>> I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
>>> suggest the following answer. 
>>>
>>> Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
>>> an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
>>> person, a first person notion. 
>>>
>>  
>> Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
>> intrinsic of computation?
>>
>>
>> You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
>> Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
>> time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
>> It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
>> consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
>> it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it "affirmatively", we do it 
>> because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
>> are "invoking God" implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
>> is a theology. 
>>
>  
> Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 
>
>
> OK. 
>
>
>
> I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
> totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,

Re: MODAL Last exercise



On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:


On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

You have to show two things:

1) R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A

and

2) (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A->   R is transitive

Let us look at "1)". To show that   "R is transitive  ->  (W,R)  
respects []A -> [][]A", you might try to derive a contradiction from

R is transitive, and (W,R) does not respect []A -> [][]A.

What does it mean that (W,R) does not respect a formula?  It can  
only mean that in some (W,R,V) there is world alpha where that  
formula is false.
To say that "[]A->[][]A" is false in alpha means only that []A is  
true in that world and that [][]A is false in that world.


OK. I'm not sure where V came from, but anyway...


W = the set of worlds
R = the binary relation (of accessibility)

(W, R) = the multiverse, or the "frame"

(W, R, V) is the same as the multiverse, except that now, in each  
worlds of W, the sentence letters p, q, r, ... got a value 1, or 0.  
And so, all formula can be said to be true or false in each world, by  
the use of classical logic and of the semantic of Kripke (the fact  
that []A is determined in alpha by the value of A in its accessible  
worlds).






So as you say a contradiction is t -> f (because f -> x is always  
true, as it t -> t)


Like a tautology is true in all worlds, a contradiction is a  
proposition false in all worlds, like f, or (A & ~A), or "0 = 1" (in  
arithmetic). f -> x is a tautology, yes, and x -> t also.





So []A is true in a world alpha.


I guess you assume []A -> [][]A is false in alpha, which belong to a  
transitive multiverse, and you want to show that we will arrive at a  
contradiction.





Hence if alpha is transitive,


I understand what you mean. But of course it is R which is transitive.



and if []A is true in all worlds reachable from alpha, let's call  
one beta, then []A is also true in all worlds reachable from beta.


It looks like now you suppose []A -> [][]A is true in alpha. So I am  
no more sure of what you try to prove.




We don't know if alpha is reachable from beta, but we do know that  
if []A is true in beta then it's true in all worlds reachable from  
beta.


I let you or Brent continue, or anyone else. I don't want to spoil  
the pleasure of finding the contradiction. Then we can discuss the  
"2)".


Surely the pleasure of NOT finding a contradiction?


No, the pleasure of finding a contradiction from
[]A -> [][]A is false in alpha
and
R is transitive

I was suggesting you to prove P -> Q, by showing that P & ~Q implies a  
contradiction. it is the easiest way, although there are (infinitely  
many) other ways to proceed.








Oh dear I don't think my brain can take this!

Maybe a diagram would help. Anyway I have to go now :)



Diagram would help a lot. I teach this basically every years since a  
long time, and I only draw diagrams on the black board, not one  
symbols, except for the sentence letters true or false in the worlds.


Take it easy, we have all the time. My feeling is that you are  
impatient with yourself. Just calm down.
You will eventually NOT understand why you ever did find this  
difficult. But this takes times and work, that's normal.


Bruno





It is almost more easy to find this by yourself than reading the  
solution, and then searching the solution is part of the needed  
training to be sure you put the right sense on the matter.


Keep in mind the semantic definitions. We assume some illuminated  
(W,R,V)


Atomic proposition (like the initial p, q, r, ...) is true in a  
world alpha , iff  V(p) = 1 for that word alpha.

Classical propositional tautologies are true in all worlds.
[]A is true at world alpha iff A is true in all worlds accessible  
from alpha.


(W,R,V) satisfies a formula if that formula is true in all worlds in  
W  (with its R and V, of course).
(W,R) respects a formula if that formula is satisfied for all V. So  
the formula is true in all worlds of W, whatever the valuation V is.


Courage!


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

 > So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
   
 > is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
 > being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 > 
 > Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
 > to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
 > (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over 
   
 > days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
 > to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
 > i 
 > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
 > to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
 > ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
 > kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
 > that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
 > ion 
 > If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
 > in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
 > heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
 > where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
 > our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
 > experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
 > object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
 > If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
 > 
 > If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
 > experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
 > conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
 > hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
 > software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
 > thought? The processor? RAM? 
 > 
 > Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
 > and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
 > can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
 > be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness 
   
 > would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
 > intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
 > our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
 >  of that code? 
 > , 
 > Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
   
 > past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
 > having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
 > runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
 > consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
 > only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
 > is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
 > on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining 
   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of 
   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic 
   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

>>>  
>>> Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
>>> intrinsic of computation?
>>>
>>>
>>> You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
>>> Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
>>> time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
>>> It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
>>> consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
>>> it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it "affirmatively", we do it 
>>> because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
>>> are "invoking God" implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
>>> is a theology.

Re: MODAL Last exercise



On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:31, LizR wrote:

Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse.  
ARB and BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC


Right.



(if we don't assume this we don't have a multiverse or at least not  
one we can say anything about.


This, or something like this ...



[]p in this case means the value of p in A is the same as its value  
in B and C (t or f).


What if p is false in A, and true in all worlds accessible from A?


This also means that in A B and C, []p is true, hence we can also  
say that in all worlds [][]p.


Correct.



(And indeed [][][]p and so on?)


Sure. at least in a multiverse where []A -> [][]A is a law. In that  
case it is true for any A, and so it is true if A is substituted with  
[]A, and so [][]A -> [][][]A, and so []A -> [][][]A, and so on.






So it's true for the minimal case that []p -> [][]p

But then adding more worlds will just give the same result in each  
set of 3... so does that prove it?


Not sure.




No, hang on. Take { A B C } with p having values { t t f }. []p is  
true in C, because C is not connected to anywhere else, which makes  
it trivially true if I remember correctly. But []p is false in A and  
B. So [][]p is false, even though []p is true in C. So []p being  
true in C doesn't imply [][]p.


I might need to see your drawing. If C is not connected to anywhere  
else, C is a cul-de-sac world, and so we have certainly that [][]p is  
true in C (as []#anything# is true in all cul-de-sac worlds).





So that seems to disprove it, because C is in its own little  
multiverse. There's nothing in the definition that says ARB and BRC  
entails CRA or CRB, is there?


No, indeed.



Unless I have the "trivially true" thing wrong...


Yes, in the cul-de-sac world, [][]p is automatically "vacuously" true.

Good work Liz. I will provide "clean" solutions, but I wait a bit for  
Brent. Brent?


Liz, meanwhile you might try this one, which is a bit more easy than  
the transitivity case:


Show that (W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal.

(I remind you that R is ideal means that there is no cul-de-sac world  
at all in (W,R)).


Do you see that (W, R) is reflexive entails that (W,R) is ideal?   If  
all worlds access to themselves,  no world can be a cul-de-sac world,  
as a cul-de-sac world don't access to any world, including themselves.


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/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

This is certainly one subject on which I totally agree with you, Chris.

And if we do hit the wall, we'll be back in the Middle Ages - for good this
time, or at least until some extinction level event finishes us off -
something that would have been trivial to avoid if we'd grown up and become
a star faring species.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 06 Mar 2014, at 00:17, John Mikes wrote:


Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long  
as you cannot identify it. Attribute of "a 1st person"? that would  
leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st  
person.


I am not sure I understand this.

Are you saying that consciousness might not be an 1p attribute?

Also, we cannot define consciousness, nor identify it with anything,  
except our own right here and now. But we can still reason about it,  
just by agreeing on some principle on it. We don't need to be able to  
define the moon exactly, to walk on it.






When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I  
found that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes.


But process is a typical 3p notion. To identify consciousness with  
process is an error of category, more or less based on the  
Aristotelian materialist brain/mind (or brain-activity/mental  
activity) identity thesis, which is refuted by the UD Argument.




Around 'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence  
of THOSE opinions into some more and more general understanding just  
to arrive at my DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed  
to') - streamlined since then into:---  Response to relations.  


Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.


That's the right 3p notion of observers, mocked by copenhagen, but  
redeemed by Everett and computationalism.
But although very useful, such a definition ignore the 1p non  
communicable features, like qualia, consciousness, etc.



(That also changed my "observer" into ANYTHING reacting to -well -  
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric  
charge, or a stone rolling down a slope.


If you attribute consciousness to such interaction, you will get  
panpsychism. Why not.  It is ambiguous, as we cannot derive from this  
if you say "yes" or "no" to the doctor.





What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of  
the anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN  
reactivity and effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her  
changes in every respect. We are consequence. Of more - much much  
more than we know about (what I call our 'inventory'). Computation  
(cum+putare) is definitely a human way


Not with the standard definitions. or you are saying this already for  
notions like " being odd", but then everything is human, even alien in  
other galaxies, and the word "human" becomes spurious.




and the quantitative side of it is "math" (IMO). No matter if the  
facts underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose  
with/after them.


So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no  
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?)


or Arithmetic. keep in mind that the big discovery of the 20th  
century, is that Arithmetical truth is far beyond machines (and  
humans) cognitive ability.



of which we are a tiny part only. There are "relations" (everybody  
may identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our  
knowledge.


Sure. already in arithmetic. We only scratch the surface of arithmetic  
and computer science (a branch of arithmetic).


I am deeply agnostic on the question if there is anything more than  
arithmetical truth, or even sigma_1 arithmetical truth, the rest being  
an epistemological internal view brought by the fact that numbers need  
relative representations to manifest themselves relatively.


Bruno



I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site  
for it (definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours).  
Just as I claim agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the  
"bio" or wider Earthbound, not even carried on 'physical' material  
substrate.


Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no  
answer, but SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What  
I enjoyed was the 2D mentioned by Liz as the database.


Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM,  wrote:
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 06 Mar 2014, at 01:52, chris peck wrote:


Hi Jason/Gabriel

Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it  
was a mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given  
Jason's comments, to think that seemingly regular sequences were  
quite common.


I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a  
spurious measure of 'seemingly random' though and that irregularity  
of change is a better one.


I agree, and that is why I justify "randomness" by incompressiblity.  
It is an exercise to show that in the iterated self-duplication, the 1- 
views grows more and more intrinsically non regular, indeed non  
algorithmically compressible.






There also seems to me to be a big difference between Tegmark's game  
as described in the quote below, and flicking coins. Tegmark's game  
is a process guaranteed to generate (over 4 iterations)  16 unique  
and exhaustive combinations of 0s and 1s (heads or tails). If 16  
people were to flick a coin 4 times and write down the results there  
is only a low probability that the resulting set would map on to  
that generated by Tegmarks game. There is fair chance there would be  
some repetition.


Jason, you say:

>> Even if your pattern were: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1, you still have no  
better than a 50% chance of predicting the next bit, so despite the  
coincidental pattern the sequence is still random.


I disagree here. In Tegmarks game you know a particular outcome is  
not exclusive and that you'll have two successors who get one and  
the other.  The next outcome is (01010101010 AND 01010101011) not  
(01010101010 XOR 01010101011).


That is the 3-1 views. If you predict in that setting your future 1- 
view by (01010101010 AND 01010101011), both copies will refute it, and  
you loss the bet. If you predict (01010101010 XOR 01010101011), both  
copies win the bet. here the bet can be done in the 1p-plural way,  
with someone accompanying you in the telebox.






Now this might influence how you bet. If you care about your  
successors you might refuse to make a bet because you know one  
successor will lose. If we rolled dice rather than flicked coins and  
were to bet on getting anything but a 6, in a modified Tegmark game  
we might still refuse to bet knowing that one successor would  
certainly lose. Its a bet we almost certainly would take if we were  
rolling die in a classical world without clones.


More dramatically, if you play Russian roulette in Everettian  
Multiverse you always shoot someone in the head. Crossing the road  
becomes deeply immoral because vast numbers of successors trip and  
get run down by trucks.


A final confusion: Does anything ever seem 'apparently random' in a  
Marchalian/Tegmarkian game? Given that you know outcomes are  
generated by a mechanical process and given you know exactly what  
the following set of outcomes will be, how can they seem random?  
Even 100010110011 isn't looking very random anymore.



Like John, you keep describing the 3-1 views, which we know already  
are deterministic. But the question bears on the 1-views themselves,  
and it is easy to see that any specific prediction (without using or  
or xor) will fail.


If in helsinki you predict "I will see M and I will see W, when  
opening the door", well, both copies, when opeing the doors will have  
to assess that they were wrong, as they see only W, xor M.


Bruno






Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen  wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show  
you what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs  
because you're looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.


binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing  
number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up,  
so any exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time,  
as you flip the coin more and more times, the distribution of  
proportions starts to cluster more and more tightly around the  
expected value.  So for tests when you do two million flips of a  
fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads  
and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and  
50.05%.


Thank you, that's exactly what I was attempting to say in my cack- 
handed way. (And it is almost certainly what Max intended to say.)



--
Y

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 06 Mar 2014, at 02:51, chris peck wrote:

Hi Bruno

>> The question is: can you refute this.

To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not.

Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.

Though perhaps you have an ideological agenda

Which one would that be. Could you focus on the technical point.

and are just trying very hard not to be refuted?

The exact contrary. I have made all this public only after convincing  
more than hundreds of person, and then the submission has followed the  
academical rule, and this without much problems, except some not even  
related to anything technical.

>> And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess  
the indeterminacy, and its invariance for the changes described in  
the next steps.

By your own admission your steps are dumbed down for morons like me  
and display a lack of rigour.

You cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme.  
You must say at which step rigor is lacking.

You make vague negative proposition containing precise error in  
elementary statistics.

Perhaps your book might help?

If I don't buy my little 2 year old a treat this month maybe I can  
afford it. Are there an awful lot of sums?  I hate sums.

Well its your call Bruno, should I treat my son or buy your book?

>> What is you talk about the step 4?  It asks if the way to  
evaluate the P(W) and the P(M) changes if some delay of  
reconstitution is introduced in W, or in M.

It doesn't change as far as I can see. Its still P(1) for both.

Then you omit, like Clark, the simple and obvious fact that if in H  
you predict P(M) = 1, then the guy in Moscow will understand that the  
prediction was wrong.

Like Clark, you confine yourself in the 3-1 views, without ever  
listening to what the duplicated persons say.

Given that the question bears on those data, available in the 3-view,  
you just abstract yourself from the question asked.

So if you have a refutation of the point made, you have still to  
provide it.

Bruno

I'll tell you what, I'll have another look at step 7. see if I can  
make head or tails of it the fifth or sixth time aroundLast time  
I got stuck at the floating pen.

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:05:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Brent, could you please reply to Edgar? He is, I'm sure, eagerly  
awaiting your response so he can unleash a torrent of carefully  
thought out arguments which will cover every point you've made. (As  
indeed am I.)

On 1 March 2014 13:46, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Brent,

Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post  
by Liz talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've  
already provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes  
are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum  
events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate  
spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments  
randomly.

OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how it  
stacks up against Everett et al.

But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only  
relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.

On the contrary, I am interested in your theory of quantum  
randomness IF you can flesh it out.  For example how do you describe  
a Stern-Gerlach experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an  
EPR experiment, Bose-Einstein condensate,...?

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

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

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

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

I don't know anything about obligatory ram ventilators, but I do like
fluffy kittens.


On 6 March 2014 17:20,  wrote:

>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish  wrote:
>>
>>> Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
>>> moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.
>>>
>>> As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!
>>
>> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
>> Respiration
>>
>> Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
>> their gills . Unlike other fish,
>> shark gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A
>> modified slit called a spiracle lies 
>> just behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water
>> during respiration and 
>> plays a major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or
>> missing in active pelagic  sharks.[
>> 21]  While
>> the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the gills in a
>> process known as "ram ventilation". While at rest, most sharks pump
>> water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated water. A
>> small number of species have lost the ability to pump water through their
>> gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate ram
>> ventilators* and would presumably 
>> asphyxiateif unable to 
>> move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
>> [32] 
>>
> obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure
> Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same
> named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you
> buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.
>
>
> alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty
> little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna
> Everett )
>
> more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to
> have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your
> timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in
> the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

Ghibbsa and Bruno,

Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't 
really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error 
discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted 
assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real universe? I 
also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical 
usually politics itself won't be able to trump that.

So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the 
other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your 
theory's paper was revoked?

Thanks,
Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:29:46 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. 
>>
>> Best, 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
> Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread Gabriel Bodeen

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>
> Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you 
> what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're 
> looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.  
>
> binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
> binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
> binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
> binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
> binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
> binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006
>
> Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.
>
> binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
> binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
> binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
> binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
> binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747
>
> Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing 
> number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any 
> exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip 
> the coin more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to 
> cluster more and more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when 
> you do two million flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come 
> up exactly 50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 
> 49.95% and 50.05%.
>
>
>
> Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am interested to 
> know.
>
> the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly épreuve" (in 
> french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you grasp the 
> definitions given of 1p and 3p.
>
> Bruno
>
> (*) 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
>
>
Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris? 

I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent and 
plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would assign to it 
being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the vicinity of 25%.  I 
have much formal logic to learn before I have any meaningful opinion about 
AUDA.

-Gabe

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way  
that it
> is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop
> being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass

>
> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
> to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
> (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over
> days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return

> to normal until all the REM is made up for)
> i
> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
> to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
> ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
> kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep?  
Such

> that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
> ion
> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
> in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
> heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other  
organs
> where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected  
with

> our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
> experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
> object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that  
stable?

> If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
>
> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
> experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
> conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
> hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
> software, such that the experience is able to think the next
> thought? The processor? RAM?
>
> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes  
running,
> and given these processes, and their footprint through the  
hardware

> can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
> be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

> would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
> intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint  
of

> our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
>  of that code?
> ,
> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

> past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
> having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
> runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling  
little

> consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
> only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner?  
Why
> is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been  
done

> on the footprint issue?

A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the  
derivation of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?

You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist  
in Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from  
their views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
"affirmatively", we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are "invoking God" implicitly  
in the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.

Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.

OK.

I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I  
do totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,  
in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!

Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like "a machine can think" or even "computation can be conscious" in  
some context, as a shortening for "a machine can support  
consciousness", or "a computation

Re: Block Universes

Liz,

Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to 
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing 
I was?

Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this 
except in response to your own Troll obsession.)

Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest 
scientific answer for a change if you can... OK?

It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care 
to chime in..

Edgar


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:56:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY 
>> causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age 
>> rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them 
>> when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.
>>
>
> Having your worldlines be different lengths in spacetime will also cause 
> differences in actual age, as Brent has explained (with diagrams).
>
> Consistently ignoring this point and others like it is one reason most 
> people here consider you a troll, so please try to address 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame 
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY 
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we 
know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in 
the same inertial frame OR undergo symmetric accelerations. 

Same ages is just a way to ensure synchronized clocks at the birth event 
and make examples simpler. It has nothing to do with p-time synchrony per 
se.

So in your next paragraph your and Jimbo's proper clocks ARE synchronized 
in p-time from then on under the conditions stated.

But I don't understand the rest of your example since you just stated that 
we are to ignore their PREVIOUS and SUBSEQUENT acceleration histories to 
preserve the synchronies but then you start giving an example with 
accelerations, which will obviously change their synchrony UNLESS they are 
symmetric. You seem to claim that the accelerations are symmetric but you 
keep describing them as stopping in different frames at different times 
which indicates they are NOT symmetric.

The only way to ensure the accelerations are symmetric is for both A and B 
to have the same proper accelerations at the same proper times AFTER they 
synchronize clocks. Are you doing that? If not you are not using MY method.

Also you seem to be switching from synchronized proper clocks which I 
assumed did NOT reflect actual ages to ACTUAL AGES which doesn't work.

I used actual ages synchronized at birth (twins) to avoid that kind of 
misunderstanding.

Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:23:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't 
> represent my method OR results.
>
> In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and 
> direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and 
> direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B 
> and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my 
> result.
>
> Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same 
> and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D 
> are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is 
> clearly transitive between all 4 parties.
>
>
>
> You earlier agreed that if two observers are at rest relative to each 
> other, then if they synchronize clocks in their rest frame, their clocks 
> will also be synchronized in p-time from then on. In your post at 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48404.htmlyou
>  responded to
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:17 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

This is certainly one subject on which I totally agree with you, Chris.

And if we do hit the wall, we'll be back in the Middle Ages - for good this
time, or at least until some extinction level event finishes us off -
something that would have been trivial to avoid if we'd grown up and become
a star faring species.

Don't get me started lol.. We could have gotten off this planet and learned
to begin to live off the land up there - the resource base of the moon and
the NEOs, being the first off world  - low delta velocity -- treasure troves
of every resource we would need in order to build a truly scalable
micro-gravity industrial base.. in a halo orbit around the earth-luna L1 or
L2 la grange points. But instead we opted to burn it all up in the zero sum
game of the Cold War and turned our backs on space. Now I doubt we have the
available extra resources we would need in order to get off planet and build
an  space based industrial base. At the crucial moment our species displayed
a definite lack of vision and a misplaced priorities.

We are dumb apes after all.

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
> acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
> I was?
>
> Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included
> this except in response to your own Troll obsession.)
>
> Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest
> scientific answer for a change if you can... OK?
>
> It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care
> to chime in..
>

In the case of the traditional twin paradox where one accelerates between
meetings while the other does not, the one that accelerates always has the
greater path length through spacetime, so in this case they are logically
equivalent. But you can have a case in SR (no gravity) where two observers
have identical accelerations (i.e. each acceleration lasts the same
interval of proper time and involves the same proper acceleration
throughout this interval), but because different proper times elapse
*between* these accelerations, they end up with worldlines with different
path lengths between their meetings (and thus different elapsed aging)...in
an online discussion a while ago someone drew a diagram of such a case that
I saved on my website:

http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg

In this example A and B have identical red acceleration phases, but A will
have aged less than B when they reunite (you can ignore the worldline of C,
who is inertial and naturally ages more than either of them).

You can also have cases in SR where twin A accelerates "more" than B
(defined in terms of the amount of proper time spent accelerating, or the
value of the proper acceleration experienced during this time, or both),
but B has aged less than A when they reunite, rather than vice versa. As
always the correct aging is calculated by looking at the overall path
through spacetime in some coordinate system, and calculating its "length"
(proper time) with an equation that's analogous to the one you'd use to
calculate the spatial length of a path on a 2D plane.

Jesse

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will 
be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of 
any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think 
they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will certainly give us 
an EXACT value for the difference in proper times between A and B and I 
think it will be possible to compare those in a meaningful way to see how 
they cluster WITHOUT weighting them.

In any case this is a peripheral though interesting subject..

Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 4:41:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed 
> simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes.
>
>
> But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocit
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME 
VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.

What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. 
Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close those 
proper times are to being equal. Once that's done we have the whole 
picture. We DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE FRAME VIEWS OF THOSE FRAME VIEWS because we 
already have ALL the frame views of that one situation.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 5:01:10 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from 
>> +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over 
>> them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
>>
>
>
> There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite 
> sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined 
> over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can 
> be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result 
> will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you 
> can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a 
> uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to 
> a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution 
> when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference 
> frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start.
>
> Jesse
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame
> synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY
> FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we
> know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in
> the same inertial frame OR undergo symmetric accelerations.
>
> Same ages is just a way to ensure synchronized clocks at the birth event
> and make examples simpler. It has nothing to do with p-time synchrony per
> se.
>
> So in your next paragraph your and Jimbo's proper clocks ARE synchronized
> in p-time from then on under the conditions stated.
>
> But I don't understand the rest of your example since you just stated that
> we are to ignore their PREVIOUS and SUBSEQUENT acceleration histories to
> preserve the synchronies but then you start giving an example with
> accelerations, which will obviously change their synchrony UNLESS they are
> symmetric.
>

I clearly stated that the reason I was "giving an example" of accelerations
was in case you DIDN'T accept the clocks were synchronized in p-time in my
example with Jimbo, which ignored my and Jimbo's past acceleration
histories and ages. My words were:

"OK, I don't think it should be necessary to specify acceleration histories
or ages if you agree with my statement about me and Jimbo above, but if you
disagree with that statement I can give details about each pair's past
history, though it makes the example a bit more complicated."

Since you do accept my statement about p-time simultaneity in the Jimbo
example, then there's really no NEED to assume anything about A/B and C/D's
past accelerations being symmetric, we can just assume that at some point
before the experiment happened, A and B came to rest in frame F and
synchronized their clocks in frame F, and C and D came to rest in frame F'
and synchronized their clocks in frame F', and subsequently their x(t) and
T(t) functions in frame F were as I described. However, in the rest of your
post you are responding to my example of a history where A and B had
symmetrical accelerations before the experiment, and so did C and D, so I
will discuss that example; maybe it makes the statements about p-time
simultaneity conceptually clearer to think of their history that way,
although if you think it'd be simpler I'd also be just as happy to make the
assumption above that each pair synchronized clocks after they came to rest
in the same frame.

> You seem to claim that the accelerations are symmetric but you keep
> describing them as stopping in different frames at different times which
> indicates they are NOT symmetric.
>

In my example both accelerations were totally symmetric in the frames where
the twins started out at rest next to each other with synchronized clocks.
A and B's accelerations were totally symmetric in the unprimed frame F
where they started out both at rest at position x=12.5, and C and D's
accelerations were totally symmetric in the primed frame F' where they
started out both at rest at position x'=7.5. Of course since C and D
stopped accelerating simultaneously in the primed frame F' (at time t'=-12
in F'), they stopped accelerating at different times in the unprimed frame
F which I had used to describe their x(t) and T(t) functions, but surely
your criteria for "symmetrical accelerations" is just that there is ONE
specific frame where all their proper accelerations are simultaneous,
namely the frame where they started out at rest and next to each other with
synchronized clocks? Assuming that's your criteria, then F' is that one
specific frame for C and D (and note that according to relativity, C and
D's proper times T also remain synchronized in frame F' at all coordinate
times), and F is that one specific frame for A and B (and A and B's proper
times T also remain synchronized in F at all coordinate times).

>
> The only way to ensure the accelerations are symmetric is for both A and B
> to have the same proper accelerations at the same proper times AFTER they
> synchronize clocks. Are you doing that? If not you are not using MY method.
>

Yes, I was doing that. In my example I said that in the unprimed frame F, "A
and B were originally at rest at position x=12.5, with both having the same
ages, and let's say that their proper time clocks have been set to read T =
-18 years at the moment they were born". Since they were right next to each
other with the same ages and their proper time clocks both showing a time
that's just their age minus 18, naturally their clocks were originally
synchronized. Then they accelerated in a completely symmetrical way in
frame F, with all changes in acceleration being simultaneous in F,
including the event of their both ceasing their acceleration and coming to
rest again in F, which happened at t=-12 in F.

>
> Also you seem to be switching from synchronized proper clocks which I
> assumed did

Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME
> VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.
>
> What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation.
> Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close those
> proper times are to being equal. Once that's done we have the whole
> picture. We DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE FRAME VIEWS OF THOSE FRAME VIEWS because we
> already have ALL the frame views of that one situation.
>

I don't know what you mean by "the frame view of all frame views". I agree
that for a given pair of clocks A and B that are at rest relative to each
other and synchronized in their rest frame, each frame has only ONE answer
to how much clock A is ahead of B (a number which can be zero if the frame
in question is their rest frame, and can also be negative if the frame in
question sees clock A as having a time that's behind clock B's time). But
if we want to LABEL each such frame by velocity (so we can do an integral
or sum over frames with different velocities to take the average), then we
must use some specific "reference frame", and label the velocity of every
other frame relative to the reference frame. So for example if a given
frame X has a velocity of 0.9c relative to a pair of clocks that are 2
light-year apart in their own rest frame, then in X they are out-of-sync by
2*0.9 = 1.8 years. If we use as our "reference frame" the rest frame of the
clocks themselves, then X is labeled with v=0.9c, and thus our "amount out
of sync as a function of v" function will have a value of 1.8 at v=0.9c. On
the other hand, if we use as our "reference frame" a frame moving at 0.8c
relative to the clocks, then frame X will have to be labeled with
v=0.357c--it's still the same frame X, and it still has the same
amount-out-of-sync of 1.8, but it just has a different velocity label. So
using this reference frame, our "amount out of sync as a function of v"
function will have a value of 1.8 at v=0.357c.

Point is, depending on the reference frame we use to define the "v" of
every other frame, our "amount out of sync as a function of v" function
will look different, and thus if we integrate over that function to find
some sort of "average" value for the amount the clocks are out of sync, or
just do an average over a finite number of values of the function at
regular intervals of v, then we'll get different answers depending on what
reference frame we chose.

Jesse

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-06 Thread spudboy100

Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does 
not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable 
or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its 
useless. Fuel efficiency has been promoted by greens, as an ideological 
thing. It has its thermodynamic limit. It is like the hypercar of 25 
years ago, promoted by Amory Lovin. Everything that wasn't kevlar, was 
aluminium. Everything that was not magnesium, was fibreglass, but was 
light. So light, that a passing 18 wheeler, driving in the next lane, 
would blow it off the road. Unsafe at any speed. Good on fuel though. 
No talking can replace physics.

-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:43 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

   From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella 
 wrote:> The biggest energy source we 
have available in fact is energy efficiency.

>>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would 
not be, but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a 
commodity like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If 
somebody invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of 
jetliners it would not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use 
because people would fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer 
people due to their larger more comfortable seats. 

That is a failure of the markets. If energy efficiency marginally 
lowers the rate of consumption of fossil (and other) energy resources 
thus increasing the available current supply -- because we almost 
exclusively rely on these short term market price signals to determine 
consumption/production -- demand will tend to rise. This is well 
known paradoxically in effect punishing virtue and rewarding a self 
centered I-don't-give-a-damn mentality of consuming every resource as 
fast as possible.
Over the long term this will lead to our species discovering what the 
meaning of going over a cliff really is in the hardest of hard terms -- 
up to and including species extinction.
Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be 
taxed and taxed heavily -- IMO. This is the other side of encouraging 
conserving these critical and non-renewable resources. Take phosphate 
for example -- the world is running out of the economically recoverable 
sources -- mined principally from just three sources: in Morocco (land 
seized by Morocco actually) , Florida, and if I recall somewhere in 
Russia. There is no incentive to conserve this vital resource and 
global supplies seem to have already peaked. Phosphorous is a critical 
ingredient of fertilizers.
Relying on market signals alone to determine how -- and at what pace -- 
finite resources are consumed is a recipe for disaster. The market will 
encourage us to burn through these resources as fast as we can, which 
is precisely what our species is doing.
Not the wisest course of action though, and a clear example of how the 
market mechanism is sending our civilization over the cliff.

>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging 
us to conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to 
command us to  conserve angular momentum?    

Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?
Chris

  John K Clark 

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop 
receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.to post to this group, 
send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show  
you what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs  
because you're looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly*  
50%.


binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a  
growing number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can  
come up, so any exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the  
same time, as you flip the coin more and more times, the  
distribution of proportions starts to cluster more and more tightly  
around the expected value.  So for tests when you do two million  
flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly  
50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between  
49.95% and 50.05%.



Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am  
interested to know.


the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly  
épreuve" (in french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you  
grasp the definitions given of 1p and 3p.


Bruno

(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html


Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris?

I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent  
and plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would  
assign to it being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the  
vicinity of 25%.


A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of  
the premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its  
neoplatonist consequences in the vicinity of 25% ?


I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the  
false and the unbelievable.




I have much formal logic to learn before I have any meaningful  
opinion about AUDA.


OK. Fair enough to say. I often come back to zero, so you might enjoy  
a ride eventually :)


Bruno




-Gabe

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

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


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM,  wrote:

> you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date
>

That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived,
better educated or richer than it is today so global warming seems to have
caused little harm and may even have been helpful. That shouldn't be a big
surprise, after all we don't know what the perfect temperature to maximize
human happiness is, but I doubt it's exactly .8C less than it is right now.

> I didn't catch whether you are concerned about the projections by 2100?
>

No I am not at all concerned by the 2100 projections, I say this for 5
reasons:

1) I have little confidence in long term climate models. Anybody reading
them would think CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, but it isn't,
water vapor is. And they can't answer one important question, if the
world's temperature increases will that create more clouds or fewer clouds?
It's a very simple question with profound consequences because clouds
regulate the amount of solar energy that runs the entire climate show.
Increased temperature means more water evaporates from the sea, but it also
means the atmosphere can hold more water before it is forced to form
clouds. So who wins this tug of war? Nobody knows, its too complicated.
Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2
it undergoes phase changes at earthly temperatures, it can be a solid a
liquid or a gas which makes it astronomically more complicated than CO2
which is always just a gas, at least on this planet.  And then there is the
important issue of global dimming, the world may be getting warmer but it
is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not clearly understood but may
be related to clouds, during the day at any given temperature it takes
longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 years ago; climate models
can't explain why it exists today much less know if the effect will be
larger or smaller in 2100.

2) Even if the climate models are correct it is not at all clear if on the
global scale the increase in temperature would be a good thing or a bad
thing; however I do know that far more people freeze to death than die of
heatstroke.

3) Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a
cure for global warming that wasn't far worse than the disease, although
some non-environmentalists may have.

4) Even if it is a bad thing there are plenty of worse problems that will
hit before 2100 to worry about. Most science stories are under reported in
the mainstream press, but global warming is almost as over reported as
ancient astronauts or stories about Nostradamus.

5) In 2100 if we find that global warming is causing us serious trouble we
can deal with it then when out toolbox for fixing things will be vastly
larger than it is now.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR  wrote:

> they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
> despite there never having been such a thing
>

Actually there has been, the black-market.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some 
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person is 
nothing capable of being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a computer cannot think, 
a computation cannot think, I would say. But I can still say yes to the doctor, because 
I can believe that my consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in 
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible for that consciousness 
to be manifestable here and now, with hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
> >>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be,
> but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity
> like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody
> invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would
> not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would
> fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger
> more comfortable seats.
>
> > That is a failure of the markets.
>

The free market is only good at supplying people with the things they want,
it has no opinion about what people should want. If there is a failure at
all it is a failure in human nature; the first concern of the people of
1914 was not our well being and they would not have impoverished themselves
to help us; likewise I say let the people of 2114 fight their own battles.

> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed
> and taxed heavily
>

So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less energy but
will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't.

> Take phosphate for example -- the world is running out
>

Yeah yeah yeah, people are always screaming that the world is running out
of X, but they forget that as technology improves new and better ways to
produce X are found and so are substitutes for X.  In 1980 pessimistic
economist Paul Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb" ) made a bet with
optimistic economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich thought we were about to run out
of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten so the price would
skyrocket.  On paper on September 29 1980 they bought $200 worth of each
metal. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the 5 metals rose in the next 10
years Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell,
Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet, after 10 years every one of
the 5 metals was cheaper after 10 years and on September 29 1990 Ehrlich
gave Simon a check for $576.07.

You should also read a book by William Stanley Jevons called "The Coal
Question", here are some quotations from it:

 "Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the
point at which we can long maintain it?"

"I must point out the painful fact that such a rate of growth will before
long render our consumption of coal comparable with the total supply. In
the increasing depth and difficulty of coal mining we shall meet that
vague, but inevitable boundary that will stop our progress. Our progress is
to be checked within half a century, yet by that time our consumption will
probably be three or four times what it is now"

The interesting thing is that this book was written in 1865.

>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to
>> conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to
>> conserve angular momentum?
>>
>
> > Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?
>

It's a serious physics question and it has an answer. Both are equally
valid laws of nature so why do you think politicians beg us to conserve
energy but not angular momentum?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store



On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim.

Best,

Bruno
Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics?


It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate.

But it is, partially, the content of two chapters of "the amoeba's  
secret".


Very shortly. From 1973 to 1977 I have been manipulated by a  
psychopath. The result being that I will be happy teaching mathematics  
in high school, to "earn my life", and doing research as a hobby, but  
still attending course, conferences, and doing a lot of conferences,  
also, and eventually Professor Gochet, a logician will push me to  
publish and I will publish "Informatique théorique et philosophie de  
l'esprit", which contains a preliminary version of the universal  
dovetailer argument (abridged for reason of place), explaining the  
first person indeterminacy (FPI), the Movie Graph "Paradox", and then  
the main idea of AUDA, that is, how the Dx ="xx" method enable us to  
study the logic of the 3p reference, and the 1p reference, although at  
that time I was still missing the Theaetetus idea. That was published  
in 1988, in Toulouse, France. I exposed it publicly in 1987, where I  
will meet Dennett, and that was at the time of its brainstorms book  
(my favorite), and Mind's I, which is the book coming the closest to  
comp. A new edition should contain some passage from Galouye, and  
matrix or "the prestige".


Well, similar circumstances will make me engaged, to teach modal  
logic, to a group of people (IRIDIA) interested in Artificial  
Intelligence. The psychopath succeeded in making believe everyone that  
I was mad, so my own much previous attempt to create a AI lab were  
just seen as confirmation that I was mad or crackpot. So when I was  
hired in that lab, the department of mathematics will send bullet on  
IRIDIA. Then Smets, the creator of IRIDIA, will make pressure on me to  
make a PhD thesis, and it is indeed through the search of modal system  
for Smets "belief theory" that I will give some faith to the deontic  
axiom ([]A -> <>A).


Then I will put down the thesis, but I said to Smets that it would be  
better "the psychopath" would not be, well, even close to a jury. That  
was delicate, if not impossible. Smets and everybody thought I was  
paranoiac.


Eventually I put it down. November 1994.
Quickly, I got the jury, basically the psychopath and  
"friends" (victim accomplices).
After month of discussion, smets seem thinking that things go right as  
he was invited to a meeting to discuss the extension of the jury,  
including more experts with a fair choice between him and the  
mathematicians.


That was a trap. The meeting was the, normally formal, decision of  
receivability, that is a pre-defense formal decision, quasi  
administrative, and they will decide by vote of "experts", that is  
even before hearing me even for a minute. They will justify that in a  
not that bad report, as all experts recognize not seeing any flaw, but  
a literary philosopher was not convinced. (?).


I will defend without problem the thesis elsewhere (Lille), a bit  
later due to things of life type of thing.


It is a thesis in computer science, and I will got the best grade, and  
people were enthusiast about this, and indeed I will get that prize  
about eight month after the defense, as it is an annual prize for the  
best thesis in the french community. It is not a scientific prize, but  
the jury contained scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists).


But then, those of Le Monde and Grasset told me rewrite it and explain  
the story somehow.


That was delicate, it is still is, but again, why should I not trust  
them, and I will write it chapters by chapters asking them if that was  
OK, and, after some time they get the manuscript, but nothing will  
happen, except that Grasset will abandon that contract with "le prix  
Le Monde, I will still be reassured that there were just late for some  
reason, but then nothing, not even the money, nothing.


In 2009, I get eliminated from the list of laureates on the 1998 year  
on the net, which make me decide to prosecute the psychopath and some  
of its accomplice victims, just for the peace of my conscience.


A guy in Paris was asked to attribute the FPI to someone else, so for  
a time in Paris, it was not really the FPI which was the problem. The  
guy was honest and changes the subject, or related it only to QM.


Then the disastrous meeting of the ASSC, in Brussels, pfft, I don't  
want to talk on this right now ...


I am partially faulty as I don't submit paper, but I continue to  
oblige when asked.


There is a gap between logicians and physicists, the subject matter is  
difficult, but here the "little history" has not helped. In a context  
where the bigger history (1500 years of authoritative aristotelianism)  
is not that more helpful.


At least someone lik

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR  wrote:

> If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and
> tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well?
>

No, conserving angular momentum isn't just a good idea, it's the law; and
yet car engines and tidal power generators still work just fine.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

On 3/6/2014 9:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen > wrote:

Liz,

Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and
gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was?

Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this
except
in response to your own Troll obsession.)

Anyway let's please put our Troll references aside and give me an honest
scientific
answer for a change if you can... OK?

It would be nice to get an answer from Brent or Jesse as well if they care
to chime
in..

In the case of the traditional twin paradox where one accelerates between meetings while
the other does not, the one that accelerates always has the greater path length through
spacetime, so in this case they are logically equivalent. But you can have a case in SR
(no gravity) where two observers have identical accelerations (i.e. each acceleration
lasts the same interval of proper time and involves the same proper acceleration
throughout this interval), but because different proper times elapse *between* these
accelerations, they end up with worldlines with different path lengths between their
meetings (and thus different elapsed aging)...in an online discussion a while ago
someone drew a diagram of such a case that I saved on my website:

http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg

In this example A and B have identical red acceleration phases, but A will have aged
less than B when they reunite (you can ignore the worldline of C, who is inertial and
naturally ages more than either of them).

Right. And you could also replace A's path with the broken line path formed by two clocks
passing one another in opposite directions and just handing off the time reading (as in
the diagram I posted earlier) so that there was no acceleration involved at all, yet the
path would still have less proper time elapse than B's.

Brent

You can also have cases in SR where twin A accelerates "more" than B (defined in terms
of the amount of proper time spent accelerating, or the value of the proper acceleration
experienced during this time, or both), but B has aged less than A when they reunite,
rather than vice versa. As always the correct aging is calculated by looking at the
overall path through spacetime in some coordinate system, and calculating its "length"
(proper time) with an equation that's analogous to the one you'd use to calculate the
spatial length of a path on a 2D plane.

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

On 7 March 2014 06:01, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
>> acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
>> I was?
>>
>
I'm ignoring gravitation for the sake of simplicity, so the differences in
length of world lines is indeed due to acceleration. However the time
difference is not directly caused by acceleration, which was my point. The
same acceleration can be used to produce different lengths of world line,
for example one twin can go back and forth within the solar system while
the other one accelerates to near light-speed and travels to a nearby star
and back. The resulting time difference will always be related to the
lengths of the world lines, (which in special relativity is an absolute
measure everyone will agree 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/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR  wrote:

> they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism, 
> despite there never having been such a thing
>

Actually there has been, the black-market.

Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you try to 
get into the hard drug distribution black market -- and find out (hopefully not 
getting killed in the process) just how un-free the global black market is. It 
is a global oligopoly dominated by a few trans-national drug gangs and if you 
think that this is an exemplar of free market -- I have to really question what 
your idea of freedom is.
Chris

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>>>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, but 
>>>it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity like 
>>>energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody invented a 
>>>gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would not cut in 
>>>half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would fly more 
>>>often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger more 
>>>comfortable seats. 
>
>
>> That is a failure of the markets. 

>>The free market is only good at supplying people with the things they want, 
>>it has no opinion about what people should want. If there is a failure at all 
>>it is a failure in human nature; the first concern of the people of 1914 was 
>>not our well being and they would not have impoverished themselves to help 
>>us; likewise I say let the people of 2114 fight their own battles. 

Yeah I have heard that dogma -- again and again -- as if repeating it makes it 
become true. There is no such thing as a free market to begin with -- that is a 
silly Libertarian illusion - -a required notion -- for this ideology. But like 
all faith based ideologies -- it has no corresponding exemplar in the real 
world -- and the example you gave of the black market is truly laughable -- go 
try to compete with a drug gang and you will rapidly discover just how un-free 
the black market is. I fully expected you to champion the selfish self centered 
me now position -- it is consistent with your beliefs after all. But it remains 
what it is -- a short sighted cop out and abdication of your responsibility as 
a sentient being.

> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed and 
> taxed heavily

>> So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less energy but 
>> will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't.  

Most people WILL voluntarily use less energy -- it is the minority of A-holes 
who think only of themselves that necessitates measures to prevent these self 
centered A-holes from becoming all out resource pigs.

> Take phosphate for example -- the world is running out 

>>Yeah yeah yeah, people are always screaming that the world is running out of 
>>X, but they forget that as technology improves new and better ways to produce 
>>X are found and so are substitutes for X.  In 1980 pessimistic economist Paul 
>>Ehrlich (author of "The Population Bomb" ) made a bet with optimistic 
>>economist Julian Simon. Ehrlich thought we were about to run out of chromium, 
>>copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten so the price would skyrocket.  On paper on 
>>September 29 1980 they bought $200 worth of each metal. If the 
>>inflation-adjusted prices of the 5 metals rose in the next 10 years Simon 
>>would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices 
fell, Ehrlich would pay Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet, after 10 years every one 
of the 5 metals was cheaper after 10 years and on September 29 1990 Ehrlich 
gave Simon a check for $576.07.

Yadda Yadda Yadda -- So what -- bad predictions were made in the past by some 
people. Fact remains that global liquid fuel production has peaked -- sometime 
in the last decade. The fact remains that recoverable reserves of coal, natural 
gas, uranium and all other fossil supplies are not increasing; in spite of the 
happy PR spin put out by the Gas sector lobbyist groups.

>>You should also read a book by William Stanley Jevons called "The Coal 
>>Question", here are some quotations from it:

You should read a book called "Limits to growth" published in the 1970s. We are 
on course to hit those limits -- in spite of all the Libertarian hot air - -the 
only "resource" that seems to be in infinite supply.

 "Are we wise in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point 
at which we can long maintain it?"

"I must point out the painful fact that such a rate of growth will before long 
render our consumption of coal comparable with the total supply. 
In the increasing depth and difficulty of coal mining we shall meet that vague, 
but inevitable boundary that will stop our progress. Our progress is to be 
checked within half a century, yet by that 
time our consumption will probably be three or four times what it is now" 

The interesting thing is that this book was written in 1865.

>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to 
>>conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to  
>>conserve angular momentum?    

>
> Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?

>>It's a serious physics question and it has an answer. Both are equally valid 
>>laws of nature so why do y

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 07:48, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
>> despite there never having been such a thing
>>
>
> Actually there has been, the black-market.
>

Ooh yes, good point - just as there has been genuine communism in tribes
and villages.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 From: "spudboy...@aol.com" 

Chris, not to be disagreeable, but the tech either works or it does 
not, is either clean or its not, is abundant or it isn't, is affordable 
or it ain't. We need it all to work in a newtonian sense, or its 
useless. Fuel efficiency has been promoted by greens, as an ideological 
thing. It has its thermodynamic limit. It is like the hypercar of 25 
years ago, promoted by Amory Lovin. Everything that wasn't kevlar, was 
aluminium. Everything that was not magnesium, was fibreglass, but was 
light. So light, that a passing 18 wheeler, driving in the next lane, 
would blow it off the road. Unsafe at any speed. Good on fuel though. 
No talking can replace physics.

You seem confused - In reality macroscopic systems are not an either or 
proposition. A system does not "either work; or not work" This is not how 
reality operates. Things work poorly or better perhaps. One system may be more 
efficient than another or be able to achieve a better outcome than another -- 
it will be marginally preferable. If you do not understand how marginal 
performance is the key to understanding complex systems then there is nothing I 
can do to help you out here.

It is not black/white world... more like many shades of grey. Fuel efficiency 
has been promoted by a lot of people and organizations; and you neatly 
obfuscate by side stepping the point -- not talking about automobile fuel 
efficiency, but the efficiency with which we heat, cool and light our buildings 
(both residential, industrial and commercial) -- This is a case of apples and 
oranges.
Chris

-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Mar 5, 2014 4:43 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

        From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella 
 wrote:> The biggest energy source we 
have available in fact is energy efficiency.

>>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would 
not be, but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a 
commodity like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If 
somebody invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of 
jetliners it would not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use 
because people would fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer 
people due to their larger more comfortable seats. 

That is a failure of the markets. If energy efficiency marginally 
lowers the rate of consumption of fossil (and other) energy resources 
thus increasing the available current supply -- because we almost 
exclusively rely on these short term market price signals to determine 
consumption/production -- demand will tend to rise. This is well 
known paradoxically in effect punishing virtue and rewarding a self 
centered I-don't-give-a-damn mentality of consuming every resource as 
fast as possible.
Over the long term this will lead to our species discovering what the 
meaning of going over a cliff really is in the hardest of hard terms -- 
up to and including species extinction.
Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be 
taxed and taxed heavily -- IMO. This is the other side of encouraging 
conserving these critical and non-renewable resources. Take phosphate 
for example -- the world is running out of the economically recoverable 
sources -- mined principally from just three sources: in Morocco (land 
seized by Morocco actually) , Florida, and if I recall somewhere in 
Russia. There is no incentive to conserve this vital resource and 
global supplies seem to have already peaked. Phosphorous is a critical 
ingredient of fertilizers.
Relying on market signals alone to determine how -- and at what pace -- 
finite resources are consumed is a recipe for disaster. The market will 
encourage us to burn through these resources as fast as we can, which 
is precisely what our species is doing.
Not the wisest course of action though, and a clear example of how the 
market mechanism is sending our civilization over the cliff.

>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging 
us to conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to 
command us to  conserve angular momentum?    

Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?
Chris

  John K Clark 

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop 
receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.to post to this group, 
send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.Visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.For more options, visit 
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received t

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 09:00, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:49 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and
>> tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well?
>>
>
> No, conserving angular momentum isn't just a good idea, it's the law; and
> yet car engines and tidal power generators still work just fine.
>

The conservation of energy is a law, too. Think about what we were talking
about.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 7 March 2014 09:14, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>   --
>  *From:* John Clark 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 6, 2014 10:48 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> > they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism,
> despite there never having been such a thing
>
>
> Actually there has been, the black-market.
>
> Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you
> try to get into the hard drug distribution black market -- and find out
> (hopefully not getting killed in the process) just how un-free the global
> black market is. It is a global oligopoly dominated by a few trans-national
> drug gangs and if you think that this is an exemplar of free market -- I
> have to really question what your idea of freedom is.
>

But that's the point - this is exactly where unfettered free markets lead,
it's called monopoly capitalism and it's the natural end result if
FMC (play "Monopoly" and you'll get the general idea).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM,  wrote:

>
>  >>> Why do we need to sleep?
>>>
>>
>> >> Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded
>> out individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
>> around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into
>> an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.
>>
>

> > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery?
>

No, I'm saying you're wasting energy and are unlikely to accomplish
anything important wandering about at night when your eyes aren't well
adapted to it, and you might run into a Saber Toothed Tiger who's eyes word
better than yours at night and that would be the end of genes that produce
no sleep.

 > Why not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota?
>

It we really were intelligently designed we probably would have another set
of eyes specialized for night vision, but we weren't, and Evolution has no
foresight and never finds the perfect solution to any problem, it just
finds something that works very slightly better than the competition.

>>> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
>>> specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?
>>>
>>
>> >> Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom
>> is a vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence,
>> electronic or biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents
>> us from getting stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom
>> point be set correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of
>> making an AI. Set too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to
>> listen while you tell me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring),
>> set too high and we get stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that
>> red rubber ball bounces up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two,
>> three, four)
>>
>
>
> It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a
> little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I
> just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation?
>

I'm dead serious! In one of the greatest mathematical discoveries of the
20th century  Alan Turing found there is no sure fire algorithm to
determine if you are in a infinite loop or not, and this has profound
implications for AI and also for the way our brains must work. When we get
board we stop working on a problem, but when should that point be? There is
no perfect answer to that so AI makers and Evolution must come up with
rules of thumb that work, not perfectly all the time, but pretty well most
of the time.  Sometimes we give up too soon and sometimes we become
obsessed with completing a hopeless task but most of the time it's about
right.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


>
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:43 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>
>
>> they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market capitalism, 
>> despite there never having been such a thing
>>
>
>Actually there has been, the black-market.
>
>
>Really I am laughing out loud -- for real. John I would love to see you try to 
>get into the hard drug distribution black market -- and find out (hopefully 
>not getting killed in the process) just how un-free the global black market 
>is. It is a global oligopoly dominated by a few trans-national drug gangs and 
>if you think that this is an exemplar of free market -- I have to really 
>question what your idea of freedom is.

>>But that's the point - this is exactly where unfettered free markets lead, 
>>it's called monopoly capitalism and it's the natural end result if FMC (play 
>>"Monopoly" and you'll get the general idea).

Which is precisely why markets need to be regulated by society; and I do agree 
markets left to themselves degenerate into monopolies. Markets are NOT 
self-regulating as these  Ayn Rand Libertarian infested folks very loudly like 
to believe.
Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

2014-03-06 Thread Richard Ruquist

"Informatique théorique et philosophie de l'esprit"
Information Theory of Spirits
(mistranslation intended)

My Aristotelian take:

>From Leibniz Discourse,
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/leibniz%20-%20discourse%20on%20metaphysics.htm

XXXV: The excellence of spirits; that God considers them preferable to
other creatures; that the spirits express God rather than the world,
while other simple substances express the world rather than God.

My candidate for 'spirits' from the perspective of 'string theory'
is the chargeless Flux that winds through the 500 topo holes
in each Calabi-Yau compact-manifold particle of space.

That Flux caused Dimensional Compactification :
The Flux caused 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time to
inflate as a unified spacetime; by precipitating 6 dimensional CY
particles out of that spacetime.

That is, the Flux curled-up 6 dimensions into particles of
1000-Planck-scale size
(standard 'conservation of dimensions' in superstring theory).

On the visible plane the Flux became expressed in the world as
ordinary EM fields.
Liebniz 'Principle of Continuity' applies to photons, EM fields,
Hyper-Flux and Spirits.
(Actually Leibniz applied this principle to everything).

That Flux glues together both the physical
(1) simple substances that express the world (trees, rocks humans),
(2) and the spiritual:  the CY space particles that express God.

Being a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate),
the CY particles can be entangled with
and communicate with any other BEC.

It follows that God is a BEC.

Richard

ps: i see much of liebniz in string theory.
is that of interest? too aristotelian?
comp compatible?

On 3/6/14, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:29, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Bruno
>> Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics?
>
> It is OK, to ask, but it is delicate.
>
> But it is, partially, the content of two chapters of "the amoeba's
> secret".
>
> Very shortly. From 1973 to 1977 I have been manipulated by a
> psychopath. The result being that I will be happy teaching mathematics
> in high school, to "earn my life", and doing research as a hobby, but
> still attending course, conferences, and doing a lot of conferences,
> also, and eventually Professor Gochet, a logician will push me to
> publish and I will publish "Informatique théorique et philosophie de
> l'esprit", which contains a preliminary version of the universal
> dovetailer argument (abridged for reason of place), explaining the
> first person indeterminacy (FPI), the Movie Graph "Paradox", and then
> the main idea of AUDA, that is, how the Dx ="xx" method enable us to
> study the logic of the 3p reference, and the 1p reference, although at
> that time I was still missing the Theaetetus idea. That was published
> in 1988, in Toulouse, France. I exposed it publicly in 1987, where I
> will meet Dennett, and that was at the time of its brainstorms book
> (my favorite), and Mind's I, which is the book coming the closest to
> comp. A new edition should contain some passage from Galouye, and
> matrix or "the prestige".
>
> Well, similar circumstances will make me engaged, to teach modal
> logic, to a group of people (IRIDIA) interested in Artificial
> Intelligence. The psychopath succeeded in making believe everyone that
> I was mad, so my own much previous attempt to create a AI lab were
> just seen as confirmation that I was mad or crackpot. So when I was
> hired in that lab, the department of mathematics will send bullet on
> IRIDIA. Then Smets, the creator of IRIDIA, will make pressure on me to
> make a PhD thesis, and it is indeed through the search of modal system
> for Smets "belief theory" that I will give some faith to the deontic
> axiom ([]A -> <>A).
>
> Then I will put down the thesis, but I said to Smets that it would be
> better "the psychopath" would not be, well, even close to a jury. That
> was delicate, if not impossible. Smets and everybody thought I was
> paranoiac.
>
> Eventually I put it down. November 1994.
> Quickly, I got the jury, basically the psychopath and
> "friends" (victim accomplices).
> After month of discussion, smets seem thinking that things go right as
> he was invited to a meeting to discuss the extension of the jury,
> including more experts with a fair choice between him and the
> mathematicians.
>
> That was a trap. The meeting was the, normally formal, decision of
> receivability, that is a pre-defense formal decision, quasi
> administrative, and they will decide by vote of "experts", that is
> even before hearing me even for a minute. They will justify that in a
> not that bad report, as all experts recognize not seeing any flaw, but
> a literary philosopher was not convinced. (?).
>
> I will defend without problem the thesis elsewhere (Lille), a bit
> later due to things of life type of thing.
>
> It i

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Ghibbsa and Bruno,
> 
> Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper didn't 
> really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error 
> discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just unwarranted 
> assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real
universe? 

If it were any of these, then Le Monde would publish a formal
retraction, which would indicate that the prize was awarded, and then
subsequently withdrawn, along with the reasons for the withdrawal.

Instead, the award to Bruno Marchal is not mentioned at all:

http://www.lemonde.fr/kiosque/recherche/laureats/prix-recherche-laureats.html

> I 
> also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical 
> usually politics itself won't be able to trump that.

Exactly. Even if you don't believe Bruno about being awarded le Prix
Le Monde, it shouldn't matter, as whether or not he was awarded a
prize makes no difference as to whether his ideas are correct. To
argues otherwise is the fallacious argument from authority.

Nevertheless, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy of the original
lists of Laureats, as it appeared on 9th of August 2001:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010809221720/http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html

I think Bruno is correct that something nefarious occurred.

> 
> So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the 
> other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your 
> theory's paper was revoked?
> 
> Thanks,
> Edgar
> 

The other side of the story has never been made public. You can read
all about Bruno's side of the story in The Amoeba's Secret, now in English for
the first time.

My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured
badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because
Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own
research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something
similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno
faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain
appalling by anyone's standard.

As to what actually happened with le Prix Le Monde - its possible
nobody will ever know. All we have are Bruno's suspicions.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store


On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in
itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured
badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because
Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own
research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something
similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno
faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain
appalling by anyone's standard.


Why so circumspect about the identity of X.  With so many mentions it would be easy for 
anyone to dig up to whom "X" refers, so why not just use his name?


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: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

Russell,

Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of 
whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? And that single person 
first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno? 
That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a whole panel of 
judges to approve it, and the whole panel to reject it.

Edgar




On Thursday, March 6, 2014 5:58:55 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 06:15:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Ghibbsa and Bruno, 
> > 
> > Yes, a fair question. Apparently the committee decided Bruno's paper 
> didn't 
> > really deserve the prize. Why was that? Some internal math error 
> > discovered? Some inconsistency with other math theory? Or just 
> unwarranted 
> > assumptions and conclusions about its application to the real 
> universe? 
>
> If it were any of these, then Le Monde would publish a formal 
> retraction, which would indicate that the prize was awarded, and then 
> subsequently withdrawn, along with the reasons for the withdrawal. 
>
> Instead, the award to Bruno Marchal is not mentioned at all: 
>
>
> http://www.lemonde.fr/kiosque/recherche/laureats/prix-recherche-laureats.html 
>
> > I 
> > also don't rule out politics, but if the theory is clear and logical 
> > usually politics itself won't be able to trump that. 
>
> Exactly. Even if you don't believe Bruno about being awarded le Prix 
> Le Monde, it shouldn't matter, as whether or not he was awarded a 
> prize makes no difference as to whether his ideas are correct. To 
> argues otherwise is the fallacious argument from authority. 
>
> Nevertheless, the Wayback Machine has kept a copy of the original 
> lists of Laureats, as it appeared on 9th of August 2001: 
>
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20010809221720/http://www.lemonde.fr/mde/prix/janv99.html
>  
>
> I think Bruno is correct that something nefarious occurred. 
>
> > 
> > So Bruno, can you give us both your side of the story and a link to the 
> > other side as well so we can independently judge why the prize for your 
> > theory's paper was revoked? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> The other side of the story has never been made public. You can read 
> all about Bruno's side of the story in The Amoeba's Secret, now in English 
> for 
> the first time. 
>
> My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno 
> started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in 
> itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most 
> seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured 
> badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because 
> Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own 
> research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something 
> similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno 
> faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain 
> appalling by anyone's standard. 
>
> As to what actually happened with le Prix Le Monde - its possible 
> nobody will ever know. All we have are Bruno's suspicions. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: Block Universes

Just realized in retrospect that it was a very confusing choice of
terminology to use "reference frame" to refer to the frame that's used to
label other frame's relative velocities--I was thinking of the idea that
other frame's velocities are labeled "in reference" to this one choice of
frame, but somehow it didn't occur to me that "reference frame" is a
synonym for "frame of reference", which is what ALL frames are called. So I
edited my post below to use the term "index frame" instead, since I'm
indexing other frames by their velocity relative to this frame:

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
> I don't know what you mean by "the frame view of all frame views". I agree
> that for a given pair of clocks A and B that are at rest relative to each
> other and synchronized in their rest frame, each frame has only ONE answer
> to how much clock A is ahead of B (a number which can be zero if the frame
> in question is their rest frame, and can also be negative if the frame in
> question sees clock A as having a time that's behind clock B's time). But
> if we want to LABEL each such frame by velocity (so we can do an integral
> or sum over frames with different velocities to take the average), then we
> must use some specific "index frame", and label the velocity of every other
> frame relative to the index frame. So for example if a given frame X has a
> velocity of 0.9c relative to a pair of clocks that are 2 light-year apart
> in their own rest frame, then in X they are out-of-sync by 2*0.9 = 1.8
> years. If we use as our "index frame" the rest frame of the clocks
> themselves, then X is labeled with v=0.9c since that's its velocity
> relative to the index frame, and thus our "amount out of sync as a function
> of v" function will have a value of 1.8 at v=0.9c. On the other hand, if we
> use as our "index frame" a frame moving at 0.8c relative to the clocks,
> then frame X will have to be labeled with v=0.357c since that's its
> velocity relative to the new index frame--it's still the same frame X, and
> it still has the same amount-out-of-sync of 1.8, but it just has a
> different velocity label. So using this index frame, our "amount out of
> sync as a function of v" function will have a value of 1.8 at v=0.357c.
>
> Point is, depending on the index frame we use to define the "v" of every
> other frame, our "amount out of sync as a function of v" function will look
> different, and thus if we integrate over that function to find some sort of
> "average" value for the amount the clocks are out of sync, or just do an
> average over a finite number of values of the function at regular intervals
> of v, then we'll get different answers depending on what index frame we
> chose.
>
> Jesse
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> >
> >What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
> >willing to answer ). Does Russell
> >(a) agree with you completely
> 
> Only Russell can answer this. I would use "understand" instead of
> "agree", because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.

> question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
> something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
> from our conversation, I would say that Russell "agrees" with the
> FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.

> 
> 
> >(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
> 
> But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
> computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
> person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
> defined in any 3p way.
> 
> For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
> computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say. 
>

This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.

Cheers

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread chris peck

Hi Bruno

>>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.

pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective 
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are 
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction 
of everyone'; consequently whether something has or hasn't been doesn't tells 
us much. Refuting something to the 'satisfaction of everyone' is 
extraordinarily rare in the scientific and philosophical community; less still 
the wider community. Has Astrology been refuted to the satisfaction of 
everyone? 

You're also aware, im sure, that even Darwin's theory, strictly speaking, has 
been refuted. That the theory of inheritance he employed was in conflict with 
his wider principles of selection. His theory was internally incoherent and he 
never spotted it. What does that tell us? That theories have extraordinary 
value even when they ought to have been 'refuted to the satisfaction of 
everyone'.

This is a good and bad thing. Even if I hadn't refuted your theory to my own 
satisfaction, it wouldn't lead me to accept it. On the other hand, just because 
a theory has been (or ought to have been) refuted by everyone wouldn't lead me 
to reject it entirely either. It means I can have refuted your conclusions in 
step 3 to my own satisfaction, and still be interested in comp. Hurray! Surely 
that will make you happy?

Have you ever read Putnam's 'on the corroboration of theories'? It was pivotal 
in my extremely stunted intellectual growth. In it he discusses the 
impossibility of ever refuting any theory. You're talking to someone who hasn't 
placed any currency in refutation for over twenty years.

All the best

Chris.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100


On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:On Thursday, March 6, 2014 
1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you what's 
happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're looking at 
cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.  

binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing number of 
distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any exact 
proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip the coin 
more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to cluster more and 
more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when you do two million 
flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads 
and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and 50.05%.


Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am interested to know.
the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly épreuve" (in 
french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you grasp the definitions 
given of 1p and 3p.
Bruno
(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Did you mean to address me, or did you mean to address Chris? 

I don't object to any step in UDA.  It seems internally consistent and 
plausible to me.  I'm unsure what level of confidence I would assign to it 
being actually true, although my gut feeling is in the vicinity of 25%.  
A reasoning is 100% valid, or invalid. Do you mean that the truth of the 
premise, comp, is in the vicinity of 25%. making perhaps its neoplatonist 
consequences in the vicinity of 25% ?
I will make a confession: for me comp only oscillates between the false and the 
unbelievable.


I have much formal logic to learn before I have any meaningful opinion about 
AUDA.

OK. Fair enough to say. I often come back to zero, so you might enjoy a ride 
eventually :)
Bruno


-Gabe
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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





-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop r

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:06:40PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> Are you telling me only a single person, Bruno's advisor, was the judge of 
> whether Bruno's paper should be awarded the prize? 

I doubt X had anything to do with the award of the prize, since it was
for a PhD thesis submitted to a completely different university
(Lille) to where X is employed (ULB).

Also X was not Bruno's PhD advisor, but rather his honours advisor,
some 20 years earlier.

> And that single person 
> first approved it and then rejected it when he had some dispute with Bruno? 
> That sounds quite strange to me. Normally it would be a whole panel of 
> judges to approve it, and the whole panel to reject it.
> 
> Edgar
> 

X clearly had sufficient influence within the ULB to convince a
committee to deem Bruno's original thesis "unreceivable". That was why
he wrote another thesis, which was accepted at Lille, and for which
the prize was awarded. It is speculation that he had anything to do
with the mysterious retraction be Le Monde, but no other hypothesis
seems to fit the facts.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:05:42PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/6/2014 2:58 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >My only comment is that I don't think X's hostility towards Bruno
> >started when he mentioned the question "Goedel?" in class. That, in
> >itself, should not be sufficient to earn the ire of even the most
> >seasoned of psychopaths. Instead, I suspect the relationship soured
> >badly during Bruno's end-of-studies dissertation, probably because
> >Bruno had an inquiring mind, and X just wanted him to focus on his own
> >research interests (not an uncommon occurrance - I had something
> >similar in my PhD, but without the consequences Bruno
> >faced). Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse X's actions, which remain
> >appalling by anyone's standard.
> 
> Why so circumspect about the identity of X.  With so many mentions
> it would be easy for anyone to dig up to whom "X" refers, so why not
> just use his name?
> 
> Brent

Bruno has his reasons for being circumspect about X's identity, and I
respect those. However, he is not anyone of major note in the academic
community, barely appearing in Google searches, for example.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely

Only Russell can answer this. I would use "understand" instead of
"agree", because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.



question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
from our conversation, I would say that Russell "agrees" with the
FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.




(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious

But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
defined in any 3p way.

For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.


This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a certain computation is 
thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's 
a 3p notion and so cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his 
theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be Lobian, which is an 
attribute of the functions it can compute and which seems 3p to me.


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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
> >>computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.
> >>
> >This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
> >purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
> >probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
> >consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
> >reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
> >quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
> >but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.
> 
> How is that different than saying a given machine performing a
> certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no
> matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so
> cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his
> theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be
> Lobian, which is an attribute of the functions it can compute and
> which seems 3p to me.
> 

I did, at one stage, get Bruno to agree with me that "a program is
conscious" is shorthand for "consciousness supervenes on a running
program of some reference machine".

In such a way, one should also say that a "brain is conscious" (or
thinking) is shorthand for the "consciousness supervenes on a brain".

What Bruno purports to show is that consciousness cannot supervene on
a "primitive physical reality", whereas what I think is really shown
is that observed physical reality (ie phenomena) cannot be
primitive. Phenomena must be derivable from properties of computation.

What is not shown by the MGA (and if it did, it would be empirically
invalidated) is that consciousness does not supervene on physical
reality. Brains are part of phenomena, and indeed, it would appear
(empirically) that consciousness does supervene on brains.

More on this no doubt when I get to write my fabled paper on the
MGA. Sorry for so many vaccuous promises - but I really have several
projects ahead of it in the queue, so I cannot promise when I'll get
to it.

-- 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-06 Thread spudboy100



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating






 From: "spudboy...@aol.com" 
 


>>Chris, at some point we must ask basic questions, such as, do the toilets 
>>flush, and do the lights come on? We are not, I believe, speaking here about 
>>Bruno's UDA, versus Tegmark's MUH, but how well our civilizations flourish or 
>>fail? If we have the clean tech to replace the dirty tech, and can afford it, 
>>and it can produce the megawatts, then there is no argument here. My only 
>>question to the Greens is: Does it do all of the above, and can you provide 
>>evidence?
 
To the earth and the real world we inhabit, it actually matters not at all, how 
much we debate whether or not the toilets will flush or the lights will come 
on. The physical limits of our planet have been reached, or will soon be 
reached. Some things to consider: the extinction rate is already 10,000 times 
the average background rate; ocean food webs are collapsing all over the world 
in a drastic manner; the rates of desertification, deforestation, loss of top 
soil, loss of soil fertility, loss of aquifers are all proceeding at rates that 
should alarm anyone who actually looks at these trends. Vital resources -- such 
as oil for example -- have already peaked (the world will never produce as much 
oil as it did in the 2005-2010 period... those days are over and super giant 
mega fields are all in decline (including the biggest of them all: Ghawar, 
according to Simmons (with whom I corresponded over the years with until he 
died a few years ago) -- the Saudis
 jealously guard their production/reserve stats on the level of a state secret, 
but it is telling that in spite of the various price spikes that have happened 
and will continue to occur they have been unable to up their output in order to 
promote their stated goal of price stability. -- instead we must live under the 
distorting effect of wild price swings, because there is no swing supplier 
anymore i.e. oil has peaked )

All fossil energy supplies are at or are nearing peak production and because of 
tertiary and other advanced techniques employed to squeeze as much out as 
possible as fast as possible, once fields go into decline their rates of 
decline are very rapid. Take for example the Cantarell super giant field off 
the coast of the Yucatan and one of the worlds biggest fields ever discovered.  
Production peaked at 2.1 million barrels per day in 2003; falling to 408,000 
barrels per day by 2012, which is less than 20% of what it had been producing 
at peak in under ten years after decline set in.

There are no more super giant fields remaining to be discovered (except perhaps 
in the Arctic Ocean basin or in Antarctica and in extreme deep water deposits 
(such as the one discovered in Brazil)  but in such cases there exist extreme 
challenges in getting the oil out -- just ask Shell Oil (Deep Water Horizon 
disaster). Brazil in fact has not been able to develop its super giant at 
nearly the level it had hoped to as another example.

In all cases the EROI (or energy returned on energy invested) of extracting 
this hard to get oil -- or for mining tar sands, or fracking shale deposits as 
well is rapidly falling leaving ever smaller margins of surplus energy -- for 
all other needs. The EROI of oil extraction has fallen into the single digits 
from 100:1 in the early days of the Texas and Saudi mega fields; if it falls 
much further it will not be able to generate enough surplus energy to maintain 
technological industrial civilization.

Does it matter what you desire? Or what John Clark thinks? Not really, not to 
the earth and to the hard facts of Limits to Growth. Do yeast in a barrel 
wonder when they have reached peak sugar whether they should perhaps slow down 
-- only to be shouted down by the various John Clark yeast analogues that there 
is plenty of sugar and to keep on consuming sugar as fast as they can. Does 
believing there is plenty of sugar change the outcome for those yeast in that 
barrel when the supply of sugar begins to run out? We are like yeast and the 
earth is our barrel.

You can argue with me till you run out of breath, but the facts remain the 
facts. Oil has peaked and many other energy and other resources are close on 
its heels. The cornucopean world view is a form of self delusion. If we want to 
have a hope in hell of avoiding the worst collapse our species has ever 
experienced since the time of the Toba super volcano that erupted  some 70,000 
years ago and is thought to be linked to the genetic bottleneck event written 
into our mtDNA, then we had better get our collective shit together pronto.

We won't, of course because loud voices will keep shouting that there is 
nothing to worry about and that all of this is just the ranting of "greens" -- 
yeah drill baby drill and what has that got us? 

P.S. If you want to argue the stats of the shale gas and oil (kerogen) plays I 
have the facts that prove that this is all a huge bubble that cannot be

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread chris peck

Hi Bruno

>> ou cannot say something like this. It is unscientific in the extreme. You 
>> must say at which step rigor is lacking. 

I think you're missing the fact that I was poking fun at a comment you made to 
Liz. Don't worry about it.

>> You make vague negative proposition containing precise error in elementary 
>> statistics.

It wouldn't be at all unusual for me to make mistakes in sums, but that 'error 
in elementary statistics' is not seen as one by prof's at Oxford, which gives 
me great confidence that Im on to something and that the error is yours .

>> Then you omit, like Clark, the simple and obvious fact that if in H you 
>> predict P(M) = 1, then the guy in Moscow will understand that the prediction 
>> was wrong. 

The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is the 
probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes the idea 
that there will be only one unique successor of H. The only question that is 
really fitting in the experimental set up is: "what is the probability that 
either of your two successors sees M". Or, if you want to keep the questions 
phrased entirely in 1p then the correct question is: "what is the probability 
that (you in M will see M) and (you in W will see W)?" And the answer to that 
*is* simple and obvious. It is 1.

It seems to me this is at the crux of your argument with Clark. The question 
you phrase in fact implies that only one successor will embody your sense of 
self, your 'I'ness. 'What is the probability that you will see x': there is no 
recognition of duplication in the question, and so pronouns become altogether 
confusing and all participants begin to wonder who in fact is who.

>> ike Clark, you confine yourself in the 3-1 views, without ever listening to 
>> what the duplicated persons say.

Not at all. Its just that when you ask the right question it doesn't make any 
difference whether you look at it from the objective or subjective view. The 
probabilities work out the same either way.

And in fact, you can only 'listen to what the duplicated persons say' by 
adopting some kind of 3p view in my opinion. H has to fly out of his body into 
a birds eye view of the process, swoop down on both W and M guys, dream their 
1p views, fly back and integrate their answers into his own sums. Whats that? 
1-3-1-3-1-3-1p? If we're going to be serious about 3-1 confusions then thats a 
hugely contorted confusion of the lot. 

>> So if you have a refutation of the point made, you have still to provide it.

On the contrary, the refutation is there and you haven't yet understood it, 
less still rebutted it.

All the best

Chris.

From: chris_peck...@hotmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 23:33:15 +

Hi Bruno

>>Refuting means to the satisfaction of everyone.

pfft! let me put it this way. There are a bunch of perspectives on subjective 
uncertainty available. Yours and Greave's to mention just two. They are 
mutually incompatible and neither of them has been refuted to the 'satisfaction 
of everyone'; consequently whether something has or hasn't been doesn't tells 
us much. Refuting something to the 'satisfaction of everyone' is 
extraordinarily rare in the scientific and philosophical community; less still 
the wider community. Has Astrology been refuted to the satisfaction of 
everyone? 

You're also aware, im sure, that even Darwin's theory, strictly speaking, has 
been refuted. That the theory of inheritance he employed was in conflict with 
his wider principles of selection. His theory was internally incoherent and he 
never spotted it. What does that tell us? That theories have extraordinary 
value even when they ought to have been 'refuted to the satisfaction of 
everyone'.

This is a good and bad thing. Even if I hadn't refuted your theory to my own 
satisfaction, it wouldn't lead me to accept it. On the other hand, just because 
a theory has been (or ought to have been) refuted by everyone wouldn't lead me 
to reject it entirely either. It means I can have refuted your conclusions in 
step 3 to my own satisfaction, and still be interested in comp. Hurray! Surely 
that will make you happy?

Have you ever read Putnam's 'on the corroboration of theories'? It was pivotal 
in my extremely stunted intellectual growth. In it he discusses the 
impossibility of ever refuting any theory. You're talking to someone who hasn't 
placed any currency in refutation for over twenty years.

All the best

Chris.

From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 19:32:32 +0100

On 06 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:On Thursday, March 6, 2014 
1:52:56 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you what's 
happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

On 3/6/2014 6:12 PM, chris peck wrote:
The question you pose to H in step 3 is badly formed. You ask H, 'what is the
probability that you will see M' but this question clearly presupposes the idea that
there will be only one unique successor of H. The only question that is really fitting
in the experimental set up is: "what is the probability that either of your two
successors sees M". Or, if you want to keep the questions phrased entirely in 1p then
the correct question is: "what is the probability that (you in M will see M) and (you in
W will see W)?" And the answer to that *is* simple and obvious. It is 1.

It seems to me this is at the crux of your argument with Clark. The question you phrase
in fact implies that only one successor will embody your sense of self, your 'I'ness.
'What is the probability that you will see x': there is no recognition of duplication in
the question, and so pronouns become altogether confusing and all participants begin to
wonder who in fact is who.

Yes, that's the same difficulty I had with the question. But it boils down to "Where will
you be?" It equivocates on "you", but that's the point, it's how it models Everett's
interpretation of QM.

Brent

Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

2014-03-06 Thread Jason Resch

Congratulations Bruno, and thank you Russell and Kim!

I am anxious to get my hands on the hard copy.

Jason


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
> Marchal's "The Amoeba's Secret" is now available from Amazon's Kindle
> store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA
>
>
> The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the
> prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD
> thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book
> not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript
> available from Bruno's website.
>
> The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's
> UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background
> motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now,
> after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished
> the translation of this book into English.
>
> For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version
> will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a
> physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for
> general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are
> entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the
> best of both worlds.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Vehiculus automobilius

2014-03-06 Thread Craig Weinberg

If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with 
a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have 
replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a 
different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like 
horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve 
into new styles over time. 

Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or 
Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not 
whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers 
careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does 
not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it 
need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very 
complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all 
practical purposes than a horse.

Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We 
could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in 
the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each 
windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough 
artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:52 PM, chris peck wrote:

> Hi Jason/Gabriel
>
> Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a
> mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments,
> to think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common.
>
> I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a spurious
> measure of 'seemingly random' though and that irregularity of change is a
> better one.
>
> There also seems to me to be a big difference between Tegmark's game as
> described in the quote below, and flicking coins. Tegmark's game is a
> process guaranteed to generate (over 4 iterations)  16 unique and
> exhaustive combinations of 0s and 1s (heads or tails). If 16 people were to
> flick a coin 4 times and write down the results there is only a low
> probability that the resulting set would map on to that generated by
> Tegmarks game. There is fair chance there would be some repetition.
>
> Jason, you say:
>
>
> *>> Even if your pattern were: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1, you still have no
> better than a 50% chance of predicting the next bit, so despite the
> coincidental pattern the sequence is still random.*
>
> I disagree here. In Tegmarks game you know a particular outcome is not
> exclusive and that you'll have two successors who get one and the other.
> The next outcome is (01010101010 AND 01010101011) not (01010101010 XOR
> 01010101011). Now this might influence how you bet. If you care about your
> successors you might refuse to make a bet because you know one successor
> will lose.
>

Interesting, I wonder what difference in the decision theory is required to
weight the two cases differently, the ANDs vs. the XOR..

Are there any? Perhaps there is an argument for some quantum suicide
experiments.


> If we rolled dice rather than flicked coins and were to bet on getting
> anything but a 6, in a modified Tegmark game we might still refuse to bet
> knowing that one successor would certainly lose. Its a bet we almost
> certainly would take if we were rolling die in a classical world without
> clones.
>

But from the first person view, the existence of clones changes nothing
that you can detect. It is a difference that makes no difference.


>
> More dramatically, if you play Russian roulette in Everettian Multiverse
> you always shoot someone in the head. Crossing the road becomes deeply
> immoral because vast numbers of successors trip and get run down by trucks.
>

Everything you do affects an infinite number of future selves, choose
wisely. :-)


>
> A final confusion: Does anything ever seem 'apparently random' in a
> Marchalian/Tegmarkian game? Given that you know outcomes are generated by a
> mechanical process and given you know exactly what the following set of
> outcomes will be, how can they seem random? Even 100010110011 isn't
> looking very random anymore.
>
> :(
>

A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?

Jason



>
>
> --
> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
>
> Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
> From: lizj...@gmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
>
> On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen  wrote:
>
> Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you
> what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're
> looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.
>
> binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
> binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
> binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
> binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
> binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
> binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006
>
> Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.
>
> binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
> binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
> binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
> binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
> binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747
>
> Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing
> number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any
> exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip
> the coin more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to
> cluster more and more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when
> you do two million flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come
> up exactly 50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between
> 49.95% and 50.05%.
>
>
> Thank you, that's exactly what I was attempting to say in my cack-handed
> way. (And it is almost certainly what Max intended to say.)
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "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 t

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3


On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all? Or is every 
case of true randomness an instance of FPI?


Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?

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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

> you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date

That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived, better educated
or richer than it is today so global warming seems to have caused little harm and may
even have been helpful. That shouldn't be a big surprise, after all we don't know what
the perfect temperature to maximize human happiness is, but I doubt it's exactly .8C
less than it is right now.

> I didn't catch whether you are concerned about the projections by 2100?

No I am not at all concerned by the 2100 projections, I say this for 5 reasons:

1) I have little confidence in long term climate models. Anybody reading them would
think CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, but it isn't, water vapor is.

CO2 is more important because it accumulates in the atmosphere. Water vapor has more
effect as an amplifying feedback because it stays roughly in equilibrium with ocean
surface temperature.

And they can't answer one important question, if the world's temperature increases will
that create more clouds or fewer clouds? It's a very simple question with profound
consequences because clouds regulate the amount of solar energy that runs the entire
climate show. Increased temperature means more water evaporates from the sea, but it
also means the atmosphere can hold more water before it is forced to form clouds. So who
wins this tug of war? Nobody knows, its too complicated. Water vapor is a far more
powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2 it undergoes phase changes at earthly
temperatures, it can be a solid a liquid or a gas which makes it astronomically more
complicated than CO2 which is always just a gas, at least on this planet.

It's complicated, but not beyond study and empirical studies indicate clouds tend to
increase warming: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523

/A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past
Decade//
//
//A. E. Dessler//
//
//Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of uncertainty
in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of the cloud feedback in
response to short-term climate variations by analyzing the top-of-atmosphere radiation
budget from March 2000 to February 2010. Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback
had a magnitude of 0.54 ą 0.74 (2?) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is
likely positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to cancel the
climate's positive feedbacks is not supported by these observations. Both long- and
short-wave components of short-term cloud feedback are also likely positive. Calculations
of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no
correlation in the models between the short- and long-term cloud feedbacks./

There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming caused by increased
CO2 and uncertainty goes both ways.

And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may be getting warmer
but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not clearly understood but may be
related to clouds, during the day at any given temperature it takes longer now for water
to evaporate than it did 50 years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today
much less know if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100.

Sure they can. It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds. The IPCC AR4 models
predict the increased cloudiness. The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low
clouds and high clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict.

2) Even if the climate models are correct it is not at all clear if on the global scale
the increase in temperature would be a good thing or a bad thing; however I do know that
far more people freeze to death than die of heatstroke.

It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing. A lot more people die from
starvation than freezing.

3) Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a cure for
global warming that wasn't far worse than the disease, although some
non-environmentalists may have.

There are plenty of good proposals from environmentalist.

http://www.amyhremleyfoundation.org/php/education/impacts/NaturalCycles/PossibleRemedies.php

http://www.greenbang.com/global-warming-cure-for-global-warming_7007.html

4) Even if it is a bad thing there are plenty of worse problems that will hit before
2100 to worry about.

2100 is just when it get so bad people will wonder why the hell we didn't do anything
about earlier.

Most science stories are under reported in the mainstream press, but global warming is
almost as over reported as ancient astronauts or stories about Nostradamus.

5) In 2100 if we fin

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-06 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:29 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> A related question is, is there any such thing as true randomness at all?
> Or is every case of true randomness an instance of FPI?
>
>
> Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true randomness?
>

Do you not agree that FPI can generate apparent randomness?  If so then at
least some appearance of true randomness is due to FPI.

We don't know one way or the other whether fundamental randomness exists or
not, so either way you are doing some pretending (e.g., pretending to know
true randomness exists in the first place).

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 3/6/2014 10:40 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:22 PM,  wrote: 

> you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to date

That's right, the Human race has never been more numerous, longer lived,
better educated or richer than it is today so global warming seems to have
caused little harm and may even have been helpful. That shouldn't be a big
surprise, after all we don't know what the perfect temperature to maximize
human happiness is, but I doubt it's exactly .8C less than it is right now.

> I didn't catch whether you are concerned about the projections by 2100? 

No I am not at all concerned by the 2100 projections, I say this for 5
reasons:

1) I have little confidence in long term climate models. Anybody reading
them would think CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, but it isn't,
water vapor is. 

CO2 is more important because it accumulates in the atmosphere.  Water vapor
has more effect as an amplifying feedback because it stays roughly in
equilibrium with ocean surface temperature.

And they can't answer one important question, if the world's temperature
increases will that create more clouds or fewer clouds? It's a very simple
question with profound consequences because clouds regulate the amount of
solar energy that runs the entire climate show. Increased temperature means
more water evaporates from the sea, but it also means the atmosphere can
hold more water before it is forced to form clouds. So who wins this tug of
war? Nobody knows, its too complicated. Water vapor is a far more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2 it undergoes phase changes at earthly
temperatures, it can be a solid a liquid or a gas which makes it
astronomically more complicated than CO2 which is always just a gas, at
least on this planet.  

Perhaps you are unaware that recent work has made headway in answering
precisely that cloud cover question.  I cite the abstract of the study
published in Nature. It comes to conclusions you probably do not want to
hear, so I am confident you will find some way of doing so.

Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing

Steven C. Sherwood, 

Sandrine Bony   

& Jean-Louis Dufresne  

Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean
temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of
research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity
estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius
for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding
accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from
differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood.
Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing
between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the
variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent
mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that
increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the
initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing
inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a
climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide.
This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5
degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe
future warming.

Chris

It's complicated, but not beyond study and empirical studies indicate clouds
tend to increase warming: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523

A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past
Decade

A. E. Dessler

Estimates of Earth's climate sensitivity are uncertain, largely because of
uncertainty in the long-term cloud feedback. I estimated the magnitude of
the cloud feedback in response to short-term climate variations by analyzing
the top-of-atmosphere radiation budget from March 2000 to February 2010.
Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 ±
0.74 (2σ) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely
positive. A small negative feedback is possible, but one large enough to
cancel the climate's positive feedbacks is not supported by these
observations. Both long- and short-wave components of short-term cloud
feedback are also likely positive. Calculations of short-term cloud feedback
in climate models yield a similar feedback. I find no correlation in the
models between the short- and long-term cloud

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3


On 3/6/2014 9:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Do you not agree that FPI can generate apparent randomness?  If so then at least some 
appearance of true randomness is due to FPI.


That doesn't follow (at least not if FPI means what Bruno's been selling).

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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone