Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
"What is Mind? not matter,What is matter? Never mind!" -The Tao of Homer


-Original Message-
From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2019 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

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

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


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-04-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/15/2019 8:08 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:14:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agray...@gmail.com
wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6,
Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:





He might have been referring to a
transformation to a tangent space where
the metric tensor is diagonalized and its
derivative at that point in spacetime is
zero. Does this make any sense?


Sort of.



Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a
given coordinate system and some arbitrary
point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime
has a non zero curvature and the derivative of
the metric tensor is generally non-zero at that
arbitrary point, however small we assume the
region around that point. But applying the EEP,
we can transform to the tangent space at that
point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have
its derivative as zero at that point. Does THIS
make sense? AG


Yep.  That's pretty much the defining
characteristic of a Riemannian space.

Brent


But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime
points by transforming coordinates has the result of
putting the test particle in local free fall, when
it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG


It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has
EM forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in
the tangent space coordinates.  The transformation is
just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall
which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.

Brent


In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces
acting on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears
identical to an external observer, before and after
coordinate transformation to the tangent plane at some
point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime
points. If this is true, it's still hard to see why
changing labels can remove the gravitational forces. And
what does this buy us? AG


You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never
were any gravitational forces, just your choice of
coordinate system made fictitious forces appear; just like
when you use a merry-go-round as your reference frame you
get coriolis forces.


If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of
coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in
coordinate system) how does GR explain motion? Test particles
move on geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces,
but why do they move at all? AG


Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG


Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious
gravitational force, and how the other forces function; EM,
Strong, and Weak, which apparently can't be removed by changes
in coordinates systems. AG


It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am
merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force
with the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG


What is gets you is it enforces and explains the
equivalence principle.  And of course Einstein's theory
also correctly predicted the bending of light,
gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of
the perhelion of Mercury.


I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the
tangent space; what specifically does it buy us; why would we
want to execute this particular transformation? AG


Brent


*I could be mistaken, I usually am, but ISTM that labeling all points 
in spacetime as (t, x, y, z) makes no sense since there is no 
universal clock in GR. Each observer has his own clock in GR. No 
"Bird's Eye" observer GR. So what could the same t for all spatial 
points mean, or increasing t's as time evolves? AG*


The "t" in the 

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-04-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/15/2019 7:14 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent
wrote:



On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:





He might have been referring to a
transformation to a tangent space where the
metric tensor is diagonalized and its
derivative at that point in spacetime is zero.
Does this make any sense?


Sort of.



Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given
coordinate system and some arbitrary point in a
non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non zero
curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor
is generally non-zero at that arbitrary point,
however small we assume the region around that
point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to
the tangent space at that point to diagonalize the
metric tensor and have its derivative as zero at
that point. Does THIS make sense? AG


Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic
of a Riemannian space.

Brent


But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime
points by transforming coordinates has the result of
putting the test particle in local free fall, when it
wasn't prior to the transformation? AG


It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM
forces on it, it will deviate from the geodesic in the
tangent space coordinates.  The transformation is just
adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall which
removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.

Brent


In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces
acting on test particle, I assume the trajectory appears
identical to an external observer, before and after
coordinate transformation to the tangent plane at some point;
all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If
this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can
remove the gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG


You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were
any gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate
system made fictitious forces appear; just like when you use a
merry-go-round as your reference frame you get coriolis forces.


If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of
coordinate system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate
system) how does GR explain motion? Test particles move on
geodesics in the absence of non-gravitational forces, but why do
they move at all? AG


Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG


The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, 
they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct 
which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes 
observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct 
is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

    --—John von Neumann



Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious
gravitational force, and how the other forces function; EM,
Strong, and Weak, which apparently can't be removed by changes in
coordinates systems. AG


It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am 
merely pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with 
the other forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG


That's one possibility, e.g entropic gravity.



What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence
principle.  And of course Einstein's theory also correctly
predicted the bending of light, gravitational waves, time
dilation and the precession of the perhelion of Mercury.


I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent
space; what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to
execute this particular transformation? AG



For one thing, you know the acceleration due to non-gravitational forces 
in this frame.  So you can transform to it, put in the accelerations, 
and transform back.  So all the "gravitation" is in the transform.


Brent

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

Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-04-15 Thread agrayson2000


On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 8:14:35 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space 
>> where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point 
>> in 
>> spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>>
>>
>> Sort of.  
>>
>
>
> Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system 
> and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non 
> zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally 
> non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
> around 
> that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space 
> at 
> that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as 
> zero 
> at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG
>
>
> Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian 
> space.
>
> Brent
>

 But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
 transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in 
 local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 

 It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on it, 
 it will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates.  The 
 transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall 
 which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.

 Brent

>>>
>>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test 
>>> particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external 
>>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane 
>>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If 
>>> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the 
>>> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>>>
>>>
>>> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
>>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious 
>>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference 
>>> frame you get coriolis forces.  
>>>
>>
>> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate 
>> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR 
>> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of 
>> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>>
>
> Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 
>
>>
>> Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational 
>> force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which 
>> apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG
>>
>
> It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely 
> pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other 
> forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG 
>
>>
>>  
>>
>>> What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle.  
>>> And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of 
>>> light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the 
>>> perhelion of Mercury.
>>>
>>
>> I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; 
>> what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this 
>> particular transformation? AG 
>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
*I could be mistaken, I usually am, but ISTM that labeling all points in 
spacetime as (t, x, y, z) makes no sense since there is no universal clock 
in GR. Each observer has his own clock in GR. No "Bird's Eye" observer GR. 
So what could the same t for all spatial points mean, or increasing t's as 
time evolves? AG*

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


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-04-15 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 5:48:23 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:56:08 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2019 9:33 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/2019 4:53 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:37:39 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 4/11/2019 1:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:


>>
> He might have been referring to a transformation to a tangent space 
> where the metric tensor is diagonalized and its derivative at that point 
> in 
> spacetime is zero. Does this make any sense? 
>
>
> Sort of.  
>


 Yeah, that's what he's doing. He's assuming a given coordinate system 
 and some arbitrary point in a non-empty spacetime. So spacetime has a non 
 zero curvature and the derivative of the metric tensor is generally 
 non-zero at that arbitrary point, however small we assume the region 
 around 
 that point. But applying the EEP, we can transform to the tangent space at 
 that point to diagonalize the metric tensor and have its derivative as 
 zero 
 at that point. Does THIS make sense? AG


 Yep.  That's pretty much the defining characteristic of a Riemannian 
 space.

 Brent

>>>
>>> But isn't it weird that changing labels on spacetime points by 
>>> transforming coordinates has the result of putting the test particle in 
>>> local free fall, when it wasn't prior to the transformation? AG 
>>>
>>> It doesn't put it in free-fall.  If the particle has EM forces on it, it 
>>> will deviate from the geodesic in the tangent space coordinates.  The 
>>> transformation is just adapting the coordinates to the local free-fall 
>>> which removes gravity as a force...but not other forces.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> In both cases, with and without non-gravitational forces acting on test 
>> particle, I assume the trajectory appears identical to an external 
>> observer, before and after coordinate transformation to the tangent plane 
>> at some point; all that's changed are the labels of spacetime points. If 
>> this is true, it's still hard to see why changing labels can remove the 
>> gravitational forces. And what does this buy us? AG
>>
>>
>> You're looking at it the wrong way around.  There never were any 
>> gravitational forces, just your choice of coordinate system made fictitious 
>> forces appear; just like when you use a merry-go-round as your reference 
>> frame you get coriolis forces.  
>>
>
> If gravity is a fictitious force produced by the choice of coordinate 
> system, in its absence (due to a change in coordinate system) how does GR 
> explain motion? Test particles move on geodesics in the absence of 
> non-gravitational forces, but why do they move at all? AG
>

Maybe GR assumes motion but doesn't explain it. AG 

>
> Another problem is the inconsistency of the fictitious gravitational 
> force, and how the other forces function; EM, Strong, and Weak, which 
> apparently can't be removed by changes in coordinates systems. AG
>

It's said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I am merely 
pointing out the inconsistency of the gravitational force with the other 
forces. Maybe gravity is just different. AG 

>
>  
>
>> What is gets you is it enforces and explains the equivalence principle.  
>> And of course Einstein's theory also correctly predicted the bending of 
>> light, gravitational waves, time dilation and the precession of the 
>> perhelion of Mercury.
>>
>
> I was referring earlier just to the transformation to the tangent space; 
> what specifically does it buy us; why would we want to execute this 
> particular transformation? AG 
>
>>
>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars 
Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, 
its communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.    
Whether it is "formalizable" or not would seem to depend on choosing the 
right formalization to describe what engineers already create.


Brent

On 4/15/2019 11:28 AM, za_wishy via Everything List wrote:
Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that 
self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of 
self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in 
a theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of 
manifestation of self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical 
structure that eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this 
looking-back-at-itself automatically generates a subjective ontology, 
an "I am". In other words, the very definition of the concept of 
"existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. So, 
existence can only be subjective, so all that can exists is 
consciousness. I talk in the book how the looking-back-at-itself 
implies 3 properties: identity (self-reference is itself, x=x), 
inclusion (self-reference is included in itself, xtranscendence (self-reference is more than itself, x>x). And all these 
apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the same 
time. So, x=x, xx all at the same time. But there is no actual 
contradiction here, because self-reference is unformalizable. The 
reason why I get to such weird conclusions is explored throughout the 
book where a phenomenological analysis of consciousness is done and it 
is shown how it is structured on an emergent holarchy of levels, a 
holarchy meaning that a higher level includes the lower levels, and I 
conclude that this can only happen if there is an entity called 
"self-reference" which has the above mentioned properties. So as you 
can see, there pretty much cannot be a mathematics of self-reference.


I will also present about self-reference at The Science of 
Consciousness conference this year at Interlaken, Switzerland, so if 
you are there we can talk more about these issues.


On Thursday, 11 April 2019 02:55:55 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Cosmin,

It seems your conclusion fits well with the conclusion already
given by the universal machine (the Gödel-Löbian one which are
those who already knows that they are Turing universal, like ZF,
PA, or the combinators + some induction principle).

Self-reference is capital indeed, but you seem to miss the
mathematical theory of self-reference, brought by the work of
Gödel and Löb, and Solovay ultimate formalisation of it at the
first order logic level. You cite Penrose, which is deadly wrong
on this.

In fact incompleteness is a chance for mechanism, as it provides
almost directly a theory of consciousness, if you are willing to
agree that consciousness is true, indubitable, immediately
knowable, non provable and non definable, as each Löbian machine
is confronted to such proposition all the “time”. But this
enforces also, as I have shown, that the whole of physics has to
be justified by some of the modes of self-reference, making
physics into a subbranch of elementary arithmetic. This works in
the sense that at the three places where physics should appear we
get a quantum logic, and this with the advantage of a transparent
clear-cut between the qualia (not sharable) and the quanta
(sharable in the first person plural sense).

You seem to have a good (I mean correct with respect to Mechanism)
insight on consciousness, but you seem to have wrong information
on the theory of the digital machines/numbers and the role of
Gödel. Gödel’s theorem is really a chance for the Mechanist
theory, as it explains that the digital machine are non
predictable, full of non communicable subjective knowledge and
beliefs, and capable of defeating all reductionist theory that we
can made of them. Indeed, they are literally universal dissident,
and they are born with a conflict between 8 modes of
self-apprehension. In my last paper(*) I argue that they can be
enlightened, and this shows also that enlightenment and blasphemy
are very close, and that religion leads easily to a theological
trap making the machine inconsistent, except by staying mute, or
referring to Mechanism (which is itself highly unprovable by the
consistent machine).

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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
"Matter" is just an idea in consciousness.

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


Re: How does one make a topic UNREAD?

2019-04-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:39:34 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I only see an option to make all topics READ. TIA. AG
>

Post a new reply. :)

- pt 

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


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread Philip Thrift


Philip Goff is the primary author of the SEP article on the general subject

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

while he (@Philip_Goff on Twitter, links to his web site and videos there) 
has written on* micropsychism* (also reviewed above)

*Cosmopsychism, Micropsychism and the Grounding Relation*
https://philarchive.org/archive/GOFCMA 

His book (likely mostly what he has been presenting on his Twitter feed in 
the last year) will be called 

 *Galileo's Error*
 *Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness*
 https://www.penguinrandomhouseaudio.com/book/599229/galileos-error/

Goff is in the same "camp" mostly with Galen Strawson

 *Consciousness Isn't a Mystery. It's Matter.*

 
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html
 
Experience is a first-class property of matter. But at what levels and 
configurations of matter is the question.

This is pretty much the opposite of the "emergence" view:

*Panpsychism vs. Emergentism*
https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/#H4


- pt


On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Where can I find Philip Goff's ideas ? Maybe you can summarize them here 
> so we can discuss. But to answer your question, my book deals specifically 
> with the emergent structure of consciousness and the nature of 
> self-reference, so it is a rather specialized book. It is not your everyday 
> "materialism vs idealism" endless debate. In my book I actually do 
> something in moving the science of consciousness further, by doing real 
> science of consciousness. So I guess my book cannot compare too much with 
> other books out there that are wasting energy in endless debates instead of 
> actually doing something.
>
> Btw, I also have a presentation at the Science & Nonduality conference 
> from last year, where I present about The Emergent Structure of 
> Consciousness:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ
>
> On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 08:30:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> Although his book isn't out yet, how do you think your approach compares 
>> to Philip Goff's:
>>
>

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


How does one make a topic UNREAD?

2019-04-15 Thread agrayson2000
I only see an option to make all topics READ. TIA. AG

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


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread za_wishy via Everything List
Hmm... the thing is that what I'm arguing for in the book is that 
self-reference is unformalizable, so there can be no mathematics of 
self-reference. More than this, self-reference is not some concept in a 
theory, but it is us, each and everyone of us is a form of manifestation of 
self-reference. Self-reference is an eternal logical structure that 
eternally looks-back-at-itself. And this looking-back-at-itself 
automatically generates a subjective ontology, an "I am". In other words, 
the very definition of the concept of "existence" is the 
looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. So, existence can only be 
subjective, so all that can exists is consciousness. I talk in the book how 
the looking-back-at-itself implies 3 properties: identity (self-reference 
is itself, x=x), inclusion (self-reference is included in itself, xx). And all these 
apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the same time. So, 
x=x, xx all at the same time. But there is no actual contradiction 
here, because self-reference is unformalizable. The reason why I get to 
such weird conclusions is explored throughout the book where a 
phenomenological analysis of consciousness is done and it is shown how it 
is structured on an emergent holarchy of levels, a holarchy meaning that a 
higher level includes the lower levels, and I conclude that this can only 
happen if there is an entity called "self-reference" which has the above 
mentioned properties. So as you can see, there pretty much cannot be a 
mathematics of self-reference.

I will also present about self-reference at The Science of Consciousness 
conference this year at Interlaken, Switzerland, so if you are there we can 
talk more about these issues.

On Thursday, 11 April 2019 02:55:55 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi Cosmin,
>
> It seems your conclusion fits well with the conclusion already given by 
> the universal machine (the Gödel-Löbian one which are those who already 
> knows that they are Turing universal, like ZF, PA, or the combinators + 
> some induction principle).
>
> Self-reference is capital indeed, but you seem to miss the mathematical 
> theory of self-reference, brought by the work of Gödel and Löb, and Solovay 
> ultimate formalisation of it at the first order logic level. You cite 
> Penrose, which is deadly wrong on this.
>
> In fact incompleteness is a chance for mechanism, as it provides almost 
> directly a theory of consciousness, if you are willing to agree that 
> consciousness is true, indubitable, immediately knowable, non provable and 
> non definable, as each Löbian machine is confronted to such proposition all 
> the “time”. But this enforces also, as I have shown, that the whole of 
> physics has to be justified by some of the modes of self-reference, making 
> physics into a subbranch of elementary arithmetic. This works in the sense 
> that at the three places where physics should appear we get a quantum 
> logic, and this with the advantage of a transparent clear-cut between the 
> qualia (not sharable) and the quanta (sharable in the first person plural 
> sense).
>
> You seem to have a good (I mean correct with respect to Mechanism) insight 
> on consciousness, but you seem to have wrong information on the theory of 
> the digital machines/numbers and the role of Gödel. Gödel’s theorem is 
> really a chance for the Mechanist theory, as it explains that the digital 
> machine are non predictable, full of non communicable subjective knowledge 
> and beliefs, and capable of defeating all reductionist theory that we can 
> made of them. Indeed, they are literally universal dissident, and they are 
> born with a conflict between 8 modes of self-apprehension. In my last 
> paper(*) I argue that they can be enlightened, and this shows also that 
> enlightenment and blasphemy are very close, and that religion leads easily 
> to a theological trap making the machine inconsistent, except by staying 
> mute, or referring to Mechanism (which is itself highly unprovable by the 
> consistent machine).
>
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-04-15 Thread za_wishy via Everything List
Where can I find Philip Goff's ideas ? Maybe you can summarize them here so 
we can discuss. But to answer your question, my book deals specifically 
with the emergent structure of consciousness and the nature of 
self-reference, so it is a rather specialized book. It is not your everyday 
"materialism vs idealism" endless debate. In my book I actually do 
something in moving the science of consciousness further, by doing real 
science of consciousness. So I guess my book cannot compare too much with 
other books out there that are wasting energy in endless debates instead of 
actually doing something.

Btw, I also have a presentation at the Science & Nonduality conference from 
last year, where I present about The Emergent Structure of Consciousness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ

On Tuesday, 9 April 2019 08:30:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Although his book isn't out yet, how do you think your approach compares 
> to Philip Goff's:
>

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


Universal numbers and Game of Thrones

2019-04-15 Thread Philip Thrift

If our physics is in a number, is Game of Thrones physics

*The physics of Game of Thrones*
https://winteriscoming.net/2017/09/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-cant-stop-talking-physics-game-thrones/

in another number?

Or: Is there a a GoT reality?

- pt

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