Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On 9/15/2019 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why would it even have a simple goal like "survive”? It is a short code which makes the organism better for eating and avoiding being eaten. An organism needs to eat and avoid being eaten because that what evolution selects.  AIs don't evolve by

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 6:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If in H you are multiplied in W and M, but directly killed in M, you survive in W with probability one. That is why we add p or <>t to []p to transform the logic of belief ([]p) into a probability logic ([]p & <>t). Suppose you live a few seconds

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote:

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:03:06 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

My guess is among the physics community, most, would be mildly, skeptical of MWI, because it's a bridge too far to get evidence of, as yet and thus, unconcerned. Having said this, many cosmologists are still having a cat fight about the Hubble Constant (The rate of cosmological expansion). my

Re: A modest proposal

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:50:18 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:18 PM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > >>The Schrodinger wave equation says the ticket is printed in every >>> possible way and the winning number is picked in every possible way, but >>> that's not

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 5:46:13 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Sean Carroll's many-selves >> > > And the good news is ... the one in this world is going bald. AG > And (many would say)

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 3:34:10 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > Sean Carroll's many-selves > And the good news is ... the one in this world is going bald. AG > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo > > > > @philipthrift > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

Sean Carroll's many-selves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsXCwUsuvKo @philipthrift On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:45:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ > -- You received this message because

Re: Quantum immortality

On 9/15/2019 5:54 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 9/13/2019 4:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett > a écrit :

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 03:17, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:24 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > *> I really couldn't follow this paper - many worlds (of QM) vs. >> multiverse (of cosmology) seemed all mixed up.* >> > > I think the guy is a bit of an idiot. He starts off badly by

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

You mean human consciousness or something bigger?  -Original Message- From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List To: Everything List Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2019 7:39 am Subject: Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic The reason is much simpler: "Physics" is just an idea in

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

Well, if consciousness is wholly indexical (the original word by Liebniz)  why not then have a mechanism for data transfer to another cosmos, to the clone, the nearest, closest, continuer? Yeah, this only confuses things, but it's an idea by the cell biologist Bob Lanza 20 years ago.

Re: A modest proposal

If we've got a hard to limit, Set, then more or less, is 'good enough for government work!' Also, shall I invoke the old notion of an infinite universe, or even (by our standards) near, infinite? It does the same thing that MWI does, and doesn't require quantum mechanics.  -Original

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

That's genius, Evgenii, sheer, unadulterated, genius!   -Original Message- From: Evgenii Rudnyi To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Sep 14, 2019 2:09 am Subject: Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll) Am 13.09.2019 um 03:11 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List: > On that

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:05 PM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On Sun,

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:24 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> I really couldn't follow this paper - many worlds (of QM) vs. multiverse > (of cosmology) seemed all mixed up.* > I think the guy is a bit of an idiot. He starts off badly by equating intelligence and consciousness and then it gets worse

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 9:58:53 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 10:08:00 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:45 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> and COOLER after 380,000 years had elapsed. All of the foregoing makes a >>> decent case for a universe which was very very tiny right after the BB.

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:45 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > and COOLER after 380,000 years had elapsed. All of the foregoing makes a >> decent case for a universe which was very very tiny right after the BB. >> AG >> > > I still see no connection between the temperature at time

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 7:36 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 12:12, PGC wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:36:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> Let us discuss ideas, and if you

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 20:55, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:21 PM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > See papers by handy, or the book by Odifreddy, > > Can the papers by handy or the book by Odifreddy make a calculation? If not > why not? Because it is a

Re: A modest proposal

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:18 PM Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>The Schrodinger wave equation says the ticket is printed in every >> possible way and the winning number is picked in every possible way, but >> that's not all you yourself are also a quantum object so

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 3:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:51, smitra wrote: >>> >>> Back to basics. There exists a universal wavefunction that evolves >>> according to the Schrodinger equation.

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 10:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 6:38 PM Bruce Kellett > > wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:55 AM Jason Resch >

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:51:55 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:51:01 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> *Bruno seems to think that if some imaginary entity is "computable", it > can and must exist as a "physical" entity -- which is why I

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 22:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 4:18 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 13:16, Bruce Kellett > > a écrit : >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:49 PM Bruno Marchal >

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:51:01 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 9:07:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> The only thing I can ascribe consciousness to with absolute certainty is

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 7:02:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:11, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > >> >> It seems though that while I was referencing a material >> pan[propto]psychism - where elementary constituents of matter that ends up >> in an integrated

Re: A modest proposal

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:13:02 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/14/2019 1:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 7:28 AM Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > t*hat classical probability for a winning ticket is determined by some >> quantum superposition of states that

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 6:36:25 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 1:01:23 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson >>> wrote: >>>

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:53, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 2:14 AM Quentin Anciaux > wrote: > > > Wel if by "dualist soul" you mean something immaterial about our > > consciousness (like I don't know information) can be duplicated then yes it > > is

Re: An AI can now pass a 12th-Grade Science Test

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 23:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 9/13/2019 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 12 Sep 2019, at 06:52, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/11/2019 9:33 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at

Re: "The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience" (John Horgan)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 13:11, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:25:16 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 11 Sep 2019, at 20:47, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 11:02:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 10

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

The reason is much simpler: "Physics" 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

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 12:13:27 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> If the early universe, say before the emergence of the CMBR, consisted of >> a random collection of electrons and photons, wouldn't this

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 5:36:54 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 9 Sep 2019, at 13:07, PGC > wrote: > > > > On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 1:48:41 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Let us discuss ideas, and if you disagree with one thing I say, it would >> be nice to

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 12:02 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:06 PM Alan Grayson wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:46:27 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: On