Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:42:18PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:20:57 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Yeah, but despite Chopra there was Linde is seems to be a reliable. physicist. Also, the dismissive crap performed by number crunchers, dismiss it because it merely offends their sense of...conventionality. Outside of  Bruno, and Young, Standish, nobody else here is employed as an academician

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

On 9/16/2019 7:49 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, > because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to

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

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:41:26 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, > > because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I > > suppose it could be told to do bad

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:20:57 PM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously posted, an > > uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 12:19 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, > some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. > Check it out. It will either be a good

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Agnostic, Mind-Brain thing is good with me. According to a brief article, some theorists have mused about consciousness in the absence of matter. Check it out. It will either be a good laugh for you, but once in a while, the 'lofty' stuff works for me.  -Original Message- From: Bruce

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Speaking of the observable being just a sliver, I wonder if this article is worth consideration? It's a consciousness thing, which seems to be in opposition to matter, if I read correctly? There are a few other physicists for the worthies here, to defame, so it might be a bit of fun?

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 08:25:06PM -0700, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Whether they're boring or not is irrelevant. As I previously posted, an > uncountable infinity of universes is possible without any repeats. AG  > Incorrect. Each world has a finite amount of information that defines it, and

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:39 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic > bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine > intelligence to make this happen,

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

It would be (will be?) interesting when we achieve this. Serious, academic bench computer scientists are actively working on variations of machine intelligence to make this happen, money to be made. Are you stating that making a hyper-smart machine is impossible? Are you a spiritualist? A

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/16/2019 2:54 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: /> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM *and* Relativity, people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its justification

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be > good with you, because, non-human? > > Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with

Re: Quantum immortality

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 3:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > On 9/15/2019 6:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > And memory is fallible, and memory of age has no more meaning when your > age is

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:22 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> When physics began to give non-intuitive results, in QM and Relativity, > people when overboard. Now any patently absurd result finds its > justification among true believers.* > And in this context "patently absurd" means odd, not

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

Yes, Bruno, it's all axiomatic. Having said this, we can do away with MWI by simply calling it all, an infinite (my term is near-infinite, a non sequitur), and we still hypothetically receive the same results as chaotic inflation, or the happy Hugh Everett, dance of worlds. From trans-cosmic

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On 9/16/2019 6:22 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical physics,

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Oh My! I'll simply have to delete my un-read download of Carroll's book because Woit disapproves!!!   -Original Message- From: Philip Thrift To: Everything List Sent: Mon, Sep 16, 2019 9:28 am Subject: Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is On Monday, September

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

So, if we develop AI to come up with new, better, equations, this would be good with you, because, non-human?  Perhaps he could usefully have added: "nor to be in perfect harmony with any humanly devised equation." Bruce -Original Message- From: Bruce Kellett To: everything-list

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

On 9/16/2019 6:07 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: My take on AI; it's no more dangerous than present day computers, because it has no WILL, and can only do what it's told to do. I suppose it could be told to do bad things, and if it has inherent defenses, it can't be stopped, like Gort in The Day

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On 9/16/2019 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As I said I my other post, it is just Descartes’ idea that our body obeys laws which are locally computable, made precise by using Turing mathematical definition of computability. It is the hypothesis that there no magic happening in the brain,

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

On 9/16/2019 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Sep 2019, at 06:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: 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

Re: Observation versus assumption

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *that is your act of faith, and* [...] > That is my cue to skip to the next paragraph. > >> Faster Than Light? Faster? The very concept of speed is meaningless in > the context of pure numbers because speed is change in distance

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On 9/16/2019 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 09:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself. Ok, but we clearly have some common ground. I can send you this message and you can read it. Here's my simplistic /

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 11:31:26 AM UTC-6, Jason wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 AM Alan Grayson > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:58, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > 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

Re: Quantum immortality

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 05:51, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > 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,

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:31 AM Alan Grayson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ >> > > Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 02:46, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > 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. Hmm… I will criticise this on two levels. 1) there

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 21:02, Jason Resch 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: > > > On

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 17:58, Jason Resch 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: > > > On

Re: Quantum immortality

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:18:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > *With mechanism* [...] > > > Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two > words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:00:46 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:22, Alan Grayson > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:08:23 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:26 PM Alan Grayson >> wrote: >> >> >>> *> Carroll

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 14 Sep 2019, at 08:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > > Am 13.09.2019 um 03:11 schrieb spudboy100 via Everything List: >> On that Evgenii, we do concur. Yet, big companies or big governments >> probably head to this guy's door, if they need something to ask?Now, that >> may not be a big deal

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 14 Sep 2019, at 05:22, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:08:23 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:26 PM Alan Grayson > wrote: > > > Carroll also believes that IF the universe is infinite, then there must > > exist exact copies of

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 23:44, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 6:24:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 7:11:30 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote: >> >> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a >>> failure of theoretical physics,

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:58:58 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a >> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both. >> > > And I think the above

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 6:11:30 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark > wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > > wrote: >> >> > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a >>> failure of theoretical physics,

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

On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 4:06:33 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > Just 4 years ago 700 AI programs competed against each other and tried to > pass a 8th-Grade multiple choice Science Test and win a $80,000 prize, but > they all flunked, the best one only got 59.3% of the questions

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:57, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that >> we are from the same species. > > Isn't "species" just an idea in

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that > we are from the same species. Isn't "species" just an idea in consciousness? I'm trying to score a joke at your expense, I really don't

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:40, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 6:17:12 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > Carroll is in irreversible mental decline. He's lost contact with reality. > Sad case. I stand by my assessment. He doesn't even understand basic linear >

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

But is trivial that there is interpersonal communication given the fact that we are from the same species. On Monday, 16 September 2019 15:09:20 UTC+3, telmo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. >

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:28, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:18:50 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 00:44, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:44:51 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

> On 13 Sep 2019, at 15:24, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:24:11 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 13 Sep 2019, at 04:26, Alan Grayson > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 at 11:01:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> On

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 7:49 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *"Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.* > And "consciousness" is just the way data feels when it is being processed. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Quantum immortality

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 8:34 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *With mechanism* [...] Bruno, I really wish you wouldn't start long paragraphs with those two words because when you do I don't know if I agree with you or not. Please be more specific and spell out exactly what assumptions you're starting

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:58 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a >> failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both. >> > > And I think the above demonstrates a lack of

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 11:49, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. Perhaps. But so what? Do you agree or not that there is interpersonal communication going on? If you do agree, then how do you explain the common ground between your

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:49 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a > failure of theoretical physics, or philosophy, or both. > And I think the above demonstrates a lack of courage to face the possibility that reality may be structured in

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

"Brain" 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 view this

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

> On 16 Sep 2019, at 06:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > 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

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

> On 15 Sep 2019, at 14:51, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 10:07:28 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: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019, at 09:32, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself. Ok, but we clearly have some common ground. I can send you this message and you can read it. Here's my simplistic / informal understanding of what is going on... Like

Re: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

Any consciousness that invents that idea in itself. On Sunday, 15 September 2019 23:28:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote: > > You mean human consciousness or something bigger? > > > -Original Message- > From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > > To: Everything List > > Sent: Sun, Sep

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:41:41 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is > > > John K Clark > "Many Worlds" (as demonstrated via Sean Carroll here) demonstrates a failure of theoretical

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 1:23:09 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:13:27PM -0700, 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

Re: Another physicist in mental decline (Sean Carroll)

On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 10:45:41 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/ > Jason; it turns out you were right about the consensus among cosmologists; that the universe is thought to be *flat*. But I am

Re: Entropy of early universe

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 10:13:27PM -0700, 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: Entropy of early universe

On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 11:07 AM Alan Grayson wrote: *> Here's an easier question: when Boltzmann defined entropy as S = k * log > N, why the log; why not just k*N? AG* > Because if you define Entropy with a log in there then it is additive for independent sources; the Entropy of a coin toss

Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is 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