Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Günther,

On 05 Mar 2009, at 00:50, Günther Greindl wrote:

>
> Bruno,
>
>> Indeed, that would be like if a number could make disappear another
>> number. Even a God cannot do that!
>
> The idea would be rather that some continuations would correspond
> to non-existent numbers, like, say, the natural number between 3 and  
> 4.

I am not sure I understand. If the continuation uses non existent  
numbers, the continuation does not exist, or it is an inconsistent  
continuation, that is a cul-de-sac world. I can prove that 0 = 1, if  
there is a natural number between 3 and 4.
A god cannot make disappear a natural number, nor introduce a natural  
number where there is none. It seems to me.

Best,

Bruno

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




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Günther Greindl]

HI Bruno,

>>> Indeed, that would be like if a number could make disappear another
>>> number. Even a God cannot do that!
>> The idea would be rather that some continuations would correspond
>> to non-existent numbers, like, say, the natural number between 3 and  
>> 4.
> 
> I am not sure I understand. If the continuation uses non existent  
> numbers, the continuation does not exist, or it is an inconsistent  
> continuation, that is a cul-de-sac world. I can prove that 0 = 1, if  
> there is a natural number between 3 and 4.
> A god cannot make disappear a natural number, nor introduce a natural  
> number where there is none. It seems to me.

We are just talking a little past each other. To recap:

I initially meant that it would be possible, in a teleportation 
experiment, that aliens prevent any copies from being instantiated.

You then said that that would be equivalent to making disappear a 
number, which is not possible.

My idea was rather that the instantiations would not correspond to 
numbers in the first place - that is why the aliens could destroy the 
machine (it follows from 3-det that something _had_ to happen to prevent 
successor states which wouldn't correspond to numbers).

So, of course nobody can introduce new numbers - but if there were 
successor states which would require new numbers, that would mean that 
QI is false - there a cul de sacs (modus tollens).

Best Wishes,
Günther

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Günther Greindl]

Hi Stathis,

>> It is at least conceivable that the collection of particles that is me
>> could undergo some environmental interaction such that *all* the
>> following entangled branches decohere into states that do *not* map to
>> the emergent class of "me, being conscious."  Then I would be dead.
> 
> It seems possible, but in that case the QTI would be wrong. Also, it
> isn't clear that the MWI says that everything that can happen, does
> happen, even though that is how it is sometimes characterised.

Indeed, that is what Jonathan (I guess) and I (definitely) have been 
arguing.

In fact, I am quite sure that MWI in it's current form implies that not 
everything (a priori physically plausible) happens - interference of 
histories is (I think) showing us that.

With COMP it is not so clear.

Best Wishes,
Günther

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 05-mars-09, à 11:10, Günther Greindl a écrit :

>
> HI Bruno,
>
 Indeed, that would be like if a number could make disappear another
 number. Even a God cannot do that!
>>> The idea would be rather that some continuations would correspond
>>> to non-existent numbers, like, say, the natural number between 3 and
>>> 4.
>>
>> I am not sure I understand. If the continuation uses non existent
>> numbers, the continuation does not exist, or it is an inconsistent
>> continuation, that is a cul-de-sac world. I can prove that 0 = 1, if
>> there is a natural number between 3 and 4.
>> A god cannot make disappear a natural number, nor introduce a natural
>> number where there is none. It seems to me.
>
> We are just talking a little past each other. To recap:
>
> I initially meant that it would be possible, in a teleportation
> experiment, that aliens prevent any copies from being instantiated.
>
> You then said that that would be equivalent to making disappear a
> number, which is not possible.
>
> My idea was rather that the instantiations would not correspond to
> numbers in the first place

But that would violate the comp assumption.



> - that is why the aliens could destroy the
> machine (it follows from 3-det that something _had_ to happen to 
> prevent
> successor states which wouldn't correspond to numbers).


But machines are secondary. The "physical machines" are pattern 
emerging in the mind of persons themselves emerging from the relation 
between numbers. I don't see how aliens could manage a machine not to 
have successors.



>
> So, of course nobody can introduce new numbers - but if there were
> successor states which would require new numbers, that would mean that
> QI is false - there a cul de sacs (modus tollens).

If a successor state requires something impossible, *that* successor 
state will be impossible, but it does not mean there will not be other 
successor states, indeed, for mind corresponding on machine's state, a 
continuum of successor states exists.

Best,

Bruno



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


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Bruno Marchal]

Le 05-mars-09, à 11:15, Günther Greindl a écrit :

>
> Hi Stathis,
>
>>> It is at least conceivable that the collection of particles that is 
>>> me
>>> could undergo some environmental interaction such that *all* the
>>> following entangled branches decohere into states that do *not* map 
>>> to
>>> the emergent class of "me, being conscious."  Then I would be dead.
>>
>> It seems possible, but in that case the QTI would be wrong. Also, it
>> isn't clear that the MWI says that everything that can happen, does
>> happen, even though that is how it is sometimes characterised.
>
> Indeed, that is what Jonathan (I guess) and I (definitely) have been
> arguing.


We agree. The MWI does forbid world in which 1 = 0. Many things remains 
impossible in the MWI.


>
> In fact, I am quite sure that MWI in it's current form implies that not
> everything (a priori physically plausible) happens - interference of
> histories is (I think) showing us that.

Sure. But note that "a lot of things happens", including the white 
rabbits and aberrant histories. Quantum intefrence and decoherence 
explains why those aberrant histories are relatively rare.

>
> With COMP it is not so clear.

Something subtle happens with comp. The "scientist" cannot prevent the 
apparition of cul-de-sac everywhere, but this is the reason that he has 
to abandon science for theology once he decide to compute 
probabilities. he will does that by defining the probability by an 
explicit appeal to self-consistency (= the move from Bp to Bp & Dt; the 
"Dt" suppresses the cul-de-sac). With comp, to believe in a next 
instant or in a successor state is already based on an act of faith. 
But this makes a strong restriction of what is possible, and harder to 
eliminate the white rabbits. Cf, with comp we have to derive QM. We 
just cannot assume it.

Bruno





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


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/3/5 Bruno Marchal :

> Sure. But note that "a lot of things happens", including the white
> rabbits and aberrant histories. Quantum intefrence and decoherence
> explains why those aberrant histories are relatively rare.

Could it be that some things which seem physically possible, like the
matter in my keyboard spontaneously rearranging itself into a
miniature fire-breathing dragon, are actually impossible under MWI,
i.e. don't occur in any branch of the multiverse?



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Mar 2009, at 12:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

>
> 2009/3/5 Bruno Marchal :
>
>> Sure. But note that "a lot of things happens", including the white
>> rabbits and aberrant histories. Quantum intefrence and decoherence
>> explains why those aberrant histories are relatively rare.
>
> Could it be that some things which seem physically possible, like the
> matter in my keyboard spontaneously rearranging itself into a
> miniature fire-breathing dragon, are actually impossible under MWI,
> i.e. don't occur in any branch of the multiverse?


If we take seriously *classical* quantum mechanics into account, or  
even *special relativistic quantum mechanics* into account, I don't  
see how we could prevent such happening (your keyboard becoming a  
dragon) in the multiverse. It just follows from the math. Of course  
the probability that your keyboard become a firing dragon in your  
branch is much little than winning the big lottery every nanosecond  
during 100^100 millennia. The main reason is that in such theories  
position and momentum are described by continuous variables, and the  
quantum splitting or observers differentiation operate on the  
continuum. They are even a continuum of variant among your possible  
dragons, but this remains relatively rare.

Of course we have good reason to dismiss both classical quantum  
mechanics and special relativistic mechanics as the "real theory",  
given that they "forget" the unavoidable problem of quantization of  
gravitation, and thus of space-time.

If we take into account gravitation, we have a choice of theories on  
which physicists are still debating a lot. I would say that with the  
"superstring" sort of theories, the multiverse generates still a  
continuum of differentiation of stories, and that keyboard-dragon  
transformation will still happen in many branches (but will still be  
very rare, for the same reason as above). If we take the Loop-Gravity  
kind of theories, then gravitation (which curves space-time) is  
properly quantized, and we get eventually a discrete space-time. In  
that case, if we add the assumption that the physical universe is  
sufficiently little, it may be that the keyboard-dragon transformation  
does not occur, in the resulting finite or enumerable multiverse. Now,  
*this* would be a problem for comp, because comp implies indeed that  
everything consistent happens somewhere indeed (unless Günther is  
right and that some comp super-selection rule applies, but I don't see  
where such super-selection could come from).

Of course keyboard-dragon types of transformations are utterly NOT  
verifiable, even in the ironical first person way of quantum or comp  
suicide. If you decide to kill yourself until your keyboard transforms  
itself into a firing dragon, a "simple" evaluation of the  
probabilities will show that you have 99,... % of chance of  
surviving only with a brain making you believing that such a  
transformation has occurred, when it has not. It is the general  
practical weakness of comp or quantum suicide: if you ask for  
something *near-impossible",  suicide will send you in dreamland (1  
person view), and probably in a asylum (3 person view).


Bruno



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




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[russell standish]

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 04:10:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Of course keyboard-dragon types of transformations are utterly NOT  
> verifiable, even in the ironical first person way of quantum or comp  
> suicide. If you decide to kill yourself until your keyboard transforms  
> itself into a firing dragon, a "simple" evaluation of the  
> probabilities will show that you have 99,... % of chance of  
> surviving only with a brain making you believing that such a  
> transformation has occurred, when it has not. It is the general  
> practical weakness of comp or quantum suicide: if you ask for  
> something *near-impossible",  suicide will send you in dreamland (1  
> person view), and probably in a asylum (3 person view).
> 

Excellent point! 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics  
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]

[Brent Meeker]

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 05 Mar 2009, at 12:43, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 
>> 2009/3/5 Bruno Marchal :
>>
>>> Sure. But note that "a lot of things happens", including the white
>>> rabbits and aberrant histories. Quantum intefrence and decoherence
>>> explains why those aberrant histories are relatively rare.
>> Could it be that some things which seem physically possible, like the
>> matter in my keyboard spontaneously rearranging itself into a
>> miniature fire-breathing dragon, are actually impossible under MWI,
>> i.e. don't occur in any branch of the multiverse?
> 
> 
> If we take seriously *classical* quantum mechanics into account, or  
> even *special relativistic quantum mechanics* into account, I don't  
> see how we could prevent such happening (your keyboard becoming a  
> dragon) in the multiverse. It just follows from the math. Of course  
> the probability that your keyboard become a firing dragon in your  
> branch is much little than winning the big lottery every nanosecond  
> during 100^100 millennia. The main reason is that in such theories  
> position and momentum are described by continuous variables, and the  
> quantum splitting or observers differentiation operate on the  
> continuum. They are even a continuum of variant among your possible  
> dragons, but this remains relatively rare.
> 
> Of course we have good reason to dismiss both classical quantum  
> mechanics and special relativistic mechanics as the "real theory",  
> given that they "forget" the unavoidable problem of quantization of  
> gravitation, and thus of space-time.
> 
> If we take into account gravitation, we have a choice of theories on  
> which physicists are still debating a lot. I would say that with the  
> "superstring" sort of theories, the multiverse generates still a  
> continuum of differentiation of stories, and that keyboard-dragon  
> transformation will still happen in many branches (but will still be  
> very rare, for the same reason as above). If we take the Loop-Gravity  
> kind of theories, then gravitation (which curves space-time) is  
> properly quantized, and we get eventually a discrete space-time. In  
> that case, if we add the assumption that the physical universe is  
> sufficiently little, it may be that the keyboard-dragon transformation  
> does not occur, in the resulting finite or enumerable multiverse. 

This is what I've suggested before.  There may be a smallest non-zero 
probability, so quantum evolution is not strictly unitary and after sufficient 
decoherence the off diagonal terms of the reduced density matrix become 
strictly 
zero.

Brent

>Now,  
> *this* would be a problem for comp, because comp implies indeed that  
> everything consistent happens somewhere indeed (unless Günther is  
> right and that some comp super-selection rule applies, but I don't see  
> where such super-selection could come from).
> 
> Of course keyboard-dragon types of transformations are utterly NOT  
> verifiable, even in the ironical first person way of quantum or comp  
> suicide. If you decide to kill yourself until your keyboard transforms  
> itself into a firing dragon, a "simple" evaluation of the  
> probabilities will show that you have 99,... % of chance of  
> surviving only with a brain making you believing that such a  
> transformation has occurred, when it has not. It is the general  
> practical weakness of comp or quantum suicide: if you ask for  
> something *near-impossible",  suicide will send you in dreamland (1  
> person view), and probably in a asylum (3 person view).
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started

[m.a.]

Bruno,
   I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan Forrester has 
commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly would be interested in 
their views. A theory that has execised some of the best minds on this list for 
months on end certainly deserves serious consideration. Best,


martin a.



- Original Message - 
From: "Bruno Marchal" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started



> Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have
> hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable.


I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et  
Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not  
receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have  
*never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of  
their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and  
even more after the paradoxical price in Paris.

I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far  
beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if  
only because that story is not finished.
My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It  
took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then.

I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then  get  
myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels  
to Paris!

It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels,  
that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels  
that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance,  
not even getting out of Belgium.
In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much  
simple",  and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some  
place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings,  
except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat  
you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few  
understand so it is easy to say "not serious").

The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It  
is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible,  
from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is  
only one, very clever, but very bad,  guy.
Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on  
other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards",  
as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures.

I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can  
exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect  
their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I  
estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize  
what happened.
And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which  
understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably  
wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which  
explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with  
people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked  
many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people  
takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work.  
Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA.

UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you  
understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is  
excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and  
between disciplines, rumors circulate more quickly than "scientific  
bridge",  which often makes people feeling being aggressed on their  
territories. Even more so when the work approaches question  
traditionally qualified as "philosophical".

My initial power comes from the fact that in 1977, I did abandoned,  
for bad reasons (but it will take many years to understand that), the  
idea of doing academic research, and so I did come back to the very  
fundamental questioning I have always been living. I didn't and don't  
complain (my weakness probably).
And it is the Academy, 20 years later, which will push me back again,  
and again. I have never submitted publications by myself. All have  
been asked by people, having heard I said something new, sometimes  
insisting gently. Nowadays, since those events, even ordered paper (or  
jobs) get jeopardized quickly. Last year I was asked to write a paper  
for a book in homage to the late logician Jean Ladrière, (who offered  
to me its formidable book on Gödel theorems: Les limitations internes  
des formalismes"), and then ... nothing again. I am used to it.

Thanks for your interest,

Bruno

http://iridia.ul

Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started

[Colin Hales]

Hi Bruno,
I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, 
guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and 
co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called 
"rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I 
have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a 
god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress 
to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or 
knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those 
who frolic in ideas sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have 
made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than 
adequate  - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny- 
and it doesn't feel good.

see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist file 
store.

So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-)

cheers,
Colin


m.a. wrote:
> *Bruno,*
> *   I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan 
> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly 
> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some of 
> the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves 
> serious consideration. Best,*
> 
> 
> *martin a.*
> ** 
> ** 
> ** 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruno Marchal" mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
> To:  >
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
>
>
> > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have
> > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable.
>
>
> I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et 
> Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not 
> receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have 
> *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of 
> their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and 
> even more after the paradoxical price in Paris.
>
> I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far 
> beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if 
> only because that story is not finished.
> My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It 
> took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then.
>
> I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then  get 
> myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels 
> to Paris!
>
> It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, 
> that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels 
> that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, 
> not even getting out of Belgium.
> In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much 
> simple",  and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some 
> place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, 
> except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat 
> you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few 
> understand so it is easy to say "not serious").
>
> The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It 
> is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, 
> from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is 
> only one, very clever, but very bad,  guy.
> Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on 
> other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", 
> as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures.
>
> I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can 
> exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect 
> their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I 
> estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize 
> what happened.
> And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which 
> understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably 
> wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which 
> explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with 
> people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked 
> many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people 
> takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work. 
> Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA.
>
> UDA is almost easy, but not so easy. AUDA is very *simple*, once you 
> understand enough standard logic (which I have discovered is 
> excessively rare). The whole thing is strongly interdisciplinary, and 
> between disciplines,

Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started

[Colin Hales]

The file. sorry  use *Rejection 101.pdf*
enjoy!
colin


Colin Hales wrote:
> Hi Bruno,
> I feel your angst. The received view is a blunt and frightened beast, 
> guarded by the ignorant and uncreative in wily protection of turf and 
> co-conspirator. I recently did a powerpoint presentation called 
> "rejection 101". It sounds like you have been through exactly what I 
> have been through - except on a geological timescale that would tire a 
> god. Although I am starting to make progress... I regard that progress 
> to be achieved in spite of them, not because of their vision or 
> knowledge. The science I thought I was going to find was full of those 
> who frolic in ideas sadly I was mistaken. Now, when I think I have 
> made progress - I know that progress to be mediated by the less than 
> adequate  - and promulgated by momentum rather than incisive scrutiny- 
> and it doesn't feel good.
>
> see file *2008_Thu_23_Oct.pdf * in the googlegroups everythinglist 
> file store.
>
> So Amoebas speak english now, eh? Excellent. :-)
>
> cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> m.a. wrote:
>> *Bruno,*
>> *   I've often wondered why neither Dr. Deutsch nor Alan 
>> Forrester has commented on your theory of UDA and AUDA. I certainly 
>> would be interested in their views. A theory that has execised some 
>> of the best minds on this list for months on end certainly deserves 
>> serious consideration. Best,*
>> 
>> 
>> *martin a.*
>> ** 
>> ** 
>> ** 
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Bruno Marchal" mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>> To: > >
>> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
>>
>>
>> > Even with politics operating behind the scene (which you have
>> > hinted), I can't imagine that nothing of the work is publishable.
>>
>>
>> I already discussed proposition of publishing "Conscience et 
>> Mécanisme" with three publishers, before my thesis was judged not 
>> receivable (meaning no private defense, nor public defense, I have 
>> *never* met those who criticize, not even my work, but a product of 
>> their imagination). Then silence, even after the defense in Lille, and 
>> even more after the paradoxical price in Paris.
>>
>> I cannot explain. Or I can explain except that here reality is far 
>> beyond fiction as usual, but also more sad, and rather delicate if 
>> only because that story is not finished.
>> My life is more unbelievable than any thing I assert in my works. It 
>> took me 22 years to understand what happened in 1977, and since then.
>>
>> I feel responsible to let them build they own trap, and then  get 
>> myself a bit worried seeing them to protect themselves from Brussels 
>> to Paris!
>>
>> It is not because I have done an "original work" (say) in Brussels, 
>> that I got problems there. It is because I got problems in Brussels 
>> that I have done an original work. In 1977, they give me no chance, 
>> not even getting out of Belgium.
>> In 1994, my work was criticize vaguely as "not original", "too much 
>> simple",  and then "delirious". And now already "not from him" in some 
>> place. Which again shows the problems is not related with my findings, 
>> except it belongs to the kind of things you can easily use to treat 
>> you as a fool (Gödel's theorem, Quantum mechanics, consciousness: few 
>> understand so it is easy to say "not serious").
>>
>> The little scandal has grown up all the time and is too big, now. It 
>> is the kind of manipulation which makes everyone feel responsible, 
>> from corporatist reflex to corporatist reflex, when actually there is 
>> only one, very clever, but very bad,  guy.
>> Now that "little scandal" has become big enough to throw light on 
>> other really bigger scandals. There are "cadavres dans les placards", 
>> as we say in French (corpses hidden in boxes). Mean of pressures.
>>
>> I still believe in academies, but like in School "serial killer" can 
>> exist. When you see the time made by religious institution to protect 
>> their member of their hierarchy from their much grave behavior, I 
>> estimate it could take a long time if ever to understand and recognize 
>> what happened.
>> And I have no problem with serious academicians and scientists which 
>> understand enough to understand it is "serious", even if probably 
>> wrong, which I have myself never ceased to believe plausible (which 
>> explains why I am eager to discuss the validity of the UDA steps, with 
>> people interested). I did defend the work as PhD thesis. I was asked 
>> many questions, I answered them and everyone got the idea. Some people 
>> takes time, but most get enough to trust the interest of the work. 
>> Still today, few get both UDA and AUDA.
>>
>> UDA is almost easy, but not 

Re: language, cloning and thought experiments

[Jack Mallah]

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, Wei Dai  wrote:
> Jack, welcome back.

Hi Wei.

Now that the interesting Consciousness Online web conference is over, it's time 
to get back to the this.
http://consciousnessonline.wordpress.com/

BTW, I have to say that the qualia issue remains mysterious to me.  It's hard 
to see how e.g. color qualia can arise, whether by math or not.  So the dualism 
idea is not as easy to dismiss as we tend to think.  OTOH I still think dualism 
is not plausible - it would be quite a coincidence for 
nonmaterial/nonmathematical properties to exist that happen to be exactly like 
the properties that material/mathematical creatures tend to believe they have.  
So what are qualia?

> The ASSA/RSSA and QTI debates can be rephrased as whether U should equal M*Q, 
> or just Q, but that is an "ought" question.

No.  First, I don't agree that the real question is what the utility function 
is or should be.  The real question is whether the measure, M, is conserved or 
whether it decreases.  It's just that a lot of people don't understand what 
that means.

The next point is that while U=M*Q is perfectly well defined, U=Q is not, and I 
don't know what you mean by it.

OK, you might ask "huh?" when I say that.  What I mean is that M*Q is just a 
caricature of a utility function but should obviously be generalized to the 
case of multiple types of observations by using Sum_i M_i Q_i.

There is no corresponding generalization for Q.  You could use Sum_i Q_i, but 
in that case the sum is just a constant that does not depend on the physical 
situation (which determines the measure distribution over observation types, 
M_i; and in the the MWI the M_i will all be nonzero) and in that case no 
decision you could make would matter at all, so that can't be what you mean.

Probably what you have in mind is some kind of Q_average, where the average is 
over observations by the same person, but personal identity is not well-defined.

--- On Wed, 2/25/09, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> If you're not worried about the fair trade, then to be consistent you 
> shouldn't be worried about the unfair trade either. In the fair trade, one 
> version of you A disappears overnight, and a new version of you B is created 
> elsewhere in the morning. The unfair trade is the same, except that there is 
> an extra version of you A' which disappears overnight. Now why should the 
> *addition* of another version make you nervous when you wouldn't have been 
> nervous otherwise?

It's not the addition of the other copy that's the problem; it's the loss of 
it.  Losing people is bad.

> That Riker's measure increased is not the important thing here: it is that 
> the two Rikers differentiated. Killing one of them after they had 
> differentiated would be wrong, but killing one of them before they had 
> differentiated would be OK.

That would be equivalent to U = Sum_i Q_i in which no changes in the 
wavefunction matter at all, since M_i > 0 for all i no matter what.  I don't 
think you thought that one through.




  


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---