David Deutsch interview
Interview of physicist David Deutsch by science journalist John Horgan http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/3 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On 25 Sep 2011, at 08:20, meekerdb wrote: On 9/24/2011 6:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: I said explicitly that exist means to be in the ontology of some model, and so it is always relative to that model (and similarly for nonexistent). Bruno's shown how the physical world is part of the same model that includes the integers. I don't think so. He has shown that computation with the integers is very rich and if you assume your thoughts are just instances of digital computation then the appearance of the physical world can be explained in terms of them. I don't show this. I show that if we assume mechanism, then we have to explained the physical world in term of integers/combinators/universal machine. I submit a problem. In fact I show that with mechanism, the mind-body problem becomes an arithmetical body problem. The interview of the machine gives hints of the solution. Bruno But this is a rather weak sense of 'explain', since it can also explain completely different worlds. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 . 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-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:08, meekerdb wrote: On 9/25/2011 10:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes, it would generate every possible information state, and would therefore create me and all my possible futures, but these 'pictures' would have no coherence, would immediately dissolve back into the static they emerged from. The point is that IF we are machine, then we have no choice other than extracting the physical laws from the UD. Actually I think we do. If what you write above is correct then you could infer a contradiction from assuming a primitive physics - but it seems you discard it as an application of Occam's razor, not as a contradictory concept. Do you think you can prove a contradiction from assuming ur-matter? I obtain an epistemological contradiction. You can still imagine that there is some matter, but it can't be related at all to your consciousness, so it is exactly like invisible horse (except that such invisible horse can be defined, and primitive matter is never defined). Such a matter has nothing to do with anything we observe. That is the point. We already reach it with just the seven first step, with a strong use of Occam razor. The step 8 just eliminates that strong use, for the weak use equivalent with the invisible horse. It seems to me that Peter Jones has given a convincing defense of that as a possible theory of the world. I have criticized in detail. You can search my reply to Jones, and criticize it. This is done in the mathematical part, where, contrary to all expectations (at least by some of my colleagues at the time) we get already quantum logics. The UD, as a generator of static, cannot explain coherence in my experience. You need a theory of knowledge. I use the most classical theory of knowledge (the one by Theaetetus), and it is enough to cut any easy conclusion against mechanism. This is unclear to me. You use Bp p to denote knowing p where p is some proposition. But it seems that B is equivocally Believes and Proves (Beweisbar). I don't see that these two are identical. B = provable = rationally believable. What I say works for any belief notion for a machine (or a Recursively enumerable set of sentences) close for the modus ponens rules, and arithmetically sound. That is what I call the ideally self-referentially correct machine. They are example of what I call Löbian machines. To extract physics, it would be useless to interview inconsistent or unsound machines. 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-list@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: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On 26 Sep 2011, at 01:35, meekerdb wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what QM explains the most elegantly and successfully, but this is besides my point). But you are coherent: if you want materialism, you will need a non turing emulable theory of matter, and of mind. Good luck, because it needs already some amount of work to conceive something not Turing emulable in math, and in physics, it is even more difficult. But QM is based on complex numbers over the reals, which are already not Turing emulable. QM does not use non constructive or non computable numbers. The use of real numbers is just the usual simplification. In the application it does not matter if we use real or rational numbers (real numbers are not observed in nature, how could we?). A non computable physical phenomena would be like e^iCt, with C a precise non computable numbers (like Chaitin's omega, for example). If we are machine, we cannot distinguish a non computable phenomena from a very complex (more complex than us) computable phenomena. 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-list@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: David Eagleman on CHOICE
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: An interesting talk relevant to what constitutes an observer moment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VQ1KI_Jh1QNR=1 Even if the experience is smeared out over time and has a complex relationship to real world events it could still be the case that it can be cut up arbitrarily. There is no way I can be sure the world was not created a microsecond ago and there is no way I can be sure there isn't a million year gap between subjective seconds. -- 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-list@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: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what QM explains the most elegantly and successfully, but this is besides my point). But you are coherent: if you want materialism, you will need a non turing emulable theory of matter, and of mind. Good luck, because it needs already some amount of work to conceive something not Turing emulable in math, and in physics, it is even more difficult. But QM is based on complex numbers over the reals, which are already not Turing emulable. Has a real number ever been measured by any physicist? Jason Sure. He measured one side of the right triangle to be 1cubit and the other side to be 1cubit and concluded that the third side was sqrt(2)cubit. That's not an example of a physicist measuring a real number, nor is it a real life example. In real life the physicist would wonder to how many significant figures he measured the sides of the triangle, and to how many significant figures he measured the angle of the triangle. Perhaps the physicist rounded to 1 cubit when in reality it was .9909012 cubits (or in constant flux as the atoms jostle around). Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A hard drive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness. Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate program, that program may be conscious. This is the difference between the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. The UD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit patterns. I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty much noise almost all the time. I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a mind or minds. Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea that observers will always find themselves in places where they can exist. They perform the selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment. The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that do will become environments for the minds they host. *Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way, but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise. We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you. You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Every program does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reason Bruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is something really there or some mental construction of ours. If you think 17 is prime is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the statement the UD does not halt is also true independently of your knowledge of it. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com wrote: I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A hard drive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness. Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate program, that program may be conscious. This is the difference between the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. The UD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit patterns. I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty much noise almost all the time. I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a mind or minds. Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea that observers will always find themselves in places where they can exist. They perform the selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment. The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that do will become environments for the minds they host. *Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way, but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise. We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you. You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Every program does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reason Bruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is something really there or some mental construction of ours. If you think 17 is prime is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the statement the UD does not halt is also true independently of your knowledge of it. Jason Jason, I really would like to understand how it is that the truth valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our knowledge of it can be used to affirm the meaning of the referent of that proposition independent of us? How does the sentence 17 is prime is a true statement confer implicit meaning to its referent? Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A hard drive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness. Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate program, that program may be conscious. This is the difference between the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. The UD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit patterns. I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty much noise almost all the time. I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a mind or minds. Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea that observers will always find themselves in places where they can exist. They perform the selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment. The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that do will become environments for the minds they host. *Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way, but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise. We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you. You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Every program does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reason Bruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is something really there or some mental construction of ours. If you think 17 is prime is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the statement the UD does not halt is also true independently of your knowledge of it. Jason Jason, I really would like to understand how it is that the truth valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our knowledge of it can be used to affirm the meaning of the referent of that proposition independent of us? That sentence was hard to parse! If I understand it correctly, you are asking how a truth, independent of our knowledge, can confer meaning to something without us? Things unknown to anyone can have consequences which are eventually do make a difference to beings which are aware of the difference. A comet colliding with the Earth and hitting a pond of unicellular organisms may have drastically altered the course of evolution on our planet. That such a comet impact ocurred is a fact which is either true or false, despite it being independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Yet it has perceptable results. Correspondingly, the existence of some mathematical truth (even if not comprehended by anyone) can have effects for observers, in fact, it might explain both the observers themselves and their experiences. How does the sentence 17 is prime is a true statement confer implicit meaning to its referent? What is the referent in this case? 17? And what do you mean by meaning? 17's primality is a fact of nature. The statement's existence or non-existence, comprehension or non-comprehension makes no difference to 17, only what you could say we humans have discovered about 17. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote: OK, well first of all let me retract any ad hominem remarks that may have offended you. Call it a rhetorical flourish! I apologise. There are clearly some theories which require a profound amount of dedicated learning to understand - such as QFT. I majored in History and Philosophy of Science and work as a programmer and a writer. I am not a mathematician - the furthest I took it was first year uni, and I couldn't integrate to save myself any more. Therefore if the truth of an argument lies deep within a difficult mathematical proof, chances are I won't be able to reach it. That is the reason why I separate UDA from AUDA. Normally UDA can be understood without much math, which does not mean that it is simple, especially the step 8. (but the first seven step shows already the big picture). AUDA, unfortunately, needs a familiarity with logic, which unfortunately is rather rare (only professional logicians seems to have it). Then my ignorance would hardly constitute a criticism, and so it may be with UDA and my complaint of obscurity. When I teach orally UDA. The first seven step are easily understood. This contains most of the key result (indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning theorem, and the reversal physics/theology (say) in case the universe is robust. The step 8 is intrinsicaly difficult, and can be done before. A long time ago, I always presented first the step 8 (the movie graph argument) and then the UDA1-7. I am still not entirely satisfied myself by the step 8 pedagogy. On the other hand, it seems to me that ideas about the core nature of reality can and should be presented in the clearest, most intelligible language possible. I have 700 pages version, 300 pages version, 120 pages version, up to sane04 which about a 20 pages version. The long version have been ordered to me by french people, and are written in french. The interdisciplinary nature of the subject makes it difficult to satisfied everybody. What is simple for a logician is terribly difficult for a physicist. What is obvious for philosphers of mind, can make no sense for a logician or a physicist, what is taken granted by physicists are total enigma for logicians, etc. I can't solve QFT equations, but I can grasp the fundamental ideas of the uncertainty principle, non- locality, wave-particle duality, decoherence and so on. I'm not arguing for dumbed-down philosophy, but maximal clarity. OK. Note that my work has been peer reviewed, and is considered by many as being too much clear, which is a problem in a field (theology) which is still taboo (for some christian, and especially the atheist version of christianism). I can appear clear only to people capable of acknowledging that science has not yet decided between Aristotle and Plato reality view. So when I am clear, I can look too much provocative for some. Having said that, I'm prepared to put effort in to learn something new if I have misunderstood something. OK. Nice attitude. You have misread my tone if you think it indicates bias against your theory. I have read your paper (at least the UDA part, not the machine interview) several times, carefully, and presented it to my (informal) philosophy group, because I certainly find it intriguing. OK. Nice. I'll admit that step 8 is where I struggle Hmm, from your post, it seemed to me that there remains some problem in UDA1-7. - it's not well explained in the paper yet contains the all the really sweeping and startling assertions. When I presented UDA at the ASSC meeting of 1995 (I think) a famous philosopher of mind left the room at step 3 (the duplication step). He pretended that we feel to be at both places at once after a self- duplication experience. It was the first time someone told me this. I don't know if he was sincere. It looks some people want to believe UDA wrong, and are able to dismiss any step. The argument about passive devices activated by counterfactual changes in the environment is opaque to me and seems devious - probably defeated in the details of implementation like Maxwell's demon - but that is obviously not a rebuttal. I will take a look at the additional information you've linked to. OK. Maudlin has found a very close argument. Mine is simpler (and older). I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, OK. but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? It generates old inputs of all programs, including infinite streams. Those can be considered as random. But what the program does with such input is not random. I am open to contradiction on this. If it doesn't, then it means it has to be incapable of producing certain patterns of bits, but in principle every
Re: Why UDA proves nothing
On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com wrote: I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A hard drive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness. Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate program, that program may be conscious. This is the difference between the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. The UD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit patterns. I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty much noise almost all the time. I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a mind or minds. Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea that observers will always find themselves in places where they can exist. They perform the selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment. The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that do will become environments for the minds they host. *Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way, but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise. We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you. You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Every program does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reason Bruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is something really there or some mental construction of ours. If you think 17 is prime is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the statement the UD does not halt is also true independently of your knowledge of it. Jason Jason, I really would like to understand how it is that the truth valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our knowledge of it can be used to affirm the meaning of the referent of that proposition independent of us? That sentence was hard to parse! If I understand it correctly, you are asking how a truth, independent of our knowledge, can confer meaning to something without us? [SPK] Essentially, yes. Things unknown to anyone can have consequences which are eventually do make a difference to beings which are aware of the difference. A comet colliding with the Earth and hitting a pond of unicellular organisms may have drastically altered the course of evolution on our planet. That such a comet impact ocurred is a fact which is either true or false, despite it being independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Yet it has perceptable results. [SPK] The web of causes and effects is an aspect of the material universe. I am taking that concept into consideration. Correspondingly, the existence of some mathematical truth (even if not comprehended by anyone) can have effects for observers, in fact, it might explain both the observers themselves and their experiences. [SPK] Slow down! existence of some mathematical truth??? Do you mean the truth value of some existing mathematical statement? That is what I mean in my question by the
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what QM explains the most elegantly and successfully, but this is besides my point). But you are coherent: if you want materialism, you will need a non turing emulable theory of matter, and of mind. Good luck, because it needs already some amount of work to conceive something not Turing emulable in math, and in physics, it is even more difficult. But QM is based on complex numbers over the reals, which are already not Turing emulable. Has a real number ever been measured by any physicist? Jason Sure. He measured one side of the right triangle to be 1cubit and the other side to be 1cubit and concluded that the third side was sqrt(2)cubit. That's not an example of a physicist measuring a real number, nor is it a real life example. In real life the physicist would wonder to how many significant figures he measured the sides of the triangle, and to how many significant figures he measured the angle of the triangle. Perhaps the physicist rounded to 1 cubit when in reality it was .9909012 cubits (or in constant flux as the atoms jostle around). So he gets sqrt (1.9909012). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On 9/26/2011 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Suppose that you are currently in state S (which exist by the comp assumption). But what does you refer to? The comp assumption seems ambiguous. Is it the assumption that you are instantiated by a specific computation? Or is it the assumption that your brain could be replaced, without you noticing, by a physically different computer, so long as it computed the same function (at some level). These seem slightly different to me and are only identical if QM is false and the world is strictly classical and deterministic. At a practical level the brain is certainly mostly classical and so I might say 'yes' to the doctor even though my artificial brain will have slightly different behavoir because it has different counterfactual quantum behavior. But this difference seems to present a problem when trying to identify you within the inifinite bundle of computations instantiating a particular state in the UD computations. Of course if you replace the whole universe with an emulation, instead of just my brain, then my emulated brain in the emulated universe can have the same behavior as my natural brain in this universe. The UD generates an infinity of computations going through that state. All what I say is that your future is determined by all those computations, and your self-referential abilities. If from this you can prove that your future is more random than the one observed, then you are beginning to refute rigorously comp. But the math part shows that this is not easy to do. In fact the random inputs confer stability for the programs which exploits that randomness, and again, this is the case for some formulation (à-la Feynman) of QM. How is this? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Bruno List continued
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Do you agree or don't you that the observable (or public, or third person) behaviour of neurons can be entirely explained in terms of a chain of physical events? No, nothing can be *entirely* explained in terms of a chain of physical events in the way that you assume physical events occur. Physical events are a shared experiences, dependent upon the perceptual capabilities and choices of the participants in them. That is not to say we that the behavior of neurons can't be *adequately* explained for specific purposes: medical, biochemical, electromagnetic, etc. OK, so you agree that the *observable* behaviour of neurons can be adequately explained in terms of a chain of physical events. The neurons won't do anything that is apparently magical, right? Are not all of our observations observable behaviors of neurons? You're not understanding how I think observation works. There is no such thing as an observable behavior, it's always a matter of observable how, and by who? If you limit your observation of how neurons behave to what can be detected by a series of metal probes or microscopic antenna, then you are getting a radically limited view of what neurons are and what they do. You are asking a blind man what the Mona Lisa looks like by having him touch the paint, then making a careful impression of his fingers, and then announcing that the Mona Lisa can only do what fingerpainting can do, and that inferring anything beyond the nature of plain old paint to the Mona Lisa is magical. No. It doesn't work that way. A universe where nothing more than paint exists has no capacity to describe an intentional, higher level representation through a medium of paint. The dynamics of paint alone do not describe their important but largely irrelevant role to creating the image. At times you have said that thoughts, over and above physical events, have an influence on neuronal behaviour. For an observer (who has no access to whatever subjectivity the neurons may have) that would mean that neurons sometimes fire apparently without any trigger, since if thoughts are the trigger this is not observable. No. Thoughts are not the trigger of physical events, they are the experiential correlate of the physical events. It is the sense that the two phenomenologies make together that is the trigger. If, on the other hand, neurons do not fire in the absence of physical stimuli (which may have associated with them subjectivity - the observer cannot know this) We know that for example, gambling affects the physical behavior of the amygdala. What physical force do you posit that emanates from 'gambling' that penetrates the skull and blood brain barrier to mobilize those neurons? The skull has various holes in it (the foramen magnum, the orbits, foramina for the cranial nerves) through which sense data from the environment enters and, via a series of neural relays, reaches the amygdala and other parts of the brain. What is 'sense data' made of and how does it get into 'gambling'? But if thoughts influence behaviour and thoughts are not observed, then observation of a brain would show things happening contrary to physical laws, No. Thought are not observed by an MRI. An MRI can only show the physical shadow of the experiences taking place. That's right, so everything that can be observed in the brain (or in the body in general) has an observable cause. Not at all. The amygdala's response to gambling cannot be observed on an MRI. We can only infer such a cause because we a priori understand the experience of gambling. If we did not, of course we could not infer any kind of association with neural patterns of firing with something like 'winning a big pot in video poker'. That brain activity is not a chain reaction from some other part of the brain. The brain is actually responding to the sense that the mind is making of the outside world and how it relates to the self. It is not going to be predictable from whatever the amygala happens to be doing five seconds or five hours before the win. such as neurons apparently firing for no reason, i.e. magically. You haven't clearly refuted this, perhaps because you can see it would result in a mechanistic brain. No, I have refuted it over and over and over and over and over. You aren't listening to me, you are stuck in your own cognitive loop. Please don't accuse me of this again until you have a better understanding of what I mean what I'm saying about the relationship between gambling and the amygdala. We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them - A. Einstein. You have not answered it. You have contradicted yourself by saying we *don't* observe the brain doing things contrary to physics and we *do* observe
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/26/2011 7:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 5:27 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 6:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/25/2011 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I mentioned QM only to mentioned a computer emulable theory of molecules. I find quite possible that QM explains biochemistry, given the incredible theory of chemistry the SWE equation allow (molecules and the electronic shape of atoms is really what QM explains the most elegantly and successfully, but this is besides my point). But you are coherent: if you want materialism, you will need a non turing emulable theory of matter, and of mind. Good luck, because it needs already some amount of work to conceive something not Turing emulable in math, and in physics, it is even more difficult. But QM is based on complex numbers over the reals, which are already not Turing emulable. Has a real number ever been measured by any physicist? Jason Sure. He measured one side of the right triangle to be 1cubit and the other side to be 1cubit and concluded that the third side was sqrt(2)cubit. That's not an example of a physicist measuring a real number, nor is it a real life example. In real life the physicist would wonder to how many significant figures he measured the sides of the triangle, and to how many significant figures he measured the angle of the triangle. Perhaps the physicist rounded to 1 cubit when in reality it was .9909012 cubits (or in constant flux as the atoms jostle around). So he gets sqrt (1.9909012). Assuming infinite significant figures. If such a measurement could be made then there wouldn't still be a debate about whether or not space is discrete or continuous. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Why UDA proves nothing
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/26/2011 11:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/26/2011 10:23 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct? I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation. A hard drive can contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit pattern won't contain consciousness. Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate program, that program may be conscious. This is the difference between the UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi. The UD executes all possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit patterns. I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty much noise almost all the time. I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a mind or minds. Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle? The idea that observers will always find themselves in places where they can exist. They perform the selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment. The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that do will become environments for the minds they host. *Proving* it is noise is of course impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected out the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way, but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms, but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which ones are signal and which ones noise. We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you. You also asked about why not execute them all in parallel. Every program does exist in math independetly of the UD. I think the reason Bruno described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show exists in math. You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is something really there or some mental construction of ours. If you think 17 is prime is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the statement the UD does not halt is also true independently of your knowledge of it. Jason Jason, I really would like to understand how it is that the truth valuation of a proposition is not dependent on our knowledge of it can be used to affirm the meaning of the referent of that proposition independent of us? That sentence was hard to parse! If I understand it correctly, you are asking how a truth, independent of our knowledge, can confer meaning to something without us? [SPK] Essentially, yes. Things unknown to anyone can have consequences which are eventually do make a difference to beings which are aware of the difference. A comet colliding with the Earth and hitting a pond of unicellular organisms may have drastically altered the course of evolution on our planet. That such a comet impact ocurred is a fact which is either true or false, despite it being independent of anyone's knowledge of it. Yet it has perceptable results. [SPK] The web of causes and effects is an aspect of the material universe. I am taking that concept into consideration. Correspondingly, the existence of some mathematical truth (even if not comprehended by anyone) can have effects for observers, in fact, it might explain both the observers themselves and their experiences. [SPK] Slow down! existence of some mathematical truth??? Do you mean the truth value of some existing mathematical statement? That is what I mean in my question by the phrase truth valuation of a proposition. Is a truth value something that exists or does not exist? I am not sure what you mean by exists in this case so let me say this, the state of being true, or the state of being false, for the proposition in question, was settled before a human made a determination regarding that
Re: Why UDA proves nothing
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Sep 2011, at 04:42, Pierz wrote: - it's not well explained in the paper yet contains the all the really sweeping and startling assertions. When I presented UDA at the ASSC meeting of 1995 (I think) a famous philosopher of mind left the room at step 3 (the duplication step). He pretended that we feel to be at both places at once after a self-duplication experience. It was the first time someone told me this. I don't know if he was sincere. It looks some people want to believe UDA wrong, and are able to dismiss any step. Was this Chalmers? You mentioned to me at one point that he believed a duplicated person experiences both perspectives. This is a view I can sympathize with, in the sense that we are part of a universal person who experiences all perspectives. A person who steps into a duplicator does experience both Washington and Moscow, but at either position, does not have the memories of the other, and thus so cannot talk about those experiences. It is similar to a person who is tortured, then given a drug to cause total amnesia. Is it not the same person who experienced being tortured? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
Dennett on neurons
Craig will like part 6 of Dan Dennett's Harvard lectures http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnbSj1OMA8wfeature=related Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Bruno List continued
On Sep 25, 7:39 pm, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But if thoughts influence behaviour and thoughts are not observed, then observation of a brain would show things happening contrary to physical laws, This image illustrates how bottom-up and top-down processing co-exist: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls5o3ngv0f1qa4itpo1_500.jpg If you only look at the leaves and horses, nothing unusual is going on. It is not physics that makes consciousness invisible, it is our desire to use physics to insist that reality fit into our narrowest expectations. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
Joining Post
It's a little late for this post since I've already posted 2 or 3 things, but I figured I might as well introduce myself. I'm majoring at philosophy at the University of Michigan, however I'm studying abroad for a trimester at Oxford. I turn 21 on Oct. 4. The main questions I've been researching are the following: 1. What kind of free will is worth wanting, and do we have it, despite the deterministic evolution of the Schrodinger Equation? 2. Recent cosmological evidence indicates that our universe is infinitely big, and everything that is physically possible happens an infinite number of times. Does this imply that I can't make a difference to the total (or per capita) amount of well-being in the world? I used to be a utilitarian until I read Nick Bostrom's paper The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggretive Ethics. 3. Can only mathematical truths be known for certain? Can you know something without knowing it for certain? 4. Do the laws of physics determine (i.e., enforce) events, or do they merely describe patterns and regularities that we have observed? I would be grateful if anyone could shed some light on any of these questions. I'm very impressed with what I've read so far from people. Glad to be here, Jon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
