From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep. 1. One postulate of SRT takes vacuum as reference frame. Another postulate of SRT takes inertial reference frame (s). Can we say what these two (2) reference frames are equal ? No, they aren’t equal. Why ? Because all inertial reference frames are relative. And vacuum as reference frame isn’t relative, it is motionless, fixed reference frame. / Michelson - Morley experiment. / 2. In one reference frame speed of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ is constant. In another reference frame speed of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ is relative. 3 And the Lorentz transformations explain interaction between these two postulates. ==. P.S. Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate. / Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. First published in 2006. / ===. Socratus -- 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: Inside/Outside (was: Nothing)
On 4/20/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think you have to explain it from *primary* matter. In fact it is usually explained in terms of electrochemistry of neurons and hormones, which are several steps up from quarks and electrons which themselves may not be primary. Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation explains only the behavior. I'm not convinced though that comp is any better. It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. He does not explain where the physical laws come from, nor does he addressed the consciousness issue. But of course you need to develop your understanding of the mind-body problem. The english literature contains many good texts. Then the UDA explains how to reformulate the problem into a purely arithmetical problem. But at the expense of turning physics and everything else into an arithmetical problem. The problem I see with the UDA is that its passivity is contagious. In order to function as an AI in the world it needs more and more of the world to be subsumed into it's computation. Dear Bruno and Brent, It might be helpful if you guys would chat a bit about what you mean by from the inside. You seem to allude to a outside/inside relation here. Could you flesh this out a lot more? I have some thoughts of my own on this, but I would really like to see what your thoughts are about this relation. For example, does it involve some thing like a boundary that when crossed is equivalent to a transition from outside to inside or the reverse? What would define such a boundary for COMP? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Nothing
On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. They can be both, but UDA shows that this leads to a reduction of physics to arithmetic. The reduction is constructive, so comp become testable and acquire a scientific status (which is my main point). My point is not that comp is true. Just that it is scientifically testable. then I show mathematical evidence that indeed the quantum is recovered from comp. And I give a gift: the qualia are too. Dear Bruno, Could you point to where the constructability of the reduction is shown? -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: Nothing
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments. The 3-views are corresponding to what is roughly described by an external observer Your proof hinges on the fundamental difference between this 1-view and 3-view stuff but you haven't unambiguously nailed down what you mean by those terms as you must if you want to use them in a mathematical proof. In the first place just because a outside observer sees somebody write something in a personal diary does not prove that is what a person feels, it does not prove that is a description of the subjective experience (or the 1-view in your obscure terminology) or is even proof that a 1-view, any 1-view even exists. The only 1-view you know for a fact to exist is your own. In the second place despite my repeated requests you can not give me a single example of something identical from the 3-view but not from the 1-view and I've lost track of how many times you've chastised me for misunderstanding and not looking at things from the 1-view which is supposed to be very different. Step 2 illustrates already, without duplication, the difference between the 1-view and the 3-view. If things are identical from the 1-view they may or may not be identical from the 3-view, BUT if they are identical from the 1-view then they are always identical from the 1-view. We can vary arbitrarily the delays in step 2 Delays are a needless complication that add nothing to the thought experiment. John K Clark -- 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: Inside/Outside (was: Nothing)
On 21 Apr 2012, at 16:56, Stephen P. King wrote: On 4/20/2012 3:22 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2012 2:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I don't think you have to explain it from *primary* matter. In fact it is usually explained in terms of electrochemistry of neurons and hormones, which are several steps up from quarks and electrons which themselves may not be primary. Elimanating often the qualia and consciousness. Material explanation explains only the behavior. I'm not convinced though that comp is any better. It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. He does not explain where the physical laws come from, nor does he addressed the consciousness issue. But of course you need to develop your understanding of the mind- body problem. The english literature contains many good texts. Then the UDA explains how to reformulate the problem into a purely arithmetical problem. But at the expense of turning physics and everything else into an arithmetical problem. The problem I see with the UDA is that its passivity is contagious. In order to function as an AI in the world it needs more and more of the world to be subsumed into it's computation. Dear Bruno and Brent, It might be helpful if you guys would chat a bit about what you mean by from the inside. You seem to allude to a outside/inside relation here. Could you flesh this out a lot more? I have some thoughts of my own on this, but I would really like to see what your thoughts are about this relation. For example, does it involve some thing like a boundary that when crossed is equivalent to a transition from outside to inside or the reverse? What would define such a boundary for COMP? In UDA the inside/outside refers to the 1-view and the 3-view, which correspond to the content of the diary that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation/duplication boxes, and the content of the diary of someone outside the boxes. In AUDA, outside/inside correspond to the Bp/ Bp p distinction (the believer or prover versus the knower). Or more generally the # and # p distinction. The inside obeys the modal logic S4, the outside obeys to G, G*, from the ideal correct machine's view on itself. Bruno Bruno -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- 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: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not
On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z peterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote: On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is? Some priori brain state. What could make a brain state cause a feeling? Otherwise I can just say that a deterministic universe includes libertarian free will, ghosts goblins, whatever. Libertarian free will contradicts the requirment for sufficent causes. No more than feeling. No, Feeling isn't defined in terms of the presence or absence of any kind of determinism or causality. Causality is a condition within feeling, as is free will. Feeling gives rise to free will directly. Whoever is doing the feeling is ultimately determining the expression of their own free will. The others don;t contradict determinism. Why not? They are not defined in terms of it or its absence. You are the only one defining free will in terms of an absence of causality. I see clearly that causality arises out of feeling and free will. What business does a feeling have being in a universe that is essentially a very sophisticated clock? Something happened that would cause a feeling. Are you being serious? Yes. Why shouldn't you have laws of the form If see kitten then feel warm and gooey ? Because there is no logic to it. If you are positing a universe ruled by laws of mechanistic logic, then you are required to demonstrate that logic somehow applies to feeling, which it doesn't. If you have mechanism, you don't need feeling. You can have data compression and caching without inventing poetry. 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.
Re: Nothing
On 21 Apr 2012, at 18:10, Stephen P. King wrote: On 4/21/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Brent wrote: It comes down to saying qualia are computations seen from the inside. But you could as well say they are brain processes seen from the inside. They can be both, but UDA shows that this leads to a reduction of physics to arithmetic. The reduction is constructive, so comp become testable and acquire a scientific status (which is my main point). My point is not that comp is true. Just that it is scientifically testable. then I show mathematical evidence that indeed the quantum is recovered from comp. And I give a gift: the qualia are too. Dear Bruno, Could you point to where the constructability of the reduction is shown? It is AUDA. Or the interview of the machine. The logic of observable has already been retrieved, and theorem provers provided. At the propositional level the logic is shown decidable. 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: Nothing
On 21 Apr 2012, at 19:45, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The 1-views are assimilated to the content of the personal diary that the candidate takes with him in the teleportation or duplication experiments. The 3-views are corresponding to what is roughly described by an external observer Your proof hinges on the fundamental difference between this 1-view and 3-view stuff but you haven't unambiguously nailed down what you mean by those terms as you must if you want to use them in a mathematical proof. Quite contrary. People needs only to agree on the basic principles used in the reasoning. It is the (semi-)axiomatic method, which is what we use in any applied field. In the first place just because a outside observer sees somebody write something in a personal diary does not prove that is what a person feels, Of course. But it is, once we assume the comp hypothesis. it does not prove that is a description of the subjective experience (or the 1-view in your obscure terminology) or is even proof that a 1-view, any 1-view even exists. The only 1-view you know for a fact to exist is your own. How do you know that about me? Answer: because you assume there is a feeler behind this sentence. With comp, we agree that the copy will feel like you, and among the default hypotheses, we assume that the guy feeling to be in Washington will not perversely write I am in Moscow. So you are right, but not relevant as far as the validity of the reasoning is concerned. In the second place despite my repeated requests you can not give me a single example of something identical from the 3-view but not from the 1-view It told you an infinity of times that this is impossible, and that I have never pretend the contrary anywhere. and I've lost track of how many times you've chastised me for misunderstanding and not looking at things from the 1-view which is supposed to be very different. In case the 3-view have diverged, like after opening the teleportation/ duplication boxes. Step 2 illustrates already, without duplication, the difference between the 1-view and the 3-view. If things are identical from the 1-view they may or may not be identical from the 3-view, BUT if they are identical from the 1-view then they are always identical from the 1-view. Absolutely so. We can vary arbitrarily the delays in step 2 Delays are a needless complication that add nothing to the thought experiment. Just wait for the sequel. So you agree with step 0, 1, 2. And all your attempts to refute step 3 have been debunked by many people here. What about step 4 and 5, and 6 (recently posted on FOAR)? 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: From 1905 the SRT doesn’t give sleep.
INTRODUCTION Modified 01-10-11 Hans J. Zweig, With a PhD from Stanford, a masters degree from Brown and a B.A. from University of Rochester: # Newtonian physics is not the ultimate truth about the universe, but neither is Einstein's Relativity. Newton did not know, or anticipate, an upper bound to motion. Einstein cannot simply have it that all motion is relative and at the same time that there is a unique hard upper limit, c. Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory (SRT) attempts to solve the problem, but it is invalid, as can be shown using several distinct approaches: (1) through a logical analysis of the important concepts and thought experiments, (2) through recently available empirical results in astronomy, and (3) through a physical/ mathematical analysis of the foundation of SRT. . . . . . . . . . . . . The ultimate truth is still hidden from us but is somewhere between these extremes. http://www.aquestionoftime.com/intro.html -- 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.
