Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth
Yes, I know that one. So I will add to my wish list ... and I continue to dream! :-) On 21 December 2013 12:53, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: we had a stereotypic reply in Hungary applicable to what you wrote *And THEN you woke up.* John On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 December 2013 09:25, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: How would you imagine to save the world (I mean: humanity)? Someone out there discover the psychological root causes of all the bad stuff we do and design a retrovirus that will fix them. Turn us all into saints - until we're invaded by aliens, we'll do OK. And I'd like a pair of hoverboots. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 December 2013 13:19, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that makes it true? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing distant galaxies. The inverse square law is true in Platonia. In the real world it's just a very good approximation. Absolutely. I was just using that as a simple example, because we don't (yet) have a theory of quantum gravity that might be considered a candidate for a final theory. (If I'd written that 150 years ago it would have been treated as an accurate example, modulo the undiscovered planet inside Mercury's orbit). Still, I'm glad you thnik that it's true in Platonia, which is the point I was making. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer Yes, in fact it may have already happened. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics, but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without hardware to run it on. You agree that the 8th Fibonacci number is 21, and that the 9th is 34, right? And that the Nth Fibonacci number has some value F_n is some mathematical fact, which is not dependent on John Clark or Jason Resch, right? If so, then the relation Fib(n) + Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2) is a recursive function whose values exist as pure consequence of arithmetical truth. But there are other recursive functions. Some define John Conway's Game of Life. Some of these Game of Life instances contain Turing machines, and a rarer few contain Turing machines executing the universal dovetailer. It is no less of a mathematical fact that the Nth number defined by this recursive Game of Life function has some value G_n, than it is that the Nth Fibonacci number has some value F_n. But now consider a Game of Life progression which contains evolved, and self-aware substructures. From their view they exist in a real world. If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. Otherwise, your theory on consciousness is supposing some kind of magic potential for consciousness which is found only in strings, electrons, carbon atoms, or something along those lines. If it is a true statement that the evolution of some recursive function in arithmetic contains patterns that behave and act as if they are conscious, what reason is there to doubt that they are conscious? True, there is no physical computer running the program to show us their evolution, but using a computer to attempt to factor a prime number and see it fail is not what makes a number prime. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the 19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized, but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is spatially infinite 10^1000 light years away (give or take a few hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about Boltzmann's idea. You need to assume much more to get to Boltzmann's idea: a whole physical universes, quantum vacuum, atoms, etc. For the UDA, you need only assume the ontology of the natural numbers. This is an implicit assumption in nearly all scientific theories, and is therefore a rather modest proposal. It is also much simpler to justify existence through seeing the necessity of mathematical truths such as 2+2=4, and extrapolating from those simpler truths to more complex ones, such as the value of Chaitin's constant (which has a value dependent on the executions of all possible programs). Jason Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right,
Re: Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse Andreas Albrecht, Daniel Phillips (Submitted on 5 Dec 2012) We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and specifically question the application of classical probability theory to cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum answer. Richard: I cannot copy over the relevant portions of the text. They conclude: thus are very skeptical of multiverse theories that depend on classical probabilities for their predictive power. Is it a snooker? Does not MWI use quantum probabilities? It might be worth a read. They assumed QM, and physicalism, which are not available options once we assume computationalism. MWI somehow does bring back classical probability, from the quantum, making it into an ignorance about the computations which bear our actual relative state, in the comp theory. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. Bruno On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse rather than than multiple multiverses. Interesting problem. Comp predicts only a single multi-dreams, which is the universal computation made by the UD, or the Sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic. I am still not sure if the material points of view will give 0, 1, 2, ... aleph_0, ... or more multiverses. A difficulty relies also in the fact that a multiverse, or even a physical universe is still not really well defined by the physicists themselves. In fact in Everett theory, we might also not be entirely sure if there is a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, and such question might need the resolution of the quantum gravity question. With comp, we can say things like that: IF there are n multiverses, THEN they cannot interfere statistically and so you are in only one of them (if not they will comp-interfere), and thus they must be all small (= not emulating a UD). So, only one multiverse might contain a physical universal dovetailing. Is the quantum vacuum a physical universal dovetailer? Is the Everett universal wave a physical universal dovetailer? Is the solution of the comp measure problem a physical universal dovetailer? Should nature compete with the universal dovetailing to win the measure competition? Ah! You make me thinking ... What is really a multiverse? Can we define this in ZF, or in ZF+kappa? Would it makes sense to talk of alpha-multi-verse for alpha an arbitrary cardinal, or an On- multiverse, with On being the class of all cardinals? What if the ultimate structure of the physical reality is non well founded? That is plausible with comp (despite arithmetic is well founded). In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Keep in mind that for a computationalist (who is aware of the UDA reversal) (assuming there is no flaw of course) the physical reality is the border of the real reality where real is what the FPI gives for the average universal (and Löbian) numbers. You can visualized the UD by a cone of length omega (aleph_zero). Just take a program for a UD implemented in a universal game of life pattern. Then pile up the planes representing the successive evolving life pattern. This gives a digital cone (due to the never ending growing of the life pattern emulating the UD), and you can see the UD* as an infinite tridimensional digital cone. OK? Now, you can compactify that structure. You identify the planes at 0, 1, 2, 3, ... n, places in the infinite piling with 0, 1/2, 1/2+1/4, 1/2+1/4+1/8, ..., so that the entire infinite UD* is kept on a finite board of lenght 1: just a cone, or its projection: a triangle. OK? Where is the physical reality in that picture? Nowhere, as UD* is purely 3p, and physics is purely 1p. Hopefully: 1p-plural (and Everett confirms this: our computations are contagious, we cannot *not* share them when interacting. But that 1p collective structure must (in comp) emerge at the union of all sets of all computations (containing our actual states), and this can be described in 3p, and is in the border which appears when we do the compactification. That border, the topside of the cone, or the right side of the triangle of length 1, is an hologram, as each sub-branch infinitely often generates the UD, and the broder contains the infinite one. It is a bit like the border (but on dimension 1) of the Mandelbrot set. The physical realities are dense everywhere there and they are multiplied in hard to conceive magnitude, on that 2-dimensional top (in that representation of UD*). Unlike the little mandelbrot sets, they might be non enumerable. And then you have that things which I tended to hide a little bit, which is that the hypostases gives three quantizations, like if there where three type of physical realities (would that mean three multiverses? In *some* sense to make precise: perhaps). Not just sensible matter and intelligible matter (Bp Dt p, and Bp Dt, respectively) provides quantization, on the p sigma_1, the soul (Bp p) does too, on the p sigma_1. Apparently Plotinus is right on this: the soul seems to be born with a foot already in matter. I should say more on modal logic and enunciate the theorem of Solovay. All what I say comes from the fact that
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Jason, That is a beautifully clear explanation of how assuming comp leads to the existence of self aware beings within arithmetic realism. You have shown that philosophical debate can also be poetry! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. I think this is shown by the Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, if I remember correctly. I certainly wrote a science fiction story on that basis once! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 12/20/2013 1:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The non-cloning theorem should be obvious, given that any piece of observable matter needs the entire UD* to get describe exactly, given that the appearance of matter is only the result of the FPI on all computations (an infinite object). That seems to prove to much. I agree. Although QM says you can't clone an unknown state, you can exactly reproduce a state; and elementary particles are elementary because they are indistinguishable. Your reasoning above seems to imply that every bit of matter will be unique, an infinite set of relations. Yes, a priori the comp non-cloning is too much big. In fact it is a version of the white rabbit problem, but then we know that self- reference will put some constraints on this. So comp is not (yet?) refuted. AUDA is too young to decide this, but we can formulate the problem (the cloning the nesting of the boxes and diamond is very huge, and some optimization of the modal logic provability have to be done). Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. Yes, I wrote that. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? It seems to get cause and effect completely backwards. 7 isn't prime because I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors besides 1 and 7, rather, I wrote some demonstration on paper that it has no factors besides 1 and 7 because the truth of the matter is that 1 and 7 are its only factors. If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. Let's say it is the question of whether or not some program will ever terminate. Certainly, all programs either terminate or they don't. There is some truth value concerning whether it does or does not, despite that the answer might be unknown to us. What is it that makes it true? You could say God. Or that it just is, and always has been. What makes it possible for this universe to exist? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? Something not knowable by us, (as are a answers to a lot lot of questions). Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
Hello Stephen, Does there really need to be a single level of the UD? ? What is the UD is intersecting with itself an infinite number of times? The UD emulates itself infinitely often, with all codes, that is: relatively to all universal numbers. Is there a relationship. maybe an isomorphism, between the UD and the set of Godel numbers of the UD? That depends on how you associate a set of Gödel numbers with the UD. After all, there does not exist a unique universal Godel code for the UD, no? There is an infinity of them, but any one simulates all the others, and you can't make one more important than another one, at the start. It is not the same for the internal view in arithmetic, where some universal number(s) can get local importance in maintaining the right history measure. Bruno On Friday, December 20, 2013 12:08:46 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Richard, On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse rather than than multiple multiverses. Interesting problem. Comp predicts only a single multi-dreams, which is the universal computation made by the UD, or the Sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic. I am still not sure if the material points of view will give 0, 1, 2, ... aleph_0, ... or more multiverses. A difficulty relies also in the fact that a multiverse, or even a physical universe is still not really well defined by the physicists themselves. In fact in Everett theory, we might also not be entirely sure if there is a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, and such question might need the resolution of the quantum gravity question. With comp, we can say things like that: IF there are n multiverses, THEN they cannot interfere statistically and so you are in only one of them (if not they will comp-interfere), and thus they must be all small (= not emulating a UD). So, only one multiverse might contain a physical universal dovetailing. Is the quantum vacuum a physical universal dovetailer? Is the Everett universal wave a physical universal dovetailer? Is the solution of the comp measure problem a physical universal dovetailer? Should nature compete with the universal dovetailing to win the measure competition? Ah! You make me thinking ... What is really a multiverse? Can we define this in ZF, or in ZF+kappa? Would it makes sense to talk of alpha-multi-verse for alpha an arbitrary cardinal, or an On- multiverse, with On being the class of all cardinals? What if the ultimate structure of the physical reality is non well founded? That is plausible with comp (despite arithmetic is well founded). In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Keep in mind that for a computationalist (who is aware of the UDA reversal) (assuming there is no flaw of course) the physical reality is the border of the real reality where real is what the FPI gives for the average universal (and Löbian) numbers. You can visualized the UD by a cone of length omega (aleph_zero). Just take a program for a UD implemented in a universal game of life pattern. Then pile up the planes representing the successive evolving life pattern. This gives a digital cone (due to the never ending growing of the life pattern emulating the UD), and you can see the UD* as an infinite tridimensional digital cone. OK? Now, you can compactify that structure. You identify the planes at 0, 1, 2, 3, ... n, places in the infinite piling with 0, 1/2, 1/2+1/4, 1/2+1/4+1/8, ..., so that the entire infinite UD* is kept on a finite board of lenght 1: just a cone, or its projection: a triangle. OK? Where is the physical reality in that picture? Nowhere, as UD* is purely 3p, and physics is purely 1p. Hopefully: 1p-plural (and Everett confirms this: our computations are contagious, we cannot *not* share them when interacting. But that 1p collective structure must (in comp) emerge at the union of all sets of all computations (containing our actual states), and this can be described in 3p, and is in the border which appears when we do the compactification. That border, the topside of the cone, or the right side of the triangle of length 1, is an hologram, as each sub-branch infinitely often generates the UD, and the broder contains the infinite one. It is a bit like the border (but on dimension 1) of the Mandelbrot set. The physical realities are dense everywhere there and they are multiplied in hard to conceive magnitude, on that 2-dimensional top (in that representation of UD*). Unlike the little mandelbrot sets, they might be non enumerable. And then you have that things which I tended to hide a little bit, which is that the hypostases gives three quantizations, like if there where three type of physical realities (would that mean three multiverses? In
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 19:50, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Do you agree that after turning this computer on, and letting it run for a long enough time (eternity let's say), there is a 100% chance John Clark will eventually find himself in this computer Yes, in fact it may have already happened. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. I'm pretty confident that such a program exists within mathematics, but I am far less confident that a computer to run it on also exists at that same level of reality; I'm not saying it doesn't, maybe it does, but I don't know it for a fact. With today's emphasis on software sometimes we forget that a program is useless without hardware to run it on. But the hardware/software distinction might be a relative indexical. If you got the step 8 (or even step 7) this should easily be understood (or conceived). For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. For that you don't need to bring in Everett or Quantum Mechanics or virtual worlds or dovetailing or computers, all you need are the 19'th century ideas of Ludwig Boltzmann. There are a gargantuan number of ways the atoms in my 200 pound body could be organized, but there are not a infinite number, therefore if the universe is spatially infinite 10^1000 light years away (give or take a few hundred thousand million billion trillion) there can be no doubt that John Clark is typing a post to the Everything list about Boltzmann's idea. Boltzman still use physicalism, and Boltzman brain cannot clealry grow infinitely in some stable way, unlike the arithmetical UD, which exists in the same sense that the distribution of primes exists in arithmetic; Bruno John K Clark Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there are several physical concepts that provide support for the UD being a valid TOE: Quantum uncertainty Non clonability of matter Determinism in physical laws Information as a fundamental physical quantity (I think there is something I am forgetting, but Bruno can fill in the gaps) This is the grand conclusion you have been missing for all these years. I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman. Nice. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: Dear LizR, Is math in our heads or is it somehow out there. If it is out there how does it connect to what is in our heads? Mathematicians simulate other objects and realities using their heads, computers, or paper, etc. to learn and discover their properties. This is no different than some alien who lives in a different universe, simulating the laws of our own universes, and learning about galaxies, red-shift, black holes, etc. These things might have no correlation to anything in the universe of the alien, but you might rightfully ask where does the information about black holes and red-shift come from?, the answer in both cases is the same: simulation of other mathematical structures. Jason If it is all in our heads, what does that say about Arithmetic Realism? I am trying to get back to some basic concepts... On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Dear Jason, I think it was you that wrote (to me): I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found by someone somewhere. I am trying to get some thought going. Why is it so ridiculous, exactly? If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? What is it that makes it true? If we remove the possibility of ever proving a theorem, what is that theorem's possible truth value? The maths that describes the behaviour of physical systems must be true whether anyone knows about it or not, so long as those physical systems continue to operate in the same manner. For example the inverse square law was true for billions of years before life evolved on Earth, and for billions more before Newton discovered it, as can be shown by observing distant galaxies. It also seems unlikely that simple arithmetic didn't work until Ug the caveman (or woman) discovered it. The big bang seems to have done nucleosynthesis by adding particles together quite happily when presumably there was no one around to know about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 20:06, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, Could it be that the physical world that is associated with an observer (using your definition of an observer) is the truth of that observer? I apologize for the weirdness of this question, but consider that nothing is more true than the 1st person experience that an observer has. Truth enter in the picture in two ways: 1) by the inetnsional nuance when we add the p, like in the first and second application of Theaetetus: Bp === Bp p Bp Dt Bp Dt p and 2) By the splitting between G and G* inherited by such variants, which is a spliiting between true about the machine and what the machine can prove. An observer could doubt that what it experiences is real and even have a sophisticated argument for how it could not possibly be real, but nonetheless the illusion of a physical world persist... Yes, that is captured by the Theatetus p nuance. One property of Truth (at least the Platonic notion of truth) is that it is eternal and immutable. OK. I would say that it is not even temporal. There is another property that can be teased out! There is no contingency in that 2 + 2 = 4 and that 17 is prime. OK. Could it be that this 'non-contingency' is the result of the fact that at least a countable infinity of observers (numbers!) can verify to themselves that they are numbers (they cannot know which number they are) and thus are members of the set of numbers. This leads me to guess that maybe a physical world is a finite truth of sorts in the way that a arithmetic fact is an infinite truth. I don't see this. Normally the physical reality inherits the computer science infinities. What would happen if we considered your UD idea on finite sets of numbers that are very large but still finite? ? The UD generates and execute programs, which are all finite, by definition, on all data, which are 3p-finite, but 1p-infinite. Would we still have the permanence and non-contingency of truth for such sets? ? Bruno I like to see you speculating out loud so that I can add my own speculation. It could all be nonsense... :-) On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Dec 2013, at 22:46, Jason Resch wrote: 8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the executions of all programs exist within the relations between large numbers. That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. It doesn't require that everything to exist, it requires only one particular program to exist: the universal dovetailer. This program and its execution exist within mathematics. Yes, even in arithmetic, and under different important forms. Its many descriptions exist, and the computation are truly emulated in the truth referred by the theorems concerning those description. That is a point which met some difficulties for non-logician, as it is impossible to ever point a computation, without mentioning a description of it. The computation itself is captured by the truth of certain arithmetical statements, not by the existence of a description of those computations. The nuance is subtle, because we infer the existence of the computation by looking at the existence of some description of them, and to show that this is equivalent is by no means a trivial affair, linking the syntax of the theory and its intended meaning (and that is why we need AR). There is a need to really study how simple theories (like RA) can represent in some strong sense the partial recursive function. It is well done in Boolos and Jeffrey, or in Epstein Carnielli. The whole difficulty of step 8 is in this paragraph. Those who believe that a filmed boolean graph can be thinking commit a confusion between use and mention (like I have just described). For example, it is a true statement that the state of this program after the 10^100th step of its computation has some particular value X, and it is also a true statement that the 10^100 + 1 step has some other particular value Y. It is also a true statement that the program corresponding to the emulation of the wave function for the Milky Way Galaxy contains John Clark and this particular John Clark believes he is conscious and alive and sitting in front of a computer in a physical universe. OK. Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. Right, but it is a scientific question. It will not be easy but we can refute or confirm the theory by seeing what the UD implies for the physics that observers see. Everett's theory was a great confirmation, for without it, conventional QM with collapse (and a single universe) would have ruled it out. As it stands, there
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there. I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. You need not accept or believe in these assumptions for them to be useful to progress. Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true, it implies R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we see, and use it as evidence for or against (P Q). Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' *computability *may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation. You can, for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without believing they are true), might they lead to consequences that are either absurd or generally accepted. Of course, whether some idea is considered absurd or not might be matter of someone's beliefs. Jason On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much trouble understanding the point of the third step. I will summarize them for you here: 1: Teleportation is survivable 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is imperceptible to the person teleported 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. If duplicate to the intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the duplication with delay. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:09, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: How many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? The question is ambiguous. I provided all the information needed to be crystal clear and unambiguous. In the 3p view, and the answer stays the same 7 billions (+ animals ...). That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. it's the sort of indeterminacy caused by a simple lack of information and first discovered by Og the caveman; Do you think Og was aware of the possibility of self-duplication? No but the self duplicating machine in your thought experiment adds nothing to our understanding of indeterminacy or of anything else, it's just another useless wheel within a wheel. Not at all. It proves (for the first time) the necessity of an indeterminacy, brought by the comp 3p *determinacy*. But no problem if you disagree, as that point is not in the topic. Now that you do agree with the point of step 3, what is your take on step 4? Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 20 Dec 2013, at 21:42, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will be at the intended destination. Yes, but the question is asked before the duplication. Then why did it include the words following duplication in the above? You did not quote me. Then, I understand the quote as alluding to the confirmation of the prediction done before. If you say 100% for this city, the guy in the other city will understand that he was mistaken, For a logician you sure aren't very logical. If today I predict that tomorrow a green object will be found in Washington and tomorrow you show me a red stop sign that you found in Washington does that provide enough information to prove that my prediction of yesterday was wrong? No. But that's a different experience. if you predict now that you will see Washington after pushing on the button and opening the door, and that after pushing the button and opening the door you (the one in front of me to who I ask the question in Moscow) see Moscow, that will refute (from his 1p, as the question conerns the 1p) his prediction. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that alternate location. JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If someone creates a copy of Jason Resch somewhere, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be in that alternate location. After the duplication. Not before Obviously after the duplication!! Before the duplication or teleportation nothing unusual has happened yet so there is a 0% chance that Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be in a alternate location. So before I bought the quantum lottery ticket, there is 100% choice that I will win? Correct from the 3p view: I do win in some universe. Incorrect from the QM statistics: I do lose in most universes. So here, you are oscillating between a confusion between before/after doing the duplication and the 1p/3p confusion. The fact that you have to make a confusion at all cost, illustrate well the inconsistencies you need to refute step 3. bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you list the implicit assumptions? I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some explanatory sweat to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' computability may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical definition of an otherwise epistemic notion. yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although mathematically we can eliminate it. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). ? It is the same arithmetic. I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted). If not, agnosticism become another don't ask philosophy. Bruno John M On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play 'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much trouble understanding the point of the third step. I will summarize them for you here: 1: Teleportation is survivable 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is imperceptible to the person teleported 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. If duplicate to the intended destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of finding oneself at the intended destination 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the duplication with delay. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that alternate location. 6. If a virtual copy of you is instantiated in a computer somewhere, then as in step 5, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:43, Jason Resch wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:42 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. What specifically? The UDA states two assumptions: computationalism and arithmetical realism. All the rest is a logical deduction (proof) from there. Yes. Although, if you indulge the nitpicking, i would say that aithmetical realism is part of comp (even part of Church thesis). Computationalism needs the notion of computation, which needs the notion of computational steps, which needs arithmetical realism (to say, for example, that a running machine stop or does not stop. I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some explanatory sweat to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. You need not accept or believe in these assumptions for them to be useful to progress. Bruno shows only that if P and Q are true, it implies R. We can look at R and see if it agrees with what we see, and use it as evidence for or against (P Q). Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' computability may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. I don't think agnosticism or doubt should inhibit argumentation. I agree and said so. John Mikes often talk like if we were pretending that something is true, which no (serious) scientists ever do. We just argue *in* the frame of some theories. As scientists we doubt all theories. You can, for instance, show how given certain assumptions (without believing they are true), might they lead to consequences that are either absurd or generally accepted. Of course, whether some idea is considered absurd or not might be matter of someone's beliefs. Yes. We can mention our personal belief ... at the pause café. We better do that when people get the scientific (sharable) point, so as not mixing what is proved to everybody, and the degree of plausibility of our assumptions. Bruno Jason On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the hoax-game of the fantasy-play 'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few steps) you would see where things
Re: It's really all math
On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. I think this is shown by the Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, if I remember correctly. I certainly wrote a science fiction story on that basis once! Any chance to get a PDF or link? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikodem_Pop%C5%82awski http://www.newhaven.edu/Faculty-Staff-Profiles/Nikodem-Poplawski/ 1. arXiv:1310.8014 http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8014 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8014 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1310.8014, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1310.8014 ] Schwinger's principle in Einstein-Cartan gravity Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 3 pages Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) 2. arXiv:1305.6977 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6977 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6977 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1305.6977, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1305.6977 ] Energy and momentum of the Universe Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 6 pages Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO) 3. arXiv:1304.0047 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0047 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0047 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1304.0047, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1304.0047 ] Intrinsic spin requires gravity with torsion and curvature Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 5 pages. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1209.5772 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5772 Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th) 4. arXiv:1209.5772 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.5772 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.5772 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1209.5772, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1209.5772 ] Gravity with spin excludes fermionic strings Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/hep-th/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) 5. arXiv:1203.0294 http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0294 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.0294 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1203.0294, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1203.0294 ] Affine theory of gravitation Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 8 pages; revised version Journal-ref: Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 46, 1625 (2014) Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Mathematical Physics (math-ph) 6. arXiv:1201.0316 http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0316 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0316 , ps http://arxiv.org/ps/1201.0316, otherhttp://arxiv.org/format/1201.0316 ] Thermal fluctuations in Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble-Dirac bouncing cosmology Nikodem J. Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/astro-ph/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 4 pages Subjects: Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc) 7. arXiv:.4595 http://arxiv.org/abs/.4595 [pdfhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/.4595 , other http://arxiv.org/format/.4595] Nonsingular, big-bounce cosmology from spinor-torsion coupling Nikodem Poplawskihttp://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Poplawski_N/0/1/0/all/0/1 Comments: 7 pages; published version Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. D 85, 107502 (2012) Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. I think this is shown by the Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, if I remember correctly. I certainly wrote a science fiction story on that basis once! Any chance to get a PDF or link? Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at
Re: It's really all math
Richard: *.Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe - and:* *...What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse rather than than multiple multiverses...* feeling free to fantasize - maybe congruent to the physical ways of thinking. Bruno, however, seems to stick to the practical worldview using the base of the 'arithmetical' to facilitate 'reasonable' conclusions. If I feel free to meander into fantasieland I would not restrict the features I meet. They may be way out of the 'thinkable'. Bruno's: *...It is the technic which makes able to interview, and sum up infinite interviews with the machine talking about itself* still restricts his 'infinite' topics WITHIN the human imagination. We have no reception to the 'machine's' beyond-the-human-mind variations. The same applies (in my view) to an anticipation of the noch nie dagewesen (=~the absolute NEW?) still imaginable. We are absolutely 'closed-in' into Robert Rosen's model' of the knowable world. (the reason why I fancy the 'infinite complexity' as the Everything ((God?)) of which we only have portions to access - and that, too, in adjusted ways to the capabilities of our present mental development-levels. This is the main reason why I have limited appreciation for past 'wise' opinions coming from similarly limited minds (even if maybe more advanced thinkers than myself). John M On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. Bruno On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Richard, On 20 Dec 2013, at 12:40, Richard Ruquist wrote: What surprises me is that apparently comp predicts a single multiverse rather than than multiple multiverses. Interesting problem. Comp predicts only a single multi-dreams, which is the universal computation made by the UD, or the Sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic. I am still not sure if the material points of view will give 0, 1, 2, ... aleph_0, ... or more multiverses. A difficulty relies also in the fact that a multiverse, or even a physical universe is still not really well defined by the physicists themselves. In fact in Everett theory, we might also not be entirely sure if there is a multiverse, or a multi-multiverse, and such question might need the resolution of the quantum gravity question. With comp, we can say things like that: IF there are n multiverses, THEN they cannot interfere statistically and so you are in only one of them (if not they will comp-interfere), and thus they must be all small (= not emulating a UD). So, only one multiverse might contain a physical universal dovetailing. Is the quantum vacuum a physical universal dovetailer? Is the Everett universal wave a physical universal dovetailer? Is the solution of the comp measure problem a physical universal dovetailer? Should nature compete with the universal dovetailing to win the measure competition? Ah! You make me thinking ... What is really a multiverse? Can we define this in ZF, or in ZF+kappa? Would it makes sense to talk of alpha-multi-verse for alpha an arbitrary cardinal, or an On-multiverse, with On being the class of all cardinals? What if the ultimate structure of the physical reality is non well founded? That is plausible with comp (despite arithmetic is well founded). In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Keep in mind that for a computationalist (who is aware of the UDA reversal) (assuming there is no flaw of course) the physical reality is the border of the real reality where real is what the FPI gives for the average universal (and Löbian) numbers. You can visualized the UD by a cone of length omega (aleph_zero). Just take a program for a UD implemented in a universal game of life pattern. Then pile up the planes representing the successive evolving life pattern. This gives a digital cone (due to the never ending growing of the life pattern emulating the UD), and you can see the UD* as an infinite tridimensional digital cone. OK? Now, you can compactify that structure. You identify the planes at 0, 1, 2, 3, ... n, places in the infinite piling with 0, 1/2, 1/2+1/4, 1/2+1/4+1/8, ..., so that the entire infinite UD* is kept on a finite board of lenght 1: just a cone, or its projection: a triangle. OK? Where is the physical reality in that picture? Nowhere, as UD* is purely 3p, and physics is purely 1p. Hopefully: 1p-plural (and
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist. Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of the painting. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. But arithmetic truths may not exist independently of *all* verification. Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of existence at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all, so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the world. From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation). Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is proprietary and uniquely local. Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather than abstract, participatory rather than aloof and indirect. Thanks, Craig ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:24:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The unexpected surprise is the jump up the reductionist food chain in the last frame. Right, but its only surprising because there is something that we expect to be irreducible which is being reduced. On 20 December 2013 14:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: If it's all just math, what is the unexpected surprise that makes it funny? Is math surprised that its math? On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:07:47 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: http://abstrusegoose.com/544 Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Bruno's mathematical reality
All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On Friday, December 20, 2013 5:26:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 02:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: If it's all just math, what is the unexpected surprise that makes it funny? Is math surprised that its math? It is of course only surprising for those deluded (assuming comp) into thinking that there is some primitive non mathematical reality, like the aristotelian theologian, who believe in a non mathematical primitively physical universe. The real surprise, in the arithmetic internal views, is the existence of the universe (not the fact that it is not a primitive). The absence of X, if proved, would surprise the believers in X, in a same way. Surprised is prejudice dependent. But in the comic, the character who makes the joke is not supposed to be deluded. It's not that believers in X are surprised, its a depiction of how the consequences of the absence of X seem surprisingly absurd to believers and non-believers alike. Craig Bruno On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 2:07:47 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: http://abstrusegoose.com/544 Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
'Implicit assumptions'? Jason seems to me as standing on the platform of physical sciences - at least on a mthematical justification of theorems. Even Bruno's we see is suspect: we *THINK* we see, in adjusted ways as we can absorb phenomena, potentially including a lot more than we know about 'today'.. About Bruno's remark on 'agnosticism' (also callable: ignorance) : I don't know (!) if a 'theory' (the partial one *within* our existent knowledge) is working indeed, or it just SEEMS working within the limited circumstances. Refuted? No one can include into a 'refutation' the totality, only the elements of a content of the present model. Finally: I don't consider agnosticism a philosophy (oxymoron). The 'practical' results we achieve in our limited science-technology are commendable and useful, subject to Bruno's just be cautious to not draw conclusions. (Scientific humility?) I may include a whole wide world beyond the mathematical computations into the term of 'compute'. That is semantic and requires a wider vocabulary than just ONE language. John M On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 00:42, John Mikes wrote: Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. Really. jason was assuming comp, and nothing more, it seems to me. Can you list the implicit assumptions? I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it. I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to TRUTH - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' *computability *may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. Church thesis makes computability into an miraculous mathematical definition of an otherwise epistemic notion. yes, there is a sort of miracle there. Comp assumes it, although mathematically we can eliminate it. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). ? It is the same arithmetic. I am not ready to debate my ideas: my agnostic thinking is NG for argumentation. Agnosticism invites to theorizing, and just be cautious to not draw conclusion when a theory is working (only when it is refuted). If not, agnosticism become another don't ask philosophy. Bruno John M On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*'teleportation': It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) explanations. Wana play? be my guest. In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the old one. YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based). Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. Jason JM On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote: Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the first 3 steps What is the error in step 3? (and I can't think why it would be called step 4 if it were not) then I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the only thing) is the previous 3 steps. I think if you read the whole set
Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel
On Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:13:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Dec 2013, at 15:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, December 19, 2013 5:23:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hello Craig, That is the very well known attempt by Lucas to use Gödel's theorem to refute mechanism. He was not the only one. Most people thinking about this have found the argument, and usually found the mistakes in it. To my knowledge Emil Post is the first to develop both that argument, and to understand that not only that argument does not work, but that the machines can already refute that argument, due to the mechanizability of the diagonalization, made very general by Church thesis. In fact either the argument is presented in an effective way, and then machine can refute it precisely, or the argument is based on some fuzziness, and then it proves nothing. If 'proof' is an inappropriate concept for first person physics, then I would expect that fuzziness would be the only symptom we can expect. The criticism of Lucas seems to not really understand the spirit of Gödel's theorem, but only focus on the letter of its application...which in the case of Gödel's theorem is precisely the opposite of its meaning. The link that Stathis provided demonstrates that Gödel himself understood this: So the following disjunctive conclusion is inevitable: Either mathematics is incompletable in this sense, that its evident axioms can never be comprised in a finite rule, that is to say, the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the powers of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems of the type specified . . . (Gödel 1995: 310). To me it's clear that Gödel means that incompleteness reveals that mathematics is not completable OK. Even arithmetic. in the sense that it is not enough to contain the reality of human experience, ? He says the 'human mind', but I say human experience. not that it proves that mathematics or arithmetic truth is omniscient and omnipotent beyond our wildest dreams. Arithmetical truth is by definition arithmetically omniscient, but certainly not omniscient in general. Indeed to get the whole arithmetical Noùs, Arithmetical truth is still too much weak. All what Gödel showed is that arithmetical truth (or any richer notion of truth, like set theoretical, group theoretical, etc.) cannot be enumerated by machines or effective sound theories. The issue though is whether that non-enumerablity is a symptom of the inadequacy of Noùs to contain Psyche, or a symptom of Noùs being so undefinable that it can easily contain Psyche as well as Physics. I think that Gödel interpreted his own work in the former and you are interpreting it in the latter - doesn't mean you're wrong, but I agree with him if he thought the former, because Psyche doesn't make sense as a part of Noùs. I see Psyche and Physics as the personal and impersonal presentations of sense, and Noùs is the re-presentation of physics (meaning physics is re-personalized as abstract digital concepts). Physics is the commercialization of sense. Psyche is residential sense. Noùs is the hotel...commercialized residence. An excellent book has been written on that subject by Judson Webb (mechanism, mentalism and metamathematics, reference in the bibliographies in my URL, or in any of my papers). In conscience and mechanism, I show all the details of why the argument of Lucas is already refuted by Löbian machines, and Lucas main error is reduced to a confusion between Bp and Bp p. It is an implicit assumption, in the mind of Lucas and Penrose, of self-correctness, or self-consistency. To be sure, I found 49 errors of logic in Lucas' paper, but the main conceptual one is in that self-correctness assertion. Penrose corrected his argument, and understood that it proves only that if we are machine, we cannot know which machine we are, and that gives the math of the 1-indeterminacy, exploited in the arithmetical hypostases. Unfortunately, Penrose did not take that correction into account. Gödel's theorem and Quantum Mechanics could not have been more pleasing for the comp aficionado. Gödel's theorem (+UDA) shows that machine have a rich non trivial theology including physics, and QM confirms the most startling points of the comp physics. As far as QM goes, it would not surprise me in the least that a formal system based on formal measurements is only able to consider itself and fails to locate the sensory experience or the motive 'power on' required to formalize them in the first place. They don't address that question. Formal systems are seen as mathematical object, even number, and they exist independently of us, if you still accept arithmetical realism. I accept the realism of arithmetic representation, and that they
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Dear Edgar Owen: thanks for a post with reason. I am sorry to be too old to read your (any?) book so I take it from your present communication. You wrote among others: *...Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things...* I doubt if we can have knowledge about reality at all, especially the complete nature of it. I presume (hope?) you do not limit 'logical' to our present human logic? I arrived by speculating on the diverse facets of different authors what they call (their) coinsciousness a *response to relations* irrespective of the performer. Your other inconnu: *the present moment *appeared in my speculations to cut out TIME from the view we carry about our existence (I was unsuccessful). Finally: I hope what you deem *computational *is not restricted to a numbers-based mathematical lingo - rather a sophisticational ways of arriving at conclusions by ANY ways we may, or may not even know (com - putare). With best regards John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:15:58 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: If you say they are not conscious because they are only made of mathematical relations, then you are admitting philosophical zombies exist. If you assume that mathematical relations are conscious because they remind us of ourselves, then you are denying that puppets exist. They don't just remind us of ourselves, they would be like us in every way. They have working brains; hopes, fears, desires. They are not puppets because they are autonomous and self-driven. They evolved to use the mathematical relations to drive themselves just as our biology and mentality evolved to use the physical laws. From their point of view, those mathematical relations they are a part of constitute their physical laws. Note: from our point of view, we can't rule out that we ourselves are also driven by some particular mathematical relation(s). Otherwise, there would be patterns within these numbers that behave as if they are conscious, write books about consciousness, have philosophy courses on consciousness, etc. I say if the patterns that exist in these functions talk about, and question their own subjective experiences, cry in pain, and in all ways behave as if they are conscious, then they are conscious. By that reasoning, If I see a painting of an artist painting themselves in a mirror, then I must assume that the figure the canvas is the painter of the painting. It's what they do, not what they look like to us. Paint on a canvas behaves very different from an artist. If you could examine some particular mathematical function, you might find patterns within it that behave just like a painter making a painting. They are the same in the sense that the computation performed by the evolving function is at some level the same as the computation performed by some painter you know from Earth. And by computationalism (which I know you reject) we would accept the two are equivalently conscious. These arithmetical truths exists independently of our verification of them via simulation on physical computers. But arithmetic truths may not exist independently of *all* verification. Without the possibility of sensory experience in which arithmetical truths are presented directly, there is no reason to suppose any sort of existence at all. The fact of arithmetic truth makes sensory experience no more likely or plausible than a universe lacking any arithmetic at all, so we must conclude that aesthetic presence is a further fact about the world. If we assume sensory experience only, then we can't explain mathematical truth. If we assume mathematical truth, then we can explain mathematical truth and quite possibly, sensory experience. It's two (explanations) for one (assumption). From all indications, this fact of experience cannot be accessed theoretically in any way, and can actually be productively modeled as 'that which is the exact opposite of theory' (information, math, representation). Where arithmetic truths are generic and universal, aesthetic presence is proprietary and uniquely local. What about a given particular mathematical function? From the inside it could appear proprietary and local. Aesthetic presentations are concrete rather than abstract, participatory rather than aloof and indirect. I would say the difference between concrete and abstract is only a matter of perspective. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
I had a question about the quote below of Edgar's. In what sense of 'compute' do you believe that something computes reality? Also, I'm wondering if Laplace's demon is relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon According to the article, we have: In 2008, David Wolperthttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Wolpertaction=editredlink=1 used Cantor diagonalizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_diagonalization to disprove Laplace's demon. He did this by assuming that the demon is a computational device and showing that no two such devices can completely predict each other.[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#cite_note-5 [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#cite_note-6 If the demon were not contained within and computed by the universe, any accurate simulation of the universe would be indistinguishable from the universe to an internal observer, and the argument remains distinct from what is observable. On Friday, December 20, 2013 3:52:54 PM UTC-8, Edgar Owen wrote: the actual math and logic that computes reality. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Edgar Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Cool, it sounds quite interesting. I've added it to my wish list. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Are you familiar with Bruno's UDA? ( http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html ) It shows that one's consciousness cannot be embedded in any *one *particular digital universe. This is because when reality is viewed from the inside, one's next moment of experience may bifurcate or leap to any one of an infinite collection of consistent extensions to the computational state that gives rise to one's present moment of experience. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. The present moment, like the current branch in the multi-verse, and the current laws of physics, one's current location, name, and body they inhabit, are all indexical qualities of consciousness. They all provide the illusion of some privileged time, branch, universe, and person. In truth, we are in all times, all branches, all universes, and all experience is equally ours. I saw from your book review it is heavily focused on relativity and time. May I ask, what is your familiarity with QM, do you assume Everett's many-worlds in your book's reasoning? Do you find any relation between multi-verse theories and mathematical reality? However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). Are you saying real infinities exist only in our minds, or that our human math cannot access infinities which really exist? I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Thanks, I look forward to both. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com wrote: I disagree, I think it is very clear. If things need to be that precise, if a change in a quantum state destroys our identity then we die about 10^44 times a second; and a consciousness that never changes is not a consciousness. Do you see consciousness as a thing or as a process? A process. The real question is about our minds, and despite what some like Roger Penrose say I think our minds are probably entirely classical. Why? If minds are classical then they are easy to copy, in principle. Why then are there not lots of John Clarks running around? Because the difference between in principle and in practice can be huge. There is no scientific or philosophical reason there are not lots of John Clarks running around , it's purely technological; in less than a hundred years, probably less than 50, things will be very different . John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
2013/12/21 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? Are you dumb ? Are you really claiming that's what Bruno said ? really ? If you say yes, then you're proving once more what a liar you are. Quentin John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On 21 December 2013 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. I think this is shown by the Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, if I remember correctly. I certainly wrote a science fiction story on that basis once! Any chance to get a PDF or link? For the diagram, or the story? The diagram's here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PENROSE2.PNG The story is in a notebook in my bedroom. It was written in the 1970s, before the era of PCs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
Oops sorry you weren't replying to me. I should have read the complete thread before I answered. :-( On 22 December 2013 08:43, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 21 December 2013 23:23, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:22, LizR wrote: On 21 December 2013 22:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 18:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: In that case a multiverse could contain another multiverse, a bit like a black hole could be a door to another universe. Richard: I like that idea because Smolin hypothized and Poplawski confirmed using GR + spin that black holes yield at least an internal universe. Interesting. Wish I could follow this more closely. I think this is shown by the Penrose diagram of a rotating black hole, if I remember correctly. I certainly wrote a science fiction story on that basis once! Any chance to get a PDF or link? For the diagram, or the story? The diagram's here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PENROSE2.PNG The story is in a notebook in my bedroom. It was written in the 1970s, before the era of PCs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
On 22 December 2013 04:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:24:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The unexpected surprise is the jump up the reductionist food chain in the last frame. Right, but its only surprising because there is something that we expect to be irreducible which is being reduced. Not quite, I think it's simply the distance involved that causes the frisson. If he'd started with, say, history it wouldn't have been terribly funny to have worked his way to comparative literature. If he'd *started*from neuroscience (rather than being interrupted there) and gone via say psychology and a few other things to c.l., even that wouldn't have worked. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: It's really all math
Also, part of the joke is the hubris / chutzpah of the interviewee, who is attempting to parlay a degree (or whatever it is) in comparative literature into a job at CERN (or wherever it is). On 22 December 2013 08:55, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 December 2013 04:56, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, December 19, 2013 8:24:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: The unexpected surprise is the jump up the reductionist food chain in the last frame. Right, but its only surprising because there is something that we expect to be irreducible which is being reduced. Not quite, I think it's simply the distance involved that causes the frisson. If he'd started with, say, history it wouldn't have been terribly funny to have worked his way to comparative literature. If he'd *started*from neuroscience (rather than being interrupted there) and gone via say psychology and a few other things to c.l., even that wouldn't have worked. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
I don't have time to read many books (although I managed to get almost half way through BOI). However, can you explain what you mean about the universe being based on something that is running ? That seems to rely on the prior existence of time, which is one of the things a TOE should probably be expected to explain. Bruno's explanation involves the fact that apparently all posible computations exist in arithmetic, which prevents there being a need for time, which thereby becomes an emergent feature; hence the assumptions of his theory are minimal, and seem intuitively to be things that should logically exist, even if they didn't happen to give rise to any universes. Can you precis your theory in the way Bruno has? Assumptions plus derived consequences? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Minds, Machines and Gödel
Reality is analogous to a running software program. Godel's Theorem does not apply. A human could speculate as to whether any particular state of Reality could ever arise computationally and it might be impossible to determine that, but again that has nothing to do with the actual operation of Reality,since it is only a particular internal mental model of that reality. Wouldn't that make reality susceptible to the halting problem? ...hello, is anybody there? Why have all the stars gone out? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 22 December 2013 07:55, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to the question John Clark asked, the question never asked anything about the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person experiences viewed from their first person points of view does Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now? 1 (I already answered this, note). from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique. Let me be sure I understand you correctly, on this entire planet there is only one first person experience viewed from their first person points of view. Is that what you're saying? If so who is he, who is the lucky guy? ROTFLMAO! OK not *quite* literally, but almost. Surely you're joking, Mr Clark! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 21 December 2013 11:48, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote: Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise! Immaterial indeed :-) On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 12/20/2013 3:52 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After the difficulties of Russell and Whitehead, and Godel's incompleteness theorem I thought the idea that mathematics was a subset of logic had been laid to rest. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I'm interested in how you avoid infinities. Do you eschew even potential infinities? Brent I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
Hi Brent, I don't like these types of truth predicates since they are Platonic in their assumptions, as if statements do not even involve or relate to finite entities like ourselves or, more relevant to my own work, real world computers. Consider a paper by Lou Kauffman that considers a local notion of truth values that can oscillate: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/TimeParadox.pdf On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/21/2013 1:26 AM, Jason Resch wrote: If there exists a mathematical theorem that requires a countable infinity of integers to represent, no finite version can exist of it, in other words, can its proof be found? If its shortest proof is infinitely long, or if the required axioms needed to develop a finite proof are infinite, (or instead of infinite, so large we could not represent them in this universe), then its proof can't be found (by us), but there is a definite answer to the question. The other possibility is that there are mutually inconsistent axioms that can be added. As I understand it, that was the point of http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Christiano-et-al-Naturalistic-reflection-early-draft.pdf A truth predicate can be defined for arithmetic, but not all models or arithmetic are the same as the standard model. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Kindest Regards, Stephen Paul King Senior Researcher Mobile: (864) 567-3099 stephe...@provensecure.com http://www.provensecure.us/ “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Newbie
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first Google Group I'm on. First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the moderator(s). Second I thought I set my settings to get all posts as emails on my MacMail so I can reply there which is best for me. But I see a lot of posts on the group website I don't seem to be getting in my MacMail. Can anyone tell me if there is some delay or how to set that correctly? Thanks, Edgar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
Hi John, First thanks for the complement on my post! To address your points. Of course we do have some knowledge of reality. We have to have to be able to function within it which we most certainly do to varying degrees of competence. That is proof we do have sufficient knowledge of reality to function within it. Yes, computations include logic as well as math. Best, Edgar On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse
On 12/21/2013 1:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:48, Richard Ruquist wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0953.pdf Origin of probabilities and their application to the multiverse Andreas Albrecht http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Albrecht_A/0/1/0/all/0/1, Daniel Phillips http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Phillips_D/0/1/0/all/0/1 (Submitted on 5 Dec 2012) We argue using simple models that all successful practical uses of probabilities originate in quantum fluctuations in the microscopic physical world around us, often propagated to macroscopic scales. Thus we claim there is no physically verified fully classical theory of probability. We comment on the general implications of this view, and specifically question the application of classical probability theory to cosmology in cases where key questions are known to have no quantum answer. Richard: I cannot copy over the relevant portions of the text. They conclude: thus are very skeptical of multiverse theories that depend on classical probabilities for their predictive power. Is it a snooker? Does not MWI use quantum probabilities? It might be worth a read. They assumed QM, and physicalism, which are not available options once we assume computationalism. I think you answered to quickly, without reading the paper. Probably they do assume physicalism, but I don't think it enters into their argument; and I think their conclusions are compatible with your theories. Brent MWI somehow does bring back classical probability, from the quantum, making it into an ignorance about the computations which bear our actual relative state, in the comp theory. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
For Profit Online University (Short Video You Should Watch)
http://t.co/cFfMA7zzPB Adult Swim has been quietly airing this fake infomercial for For-Profit Online University all this week at 4am. *FPOU* is a one-off special from a conglomerate of former *Onion *writers called Wild Aggressive Doghttps://twitter.com/wildaggressive, which is made up of Geoff Haggerty, Dan Klein, Matthew Klinman, Michael Pielocik, Chris Sartinsky, and Sam West. *FPOU* was written and directed by West, with some writing assistance from the other Wild Aggressive Dog writers, and it stars Nicole Byer, Nick Corirossi, and Brian Huskey, among others. The network has been airing faux-infomercial's late at night, like Michael Ian Black's series *You're Whole*http://video.adultswim.com/youre-whole/smoothies-pumpkins-cookies.htmlor Rob Huebel's one-off Dragon Shumway knife infomercialhttp://splitsider.com/2012/11/check-out-rob-huebels-new-adult-swim-infomercial-swords-knives-very-sharp-objects-and-cutlery/, but *FPOU* is the best one yet. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
For me, the critical issue for accounting for everything under a single reality theory is what I call the Presentation Problem. In simple terms, there is no logical reason for the logical universe to produce shapes, colors, flavors, or feelings of any kind when we already know that information processing can occur using only quantitatively formatted signals. I include under the Presentation Problem five well known or easily observed issues: *1. Hard Problem* = Why is X presented as an experience? (X = “information”, logical or physical functions, calcium waves, action potentials, Bayesian integrations, etc.) *2. Explanatory Gap* = How and where is presentation accomplished with respect to X? *3. Binding Problem* = How are presented experiences segregated and combined with each other? How do presentations *cohere*? *4. Symbol Grounding* = How are experiences associated with each other on multiple levels of presentation? How do presentations *adhere*? *5. Mind Body Problem* = Why do public facing presences and private facing presences seem ontologically exclusive and aesthetically opposite to each other? http://multisenserealism.com/the-competition/the-presentation-problem/ Without tying all of these together in a plausible way, I don't see anything to recommend computation over physics or mythology or any other creation schema that can be supported. Thanks, Craig On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: All, The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book on Reality available on Amazon under my name. Marchal is on the right track, but reality consists not just of numbers (math) but is a running logical structure analogous to software that continually computes the current state of the universe. Just as software includes but doesn't consist only of numbers and math, so does reality. In fact the equations of physical science make sense only when embedded in a logical structure just as is the case in computational reality. Modern science has a major lacuna, the notion that all of reality is mathematical, that prevents science from grasping the complete nature of reality. In truth all of reality is logical, as is software, and the mathematics is just a subset of the logic. After all, modern science with its misguided insistence that all of reality is mathematical, has had nothing useful to say about the nature of either consciousness or the present moment, the two most fundamental aspects of experience. However I present a computational based information approach to these in my book among many other things. The second clarification that needs to be made to the post on Marchal's work is that human math and logic are distinct from the actual math and logic that computes reality. The human version is a generalized and extended approximation of the actual that differs from the actual logico-mathematical structure of reality in important ways (e.g. infinities and infinitesimals which don't actually exist in external reality). I can explain further if anyone is interested, or you can read about it in my book... Edgar Owen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
