RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 11:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>>Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.

 

IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise retrocausality is
like eternal inflation - you can use it to explain where the universe comes
from, but you still need to explain the origin of the laws of physics that
allow it to happen. (This is why I find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe
stuff appealing.)

 

I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
retro-causation to occur.

Seriously I am very much agnostic on all of this, and feel like a blind
person trying to understand a sunset, but, at the same time and in the same
breath, I am fascinated by where these meanderings on the edge of the
beginning can go, from time to time.

Chris

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
> I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
> with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
> from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
> perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
> retro-causation to occur.
>
>
Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a 4 (or
more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating - whether
it's one universe, a self-generating universe or an infinite and eternal
universe, it effectively comes from nothing (except whatever causes it to
exist in an atemporal manner).

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 11:53, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?


On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:



"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

>>Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what  
evidence does this occur?
Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing -  
even more fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could  
see this logic in a pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very  
large number of atoms, but if math is to be the superstructure  
underlying everything then I - speaking for myself - am not  
satisfied by saying it just is a fact.



But do you agree with 1+1=2?
I agree that math is internally consistent



"1+1=2" is quasi-infinitely more simple than "math is internally  
consistent".


I have few doubt that "1+1=2" makes sense, and is true, but a term  
like "math" does not denote a theory for which "consistent" can make  
sense.





and that within mathematical ontology it is self-consistent.  
Furthermore it seems to crop up in reality again and again.  
Patterns, equations, such as say the Fibonacci series manifesting in  
so many unrelated places; the universe in its reduced symbol set of  
"smeared" quarks and leptons; its constants and various cardinal  
values and states such as spin, color, charge etc. - it does all  
seem very binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where "1" came from, and even before 1,


Don't confuse the null set and the number 0.

I don't believe in set. Finite set theory is equivalent to Peano  
Arithmetic (even more equivalent than "Turing equivalent"). But usual  
set theory have much stronger axiom, like the axiom of infinity.





the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more  
than nothing.


Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and  
comprehension, you can get almost all sets from the null set.




It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this  
most reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up,  
perhaps because it is unknowable.
I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating  
infinite forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism  
operating over layer and layers of stochastic boundaries.


OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null set, or  
of the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (= failure of  
Russell and Whitehead "logicism").







Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

Of course, in "my" theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting  
things is that "Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2" is also a theorem.


Sure... an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential  
issues with my being, being emergent In fact I rather like the  
idea of emerging into being. It fits with the brains massive  
parallelism and lack of any central operating system (that we have  
found). I emerge; therefore I am.


OK, I have no problem with this too.

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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 10:15, LizR wrote:


On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:

On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor"  
the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
? You might elaborate on this. What is the "rest", and why do you  
think it does not follow?


I mean the rest as I understand it. "Yes Doctor" implies that  
identity relies on a "capsule memory", and hence that H=M and H=W,  
and also that H=simulated M / W, H = M+100 years, and so on.

That is not so clear to me.

OK. That is my take on it, which may be based on intuition or  
misunderstanding. But it seems to me the idea of "Yes Doctor" - that  
you could have your brain replaced by a digital equivalent and not  
know the difference - is only possible if all the other things you  
mention are, too. How would "Yes Doctor" work? You'd have to have  
your brain frozen (or something similar), scanned and destroyed,  
while the digital one was programmed to be a simulation of your  
brain (below the substitution level). And from your own perspective  
you would fall asleep on the operating table and wake up with a  
digital brain (and maybe a robot body). That's only possible (it  
seems to me) if your continuation of consciousness from day to day  
is discontinuous in a similar manner.


That's correct.



Otherwise in "Yes Doctor" you would die, and a replica would be  
created.


So, the time of the reconstitution and the modality of the modus  
operandi is not relevant. And, so we don't need to make precise the  
"other hypothesis", and the use of simple "instantaneous"  
teleportation is valid.


But this is explicitly clear in step seven, which "technically" are  
"step 5" like, which means you don't need to be frozen and  
annihilated, you need just to be "prepared or reconstituted" in the  
concrete UD
which do the rest automatically, even infinitely often. In longer and  
more detailed version of the UDA (like the one in 15 steps done on  
this list at its early beginning) I make this explicit. So you point,  
even if correct for steps 0-6, does not apply on steps 0-7, and of  
course still less to step 0-8.



Similarly after classical teleportation, where you are destroyed and  
recreated, you only come out at the other end as the same person if  
that's what consciousness - if it's "Heralicitean", so to speak. But  
if that is the case, then you can be teleported, cloned, and so on -  
not to mention kidnapped (or 50% kidnapped) by someone able to scan  
your brain at some point without destroying it and recreating you in  
their own private digital world.


OK. That follows again from step 5 and step 7, automatically, and this  
entails the reversal.





That's why it seems if you accept "Yes Doctor", everything else (the  
other steps) have to follow, because you have already accepted what  
we might as well call the Heraclitean nature of consciousness.


OK.






Of course I define comp by "yes doctor" + Church's thesis.

That is why I realise it isn't quite true that YD implies  
everything, because you need CT and AR.
But you just said that "1+1=2" is a fact, which is stronger than AR.  
AR just says that 1+1=2, and nothing more. And CT is not really  
needed in the math: just add Turing before machine or universal  
number. But CT makes things smooth and prevent uninteresting critics  
like "and what if we are not Turing emulable, but still "machines"  
in some unknonw sense.


That was in another thread! I was making a suggestion about "where  
the maths comes from". I don't necessarily assume that when talking  
about comp.


Well, you were saying that not everything follows from YD, which is  
comp. CT is just needed to give "comp" a (general) sense, and AR is  
only the belief that 17 is prime "independent of you".




Also, I suspect that you have a stronger meaning of "fact" in mind.  
What is the difference betwen asserting that 1+1=2 (like AR) and  
saying that 1+1=2 is a fact, like I did? (I suspect the difference  
is something like Bp vs p except I beleive B means believing ...)


Because "1+1=2" is elementary math, learned in high school.
" "1+1=2" is a fact " is a non trivial philosophical statement, which  
involved a non trivial notion like "fact". I have seen people  
discussing ad nauseam on what is a fact, and some philosopher would  
not agree that elementary arithmetical statement can be considered as  
fact.

(Bp is more "I believe in "1+1=2", or I can justify that 1+1=2).






But if you accept the Doctor's offer then you are committing to a  
"capsule theory of identity" which implies most of what you have  
said about duplication experiments with delays, VR, and so on.
OK. I would say "relative (to universal numbers) capsule theory of  
identity".


I'm not sure I understand, what would be the alternative capsule  
theory (i.e. one

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.



These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.  
All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could  
= mustard.


It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1  
would still be equal to 2.


Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.


You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I  
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the  
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on  
me at all.









Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply  
to everything.


1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that  
theory.


Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense.


This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the  
contrary. The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when  
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a  
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order  
language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of  
the theory.









Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one  
raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the  
sense which objects make when we count them.


No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.

Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling  
through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to  
the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.


It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their  
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.









That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond  
literal objects to virtual objects,


If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an  
hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.


A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a  
bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.


A "real" bucket? I don't know what that is. "real" is what is under  
investigation. If I knew what "real" meant, I would stop doing  
research (like you apparently).










but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.


You don't know that.

I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and  
that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.


Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to  
the contrary, notably in the math part. The fact that machine cannot  
see the equivalence between []p and []p & p already entails a tension,  
in the virgin Löbian machine, between its interior and exterior  
conception of itself. Machines have already a left and right brain,  
and I guess the bilaterality of brains exploits this in specializing  
the hemisphere into []p and []p & p. Their logics are quite different.







It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is  
already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a  
thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or  
be anything.


OK, but your argument have never shown that.

No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to  
make the argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself.


Like in math. No problem with this, but my point is that you did not  
succeed in making me able to do that.


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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:52:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2014, at 03:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we  
need a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not  
Alien?


Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you  
that it's your hand?


Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference  
does it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as  
a hand.


Maybe it isn't always obvious that it's my hand... I believe the  
brain has an internal model of the body. I guess without one it  
wouldn't find it so easy to control it? A body's quite complicated,  
after all...


Why should the model include its own non-functional presence though?



Because the "model", the machine is not just confronted with its own  
self-representation, but also with truth, as far as we are. Put  
differently, because the machine can't conflate []p and []p & p.  
Only God can do that.


I don't see why self-representation would or could go beyond a  
simple inventory of functions.


[]p is self representation only.
But []p & p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate  
anything 3p-describable for "[]p & p". It is not a representation, but  
a (meta) link between representation and truth.





It seems a clear double standard to suggest on one hand that once a  
substitution level is met there can be no difference between your  
sun in law and a natural person, but on the other hand you are  
saying that of course machines can tell a difference between two  
identical functions just because one of them feels alien.


It is justified in all details. Follow the "math" thread, perhaps. It  
is certainly a subtle point.


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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 13:06, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:31:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:


On Friday, February 28, 2014, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:



On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:54:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 28 February 2014 01:05, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:13:22 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 26 February 2014 23:58, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:

>> >
>> >> "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to  
describe
>> >> cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing  
involuntary
>> >> movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the  
affected hand

>> >> from
>> >> an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's  
unaffected

>> >> hand.
>> >> In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened
>> >> considerably,
>> >> and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the  
context

>> >> of
>> >> feelings of estrangement from or personification of the  
affected limb

>> >> or its
>> >> movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been  
reported,
>> >> involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus  
callosum

>> >> plus
>> >> dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/ 
subcortical

>> >> areas. A
>> >> patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular  
aetiology is

>> >> reported
>> >> and the findings are discussed in the light of a  
conceptualisation of

>> >> posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less
>> >> associated
>> >> with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and
>> >> callosal-frontal counterparts." -
>> >> http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full
>> >
>> >
>> > This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to
>> > contradict
>> > functionalism. If functionalism identifies consciousness with  
function,

>> > then
>> > it would seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen  
as

>> > estranged
>> > from the personal awareness, is it is really no different from  
a zombie

>> > in
>> > which the substitution level is set at the body level. There is  
no

>> > damage to
>> > the arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet,  
its is felt

>> > to
>> > be outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to  
be your

>> > sensations.
>> >
>> > This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would  
expect to
>> > encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any  
inorganic
>> > substitute. At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too  
would

>> > the
>> > brain become non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system  
would

>> > fail
>> > to be incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain  
could still

>> > learn to use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own
>> > articulation and familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is  
a one way
>> > street and the prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal  
awareness

>> > and
>> > merge with it.
>>
>> This example shows that if there is a lesion in the neural  
circuitry

>> it affects consciousness. If you fix the lesion such that the
>> circuitry works properly but the consciousness is affected (keeping
>> the environmental input constant) then that implies that  
consciousness

>> is generated by something other than the brain.
>
>
> Paying attention to the circuitry is a red herring. What I'm  
bringing up is
> how dissociation of functions identified with the self does not  
make sense
> for the functionalist view of consciousness. How do you give a  
program
> 'alien subroutine syndrome'? Why does the program make a  
distinction between
> the pure function of the subroutine and some feeling of belonging  
that is

> generated by something other than the program?

I don't know why you distinguish between a function such as moving the
hand and identifying the hand as your own.

Because there is nothing that functionalism could allow 'your own'  
to mean other than 'it is available to be used by the system'. The  
alien hand is available to be used, but that is perceived to be  
irrelevant. That is consistent with consciousness being a set of  
aesthetic qualities and direct participation, but not consistent  
with consciousness being a complex set of generic skills.


There must be some difference in the input from the hand or its  
subsequent neural  processing for it to be identified as foreign,  
and this is consistent with the fact that there is a brain lesion in  
alien hand syndrome.


I'm sure there is some difference, but it doesn't affect the  
functionality of the hand. Under functionalism, since we can observe  
no difference between the function of the body with or without AHS,  
we should assume no such thing as AHS. If consciousness is like AHS,  
and the hand is like the brain or body, then we should not be able  
to see a difference between a conscious brain and simulation of  
brain activity that is unconscious.




B

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 06:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:


consciousness is deflated to the sum of a set of functions.


That does not happen in the computationalist theory. No 1p things are  
ever representable into a 3p thing. There are no 3p description of  
"[]p & p"; That simply cannot exist, except, perhaps, in God's eye.


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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am toying
with how it could be a mechanism by which something could seemingly arise
from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws of physics (or math
perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to exist a priori that allow
retro-causation to occur.

 

Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a 4 (or
more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating - whether it's
one universe, a self-generating universe or an infinite and eternal
universe, it effectively comes from nothing (except whatever causes it to
exist in an atemporal manner).

 

Yes.. A higher dimensional manifold, a dynamic topography, intrinsic and
auto-catalyzed, primally causal; yet uncaused. 

In combination with the dynamism of computationalism (and Darwinian
evolution): All that ever was, will be or can be emerges from some simplest
minimal set of arithmetic axiomic entities operating over and on enumerable
and set entities. and in doing so, unleashing the dynamically self-feeding,
recursive process of self-emergence - now imagine emergence with the
addition of retro-causation feedback auto-catalyzing the process.

This is speculative, of course, and enjoyable.. For some at least LOL

Chris

.

-- 
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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 2 March 2014 16:49, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>> You have too simplistic a view of what "function" means in the context of
>> an intelligent being.
>
>
> I think that you have too naive a view of what function means.
>
>>
>> That is actually your whole problem: you look at machine, imagine that you
>> can see how it works, then look at a human, can't figure out how it works,
>> so conclude there must be something non-machine like in the human.
>
>
> It has nothing to do with not being able to figure out how humans work.
> Nothing to do with human consciousness or biology at all. I'm *always* only
> talking about the bare metal basics of awareness itself. Sensation.
> Detection. Signal. You take them for granted, but I don't. If you take them
> for granted, then it is no great surprise that you can imagine consciousness
> coming from function.
>
>>
>> Yet the very examples you use demonstrate that even mysterious-seeming
>> behaviours such as those displayed in ALH are generated by neural circuitry
>> which can be easily disrupted.
>
>
> It doesn't matter where they are generated, all that matters is whether
> possession of one's own function can be defined as a computable object under
> functionalism. I think that it is a clear double standard to say that the
> 'mine-ness' of a hand can of course be detected, but the 'mine-ness' of a
> human experience would require zombies to justify. You're looking at the
> wrong thing. I don't care about the details of any particular machine or
> organism, I care about the properties of awareness being incompatible in
> every way to the properties of function unless awareness comes first.

The "mine-ness" of a hand cannot be directly detected but the
behaviour can be detected. The behaviour is generated by the
underlying processes, as is the consciousness. Although not
immediately obvious, it turns out that if you can replicate the
function you will also replicate the consciouness, even if you do it
using a different mechanism.

The use of the words "behaviour" and "function" can be confusing.
Essentially, replicating the function of an entity involves
replicating its behaviour under all circumstances, or to put it
differently ensuring the outputs are the same for all inputs.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Because "1+1=2" is elementary math, learned in high school.
>
" "1+1=2" is a fact " is a non trivial philosophical statement, which
> involved a non trivial notion like "fact". I have seen people discussing ad
> nauseam on what is a fact, and some philosopher would not agree that
> elementary arithmetical statement can be considered as fact.
> (Bp is more "I believe in "1+1=2", or I can justify that 1+1=2).
>

OK, I think I see that.

>
>> But if you accept the Doctor's offer then you are committing to a
>> "capsule theory of identity" which implies most of what you have said about
>> duplication experiments with delays, VR, and so on.
>>
>> OK. I would say "relative (to universal numbers) capsule theory of
>> identity".
>>
>
> I'm not sure I understand, what would be the alternative capsule theory
> (i.e. one that isn't relative to universal numbers?)
>
>
> Because the state that the doctor put on some disk has a sense only
> relatively to the possible state of some other universal system.
> In fact any number might defined your actual state relatively to *some*
> universal system, itself making sense thanks to the local "physical laws",
> for example. A number by itself does not refer to a computational state,
> you need at least two numbers, or you need to fix the base system, or to
> make precise the UD you work with. The notion of computational state is
> relative. OK?
> When everything is reduced to arithmetic, we have to take into account
> this "relativity of relativity".
>
> I think I get this, in an intuitive sort of way. It has seemed to me from
the start that numbers of themselves can't do anything - so they must need
to do so relative to something. But I probably need to learn more to really
understand this.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:13 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 11:53, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:






 

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

>>Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is
a fact that 1+1=2.

 

Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what evidence does
this occur?

Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing - even more
fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could see this logic in a
pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very large number of atoms, but
if math is to be the superstructure underlying everything then I - speaking
for myself - am not satisfied by saying it just is a fact.

 

 

But do you agree with 1+1=2?

I agree that math is internally consistent 

 

 

"1+1=2" is quasi-infinitely more simple than "math is internally
consistent".

 

I have few doubt that "1+1=2" makes sense, and is true, but a term like
"math" does not denote a theory for which "consistent" can make sense.

 

 

 





and that within mathematical ontology it is self-consistent. Furthermore it
seems to crop up in reality again and again. Patterns, equations, such as
say the Fibonacci series manifesting in so many unrelated places; the
universe in its reduced symbol set of "smeared" quarks and leptons; its
constants and various cardinal values and states such as spin, color, charge
etc. - it does all seem very binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where "1" came from, and even before 1, 

 

Don't confuse the null set and the number 0. 

 

I don't believe in set. Finite set theory is equivalent to Peano Arithmetic
(even more equivalent than "Turing equivalent"). But usual set theory have
much stronger axiom, like the axiom of infinity. 

 

Finite sets are useful tools and help sequence ordering of operation as well
as ordering of inputs and outputs. Infinite sets make it more interesting
and useful. The set provides the means of attributing things and finding
things via attributes; i.e. a member of the class of things that has these
attributes. Relating things and remembering the relationships amidst dynamic
change is what sets provide. Naturally all manner of more specialized
containers can emerge Say ordered set for example. 

By un-bounding collections it makes them useful universal entities.

 





the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more than
nothing. 

 

>>Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and comprehension,
you can get almost all sets from the null set.

 

In some ways all other possible sets naturally emerge from the null set; in
a way as all numbers emerge from the bit The bit, if infinitely replicated
can express any number; if you can get this infinitely self-auto-replicating
bit off and running like inflation then the universe is in business.

 





It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this most
reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up, perhaps because it
is unknowable.

I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating infinite
forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism operating over layer
and layers of stochastic boundaries.

 

>>OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null set, or of
the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (= failure of Russell and
Whitehead "logicism").

 

Yes, I agree, I can only imagine how Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem
must have hit Russell and Whitehead like a ton of bricks. 

Chris



 

Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

 

Of course, in "my" theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting things is
that "Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2" is also a theorem.

 

Sure... an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential issues with
my being, being emergent In fact I rather like the idea of emerging into
being. It fits with the brains massive parallelism and lack of any central
operating system (that we have found). I emerge; therefore I am.

 

OK, I have no problem with this too.

 

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.
V

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Kim Jones]

Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

> On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
> 
> and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.
> 
> Bruno

How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers. We're music. Let's go to the 
pub and celebrate.

Kim

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what  
numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was  
prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used  
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable  
consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny  
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a  
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our  
theory that the world consists of countable things - whether it  
really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non  
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics,  
the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka "numbers".  I think  
you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.


Arithmetical truth, notably with comp, can explain the epistemological  
existence of non mechanically countable object. It is math. I don't  
see what is mystic here. I don't understand your remark. I did not say  
"arithmetic", but comp, and this does use only the "mystical" idea  
that I can remain conscious with a relative digital brain. This leads  
to taking into account the internal points of view of the machine in  
arithmetic, which can have beliefs extending a lot arithmetic. The  
existence of ZF and its proofs is a theorem of arithmetic (even  
Robinson Arithmetic).


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: Digital Neurology

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 08:09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On 1 March 2014 01:40, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> If you start with the assumption that the physics relevant to brain
>> function is not computable then computationalism is false: it  
would be
>> impossible to make a machine that behaves like a human, either  
zombie

>> or conscious.
>
>
> I agree with you, the physics *relevant* to brain function has to be
> computable, for comp to be true. But the point is that below the
> substitution level, the physical details are not relevant. Then by  
the FPI,
> they must be undetermined, and this on an infinite non computable  
domain,
> and so, our "computable brain" must rely on a non computable  
physics, or a
> non necessarily computable physics, with some non computable  
aspect. This is

> what comp predicts, and of course this is confirmed by QM. Again,
> eventually, QM might to much computable for comp to be true. That  
is what

> remain to be seen.
>
>
>> What I mean by functionalism is that the way the brain processes
>> information, its I/O behaviour, is what generates mind. This  
implies

>> multiple realisability of mental states, insofar as the same
>> information processing could be done by another machine. If the
>> machine is a digital computer then functionalism reduces to
>> computationalism. If the brain utilises non-computable physics then
>> you won't be able to reproduce its function (and the mind thus
>> generated) with a digital computer, so computationalism is false.
>> However, that does not necessarily mean that functionalism is  
false,

>> since you may be able to implement the appropriate brain function
>> through some other means. For example, if it turns out that a  
digital

>> implementation of the brain fails because real numbers and not
>> approximations are necessary, it may still be possible to  
implement a

>> brain using analogue devices.
>
>
> OK, but that functionalism seems to me trivially true. How could  
such

> functionalism be refuted, if you can invoke arbitrary functions?
> (Also, "functionalism" is used for a stringer (less general)  
version of
> computationalism, by Putnam, so this use of functionalism is non  
standard

> and can be confusing.
> Last remark, I am not sure that the notion of information  
processing can

> make sense in a non digital framework. In both quantum and classical
> information theory, information is digital (words like bits and  
qubits come

> from there).

I think functionalism is true, but it's not obviously true, at least  
to most people. It could be that the observable behaviour of the  
brain is reproduced perfectly but the resulting creature has no  
consciousness or a different conscious.


What if someone says that the function of the brain is to provide  
consciousness. Is that functionalism?
What if someone says that the function of the brain is to link a  
"divine" soul to a person through a body?

What is a function?






That would be the case if consciousness were substrate-dependent.


But you can put the substrate in the function. A brain would have the  
function to associate to that substrate the experience. How could I  
say no to the doctor who guaranties that all the function of the brain  
are preserved.

The term function, like set, is too general, to much powerful.




It could also be that the behaviour cannot be reproduced by a  
computer because the substitution level requires non-computable  
physics (true randomness, real numbers, non-computable functions),  
but it could be reproduced by a non-computational device. So there  
are these possibilities with brain replacement:


(a) the behaviour is not reproduced and neither is the consciousness;


= ~ BEH-MEC


(b) The behaviour is reproduced but the consciousness is not  
reproduced;


~ comp.




(c) The behaviour is reproduced and so is the consciousness;


= comp, unless it is the consciousness is the one by an impostor.




(d) The behaviour is not reproduced but the consciousness is


= "bad" substitution.





>> What can be proved is that if consciousness is due to the brain  
then
>> replicating brain function in some other substrate will also  
replicate

>> its consciousness.
>
>
> OK. What I meant is that we cannot prove that consciousness is due  
to the

> brain.

Yes, a dualist, for example, could consistently deny fuctionalism,


Not sure. It depends on how you define function.



but someone who believes that consciousness is due to the brain  
could not.


Most dualist believes that consciousness is due to the brain. They  
will usually deny that the functional relation can be obtained with  
this or that type of functions, but to throw out all functions, makes  
their theory spurious. There will lost both interactionism and  
epiphenomenalism.


Maybe you are on some idea, but you should take another word, as in  
philosophy of mind, functionalism is used for Putnam's  
computationalism. I do see vaguely what you mean, but

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

The "TOE" extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of  
addition and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you  
can prove the existence of the universal numbers and or all their  
computations, and even interview the Löbian numbers, on what is  
possible for them, in different relative sense.


So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is  
impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making  
arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.


God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added "Add and  
Multiply".

Basically. - Bruno

Start;  "TOE" extracted from comp - so we are talking about a  
fraction of everything, the part as extracted.


The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E, like  
Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a finite  
object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be infinite, and  
is infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside views.




I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we  
can know about, identify or understand.


Me too. No problem with this.





Finish: "GOD" created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,  
And(faith).  He

(or She, or It) added "Add and multiply" - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of  
children).


How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply  
integers, to get 0.123456?

or irrational numbers?


No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers, and ...  
all constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real numbers  
makes no sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal views).


In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers,  
but we can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all  
real numbers.





I described here already my 'story' of the Roman numbers before the  
invention of zero, based on TWO hands (with fingers, '5' one palm-  
two fingers)..


Yes, I remember. But the number properties are independent of the  
notation used to represent them.
XXIII is prime. the discovery of 0 has not changed any theorem in  
arithmetic, but it has been handy to find new theorems, which remains  
correct whatever system is used to talk on them.


Bruno



JM



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 08:20, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information -  
encoded on what though? - Is not especially troubling for me. I  
understand how some cling to a fundamental material realism; after  
all it does seem so very real. However when you get right down to  
it all we have is measured values of things and meters by which we  
measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience of our  
own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that  
we can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we  
measure it.
I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark's book - I read a  
bit each day when I break for lunch - so this is partly influencing  
this train of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of  
quantum computing and how in a sense q-bits are leveraging the  
Level III multiverse to compute every possible outcome while in  
quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had never  
read before.
Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the  
idea of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The  
soul is an emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and  
breadth of parallelism and vastness of scale of the information  
system in which it is self-emergent.


Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is:  
Every information system, at least that I have ever been aware of,  
requires a substrate medium upon which to encode itself;  
information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding  
existing on some substrate system. I would like to avoid the  
infinite regression of stopping at the point of describing systems  
as existing upon other and requiring other substrate systems that  
themselves require substrates themselves described as information  
again requiring some substrate... repeat eternally.
It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded  
in a very simple substrate system given enough replication of  
elements... a simple binary state machine could suffice, given enough  
bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?

At some point reductionism can no longer reduce And then we are  
back to where we first started How did that arise or come to be?  
If for example we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory  
then what of sets and the various set operations? What of  
enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can you re

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR
On 2 March 2014 21:05, Chris de Morsella   
wrote:


I agree that it does not reach the level of an explanation, but am  
toying with how it could be a mechanism by which something could  
seemingly arise from nothing at all. If - as you point out the laws  
of physics (or math perhaps if physics itself is emergent)  need to  
exist a priori that allow retro-causation to occur.


Fair enough. The upshot (I think) would be that whatever exists is a  
4 (or more) dimensional structure which is in a sense free-floating  
- whether it's one universe, a self-generating universe or an  
infinite and eternal universe, it effectively comes from nothing  
(except whatever causes it to exist in an atemporal manner).


Yes A higher dimensional manifold, a dynamic topography, intrinsic  
and auto-catalyzed, primally causal; yet uncaused.
In combination with the dynamism of computationalism (and Darwinian  
evolution): All that ever was, will be or can be emerges from some  
simplest minimal set of arithmetic axiomic entities operating over  
and on enumerable and set entities... and in doing so, unleashing the  
dynamically self-feeding, recursive process of self-emergence - now  
imagine emergence with the addition of retro-causation feedback auto- 
catalyzing the process.

This is speculative, of course, and enjoyable For some at least LOL


If the brain is Turing emulable, then it is a theorem, with the usual  
Occam razor. It makes comp (and the classical theory of knowledge)  
refutable, because physics and math have to emerge from arithmetic in  
a very special way, constraining completely what is and what is not  
observable.


Bruno






Chris
.

--
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 06:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 6:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of meekerdb

Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number  
regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what  
numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was  
prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used  
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable  
consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny  
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a  
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our  
theory that the world consists of countable things - whether it  
really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non  
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics,  
the theology, etc.


>>Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka "numbers".  I  
think you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.


Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with  
potential ordering & grouping) that takes numeric input and  
produces numeric output? I find it hard to conceive of math without  
also contemporaneously envisioning enumerable entities.


I think I could conceive of some math without enumerable entities;  
for example parts of topology and real analysis don't seem to depend  
on counting.  But I was just expressing incredulity with Bruno's  
post.  He says we only need believe that "17 is prime" to use  
arithmetic realism.  Then he says there are no countable things in  
his theory!??


OK, I see that a misunderstanding has came from my bad english.

I was saying that there are no-countable things in the theory, not  
that there are no countable things.


I was saying Ex (~(x countable)), and I was not saying that  ~Ex(x  
countable).


Sorry,

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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 04:54, Russell Standish wrote:


On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The
Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes
From".


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
like the UDA.

Brent



I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters "strange loop".

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the  
base of

everything at times in the past too?


It is more a virtuous/vicious cycle, than a strange loop, but perhaps  
I am wrong on what Hofstadter called a "strange loop".


Mind and phenomena can arise from numbers, and then human-numbers can  
be discovered by the human minds, but there is no loop here, no more  
than humans can arise from amoeba, and then later humans can discover  
the amoebas. If we can explain how mind and phenomena arise from  
number, we can already be satisfied, I think, as we can understand  
that we cannot understand where numbers come from. To add that they  
come from humans or minds, make the loop vicious, as an *explanation*.
That might be possible, in a close time loop in GR, but then we have  
to explain GR and why there is a physical universe obeying GR, and how  
mind emerges in there, etc.


Bruno






Cheers

--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:49, LizR wrote:


On 2 March 2014 21:33, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

Because "1+1=2" is elementary math, learned in high school.
" "1+1=2" is a fact " is a non trivial philosophical statement,  
which involved a non trivial notion like "fact". I have seen people  
discussing ad nauseam on what is a fact, and some philosopher would  
not agree that elementary arithmetical statement can be considered  
as fact.

(Bp is more "I believe in "1+1=2", or I can justify that 1+1=2).

OK, I think I see that.


But if you accept the Doctor's offer then you are committing to a  
"capsule theory of identity" which implies most of what you have  
said about duplication experiments with delays, VR, and so on.
OK. I would say "relative (to universal numbers) capsule theory of  
identity".


I'm not sure I understand, what would be the alternative capsule  
theory (i.e. one that isn't relative to universal numbers?)


Because the state that the doctor put on some disk has a sense only  
relatively to the possible state of some other universal system.
In fact any number might defined your actual state relatively to  
*some* universal system, itself making sense thanks to the local  
"physical laws", for example. A number by itself does not refer to a  
computational state, you need at least two numbers, or you need to  
fix the base system, or to make precise the UD you work with. The  
notion of computational state is relative. OK?
When everything is reduced to arithmetic, we have to take into  
account this "relativity of relativity".


I think I get this, in an intuitive sort of way. It has seemed to me  
from the start that numbers of themselves can't do anything - so  
they must need to do so relative to something. But I probably need  
to learn more to really understand this.


I am thinking about how to explain this.

When you say "numbers of themselves can't do anything" you are right.

But the point will be that "numbers + addition and multiplication"   
can do the thing needed. And this in some absolute sense. In  
particular, numbers +addition+multiplication, can do the universal  
numbers, from which the relativity of the computational state will  
emerge.


This should be much clear when we will derive machine's physics (and  
machine's theology) from arithmetic.


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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 14:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope.


Consistency does not entail truth.




The universe is consistent.


That makes no sense. The universe is not a theory, nor a believer, a  
priori.


I don't know what you mean by "universe", also. Do you mean "physical  
universe"? "primitive physical universe?", or mathematical universe?  
or theological universe?

You take for granted what I am searching for.




A person is part of the universe. People have no direct knowledge of  
the universe. They have only their internal mental simulation of the  
universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able  
to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across  
maximum scope IS TRUTH.


Many propositions A can be such that both A and ~A are consistent.  
What you say makes no sense, unless you mean that the reality is made  
of all consistent realities, like the everythingers of this list. This  
leads to block-multiverses, or block multidreams, like arithmetic  
already is.






In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If  
some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest  
then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the  
inconsistency and you come nearer to truth.


Correcting inconsistency makes you consistent, not true.




Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.


This has been refuted by Gödel, even only on arithmetic. Consistency  
appears to be cheap. Indeed Peano Arithmetic extended with the formula  
saying that Peano Arithmetic is inconsistent leads to a consistent  
theory. The theory PA + PA proves "0 = 1" does not prove that "0 = 1".



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: For John Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote:

I like the frog and bird metaphors, though! At least I prefer the  
idea of the bird looking down on the mathematical landscape than  
worrying about "the eye of god".



I prefer the inner god to be a bird than a frog, but may be that's  
personal :


The "eye of god" is the 0-person view. It alludes to the outer God,  
which is just arithmetical truth, here.


But also, the bird/frog makes that opposition to much physicalist,  
when with comp it is will be a purely distinction on the type of self- 
reference, and is actually closer to the QM entanglement.


Tegmark is less wrong than other physicalist physicists, still not yet  
close to comp's consequences, though. He got the references wrong also.


Bruno






In the beginning was the Bird, to quote "The Unpleasant Profession  
of Jonathan Hoag".



--
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 15:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope.

How do we know "consistency" though? Isn't the ability to detect and  
interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more  
primitive than the quality of truth or consistency?


The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People  
have no direct knowledge of the universe.


If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does  
anything else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which  
nothing can ever have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We  
have direct knowledge of our experience, and our experience of the  
universe is the only universe that we can ever refer to empirically.  
I do not know that the universe is consistent, since I am part of  
the universe I know that consistency is a chore. If I want to make  
sense and find truth, I have to participate in a process of  
intuitive comparisons and empirical methods.


They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe.

We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the  
ability to directly contact and control external physical realities.  
If we did not, then it would not matter how bad our simulations were.


To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live  
and function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum  
scope IS TRUTH.


I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the  
significance of maximum consistency across the maximum scope is  
truth. Without appreciation of significance, consistency is merely a  
repeating coincidence with no expectation of consequence.



In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If  
some aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest  
then there is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the  
inconsistency and you come nearer to truth.


Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.

Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When  
all inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well.


OK.(and again this fits very well with computationalism).

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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 10:49, Chris de Morsella wrote:


the null set... the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more  
than nothing.


Sure. The set { { } } is not empty. { } *is* something.





>>Yes, with the set theoretical principles of reflexion and  
comprehension, you can get almost all sets from the null set.


In some ways all other possible sets naturally emerge from the null  
set; in a way as all numbers emerge from the bit The bit, if  
infinitely replicated can express any number; if you can get this  
infinitely self-auto-replicating bit off and running like inflation  
then the universe is in business.


Except that here you seems to take fro granted that "universe" is a  
well defined term, but it is not, and apparently, if comp is true, the  
physical and the mathematical universe are epistemic construction in  
the mind of numbers, relatively to infinities of number relations. By  
the First Person Indeterminacy, our mind are distributed through  
infinitely many computations occurrences in arithmetic, and the  
physical is somehow determined by the statistics which can exist (or  
not, but the first results go in the direction that it can exist) on  
*all* (relative) computations.

This makes physics, including experimental physics, into arithmetic.







It takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this  
most reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up,  
perhaps because it is unknowable.
I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating  
infinite forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism  
operating over layer and layers of stochastic boundaries.


>>OK. But the point is that we can't prove the existence of null  
set, or of the umber 0. We can't prove this from logic alone (=  
failure of Russell and Whitehead "logicism").


Yes, I agree, I can only imagine how Kurt Gödel's incompleteness  
theorem must have hit Russell and Whitehead like a ton of bricks.


It is a real (creative) bomb. Few realize the deep impact that theorem  
has on basically everything fundamental.
It is often misused, and so, some expert logicians infer that all its  
use out of logic are misused, but this is refuted in computer science  
and in computationalist physics and theology.


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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 11:13, Kim Jones wrote:




Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL


On 1 Mar 2014, at 7:43 pm, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

and I chose numbers as people are familiarized with them.

Bruno


How about music? Music is just a bunch of numbers.


Well, you can't say that. Especially to a literally minded stubborn  
mathematician :)


I do agree that the relation between math and music are very deep and  
profound though.




We're music. Let's go to the pub and celebrate.


OK. Good idea :)

Bruno






Kim

--
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 01 Mar 2014, at 22:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That  
is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of  
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The  
Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes  
From".


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor  
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument  
like the UDA.


But then you must show the flaw, or add a missing hypothesis or  
something. Normally UDA follows from comp. I was of course assuming  
people grasp UDA here.


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.

consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If 
its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong 
evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they 
begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until 
all the REM is made up for)
i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is 
this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has 
already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as 
a rest'. 
ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the 
vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting 
goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant 
computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a 
piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of 
the code?  What decides what object and experiences what consciousness,  
and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes 
wake up him?
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, 
which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are 
required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience 
is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be 
precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to 
include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its 
footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can 
we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 of that code?
, 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 
50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts 
to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into 
existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the 
Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why 
hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: 
> >> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?" 
> >> 
> >> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That   
> >> is, it is a fact that 1+1=2. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.   
> >> All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could   
> >> = mustard. 
> > 
> > It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1   
> > would still be equal to 2. 
> > 
> > Not if you were the only mind left in the universe. 
>
> You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I   
> am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the   
> case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on   
> me at all. 
>

If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what everything 
depends on. There would be nothing else but you which could know anything 
or experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you are 
the only truth there is.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply   
> >> to everything. 
> > 
> > 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that   
> > theory. 
> > 
> > Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense. 
>
> This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the   
> contrary.


Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense. Logic is local truth. It 
can never include sense itself let alone the absolute (pansensitivity). 
Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the water, but there is no water 
there. "=" is a myth of representation. For authentic presence, there is 
only 'reminds me of' or 'seems almost exactly like'.

 

> The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when   
> possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a   
> vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order   
> language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of   
> the theory. 
>

Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives in, 
which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still only a map, 
and it is a map of distance and measure, not of experience.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one   
> >> raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the   
> >> sense which objects make when we count them. 
> > 
> > No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot. 
> > 
> > Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling   
> > through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to   
> > the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled. 
>
> It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their   
> fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc. 
>

Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things. Computationalism is 
not interested in counting feelings (how many feelings do you have? How 
many now?), yet it presumes to attribute feeling to a consequence of 
counting, using logic that has no idea what feeling could be. What hubris!

I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we have to 
meet them halfway:

http://s33light.org/post/77942035998
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond   
> >> literal objects to virtual objects, 
> > 
> > If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an   
> > hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use. 
> > 
> > A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a   
> > bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties. 
>
> A "real" bucket? I don't know what that is. 


It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as well 
as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make up the bucket.

 

> "real" is what is under   
> investigation. If I knew what "real" meant, I would stop doing   
> research (like you apparently). 
>

Real is the density of aesthetic correspondence relative to the total 
continuum of sense.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior. 
> > 
> > You don't know that. 
> > 
> > I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and   
> > that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary. 
>
> Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to   
> the contrary, notably in the math part. 


That's math though. I don't see that it has any connection to the universe 
that we live in.
 

> The fact tha

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

Ghibbs, I really do take it seriously, but I have also become aware that (from 
a behavioral anthropological view) even climate scientists can get corrupted, 
can follow their peers in to group think, just like anyone else. So, I say, 
even though its their expertise (indeed!) they may not be doing their declared 
job-deciding what can be proven. That aside, I personally guess that putting 
all that crap in the air cannot be good for us (duh!) but I suspect these 
rulers of our societies, are using a problem like GW as an excuse to glom 
power. Hence my pointing at their lack of frantic effort that we observe in 
real crises. That aside, many of the Green supporters, including billionaires, 
want a switch-off of dirty power, when they have nothing to replace it. If GW 
is now upon us, despite weeks and weeks or artic storms here in the continental 
US and Canada, 
then the we may not have time to implement solar anyway. Is it possible that GW 
is slow in arrival? What then?

What would I like? A particle of nothing? Do things like build a power grid 
that can switch power all around from any source, just in case the GW becomes 
flesh, plus protecting against solar flares, and do things like using eutectic 
salt storage, to contain solar and wind power for electricity. But I don't feel 
GW is upon us, nor, do I feel that our leaders are truly, serious. We have time 
for lots of innovations, if we have time, and I say we do. I could drone on, 
and will. 

-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 12:19 am
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:05:55 AM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of 
politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by 
true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American, and 
European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a bit of a 
discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion accusation as I 
their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this particularaccusation. 
Pax Vobiscum.

 
you don't seem to take it that seriously. But is this about climate science 
only? I only ask because there's this nefarious but very effective lobby outfit 
that traces its roots back into the days of tobacco harm denial. They use very 
reliable psychological devices to create that sense of doubt. They really 
played hardball toobeing willing to totally trash the reputation of science 
it secured their goals. Destroy individuals. Drive them to nervous breakdowns. 
Harass media outlets.,  
 
That's nothing of it either. What they did was create these networks of think 
tanks, lobbies, libertarian fronts, that all basically referenced and agreed 
and which were all basically run by the same people. That work on people, in 
the masses, very effectively because over time hearing the same ideas fropm 
different directions, fires up our final background conceptual framework. This 
is the one that evolution puts beyond our conscious reach. We can access, and 
even shape it, but only indirectly by creating recurrent commitments or rituals 
- or exercize. Also things like incantations  - repeating with emphasis - will 
begin to access that framework. 
 
It's a really important framework, this is where it gets decided what 
background reality is., What social respectability is. What is illegitimate and 
what is legitimate. 
 
 
It can be, and is, and has been, shaped, that background framework of ours, 
most of us anyway, , by this malicious sort of activist strategy
 
I think the reason we respond this way, is either  because it kind of makes 
sense an individual needs to be in a process of deciding what is  intrinsic to 
reality that we need not consciousluy register it
 
I mean look, just for the reality of scum like that screwing everyone over, 
there chances of a rational society wide decision making process. I mean what a 
way to say you don't care about anything. Just them being there makes me get 
behind the climate science and the scientists. Double other sciences
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: 01-Mar-2014 21:13:39 +
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany




On 2 March 2014 14:01, Chris de Morsella  wrote:


 
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On 
Behalf Of spudb...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the dirty 
power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to go. The 
leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its imminent. 
 
Who are these “leaders” you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret 
illuminati council of thirteen… who are these sinister “leaders” who believe 
global w

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

Hmm. Show me how I disinformed? Oh! By disagreeing. Ah! But what are the facts? 
What is the behavior of pols and billionaires? Where's the panic over 
inundating waters? No crash programs? I guess its easy to be lied to, if one is 
bought off by ideology in the first place. The cause and effect part of the 
brain must go to sleep. 


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:12 am
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On 2 March 2014 18:19,   wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:05:55 AM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of 
politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by 
true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American, and 
European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a bit of a 
discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion accusation as I 
their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this particularaccusation. 
Pax Vobiscum.

 

you don't seem to take it that seriously. But is this about climate science 
only? I only ask because there's this nefarious but very effective lobby outfit 
that traces its roots back into the days of tobacco harm denial. They use very 
reliable psychological devices to create that sense of doubt. They really 
played hardball toobeing willing to totally trash the reputation of science 
it secured their goals. Destroy individuals. Drive them to nervous breakdowns. 
Harass media outlets.,  



This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based organisations. They 
created institutes specifically to push some agenda. We've had tobacco, big 
oil, and of course the anti-evolution lot, all with their own "think tanks" and 
"institutes". Personally I reckon they got the idea from L Ron Hubbard, who 
once got into a conversation with fellow science fiction writers - I forget 
who, say James Blish and John W Campbell Jr, for the sake of argument - and 
they all proposed crazy ideas about how one could create a science based 
religion. "We could have little devices that let people measure their state of 
spiritual health!" they chortled, imagining this was just one of those games SF 
writers love to indulge in - little realising that Hubbard was making mental 
notes of everything they said.



-- 
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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness  
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is  
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of  
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the  
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all  
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer  
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little  
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,  
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why  
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done  
on the footprint issue?



A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining  
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of  
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.


I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic  
suggest the following answer.


Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not  
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a  
person, a first person notion.


Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as  
elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system  
will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,  
observe, and feel about itself.


What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth  
is confronted at the start with "conflicting ways" to "experience" it.  
You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus  
definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening  
(consistent, consistent and true) variant.


Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,  
but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance  
awareness.


More on this in my explanation  to Liz. The interest in comp is not in  
its (plausible or not) truth, but it is in the fact that it makes  
possible to translate the problem in arithmetic.


Hard science indeed. Risk of head explosion.

With p arithmetic and sigma_1 (and free or true)

ptruth
[]pbeliefs
[]p & pknowledge
[]p & <>p  observations
[]p & <>p & p  sensations

provides 8 "person pov" that you can attribute to the universal number  
defining the "[]".
8, because three of them splits into effective and non effective part  
"yet true".
(So that theory explains something about consciousness by relating a  
correct "obvious" part to non justifiable truth) (It makes also  
consciousness into a fixed point of the doubt, like in Descartes).


You must study a bit of computer science and mathematical logic, and  
philosophical logic, to see that with Gödel's discovery, we have  
discovered a person, and infinitely of them, 

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:
>
> *The "TOE" extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of addition 
> and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you can prove the 
> existence of the universal numbers and or all their computations, and even 
> interview the Löbian numbers, on what is possible for them, in different 
> relative sense.*
>
> *So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is 
> impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making 
> arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.*
>
> *God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added "Add and 
> Multiply". *
> *Basically. - **Bruno*
>
>  *Start;*  "TOE" extracted from comp - so we are talking about a fraction 
> of everything, the part as extracted. 
>
>
> The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E, like 
> Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a finite 
> object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be infinite, and is 
> infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside views.
>
>
>
> I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we can know 
> about, identify or understand. 
>
>
> Me too. No problem with this.
>
 
 
Why? Why do you both *like* to consider the world this way that 
condemns the highest dreams of discovery to disappointment and futility.  I 
could relate to assuming that for a methodological reason. And for a 
sincerely believed theory reason. But I'm struggling with the personal 
preference reason. 

>
>
>
>
> *Finish:* "GOD" created the integers - and the World, and the Angels, 
> And(faith).  He 
> (or She, or It) added "Add and multiply" - nothing else.
> (Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of children).
>
> How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply integers, to 
> get *0.123456*? 
> or *irrational* numbers?
>
>
> No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
> No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers, and ... all 
> constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real numbers makes no 
> sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal views).
>
> In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers, but we 
> can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all real numbers.
>
 
For me the most significant part was Irrational Numbers...which you seem to 
have overlooked in your answer. How does the comp ToE, explain, derive, and 
predict in nature as her preference this cult of number? Unlike the others, 
this is a clear and real oppiortunity to say something new we didn't know. 
Like, what are the irrational numbers in nature we don't know about? What 
is the origin of this numbers and their function, that only they can 
deliver, only because they are irrational?

>
>
>  
>

-- 
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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:52:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Feb 2014, at 03:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we need 
 a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien?

 Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you that 
>>> it's your hand?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference does 
>> it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand.
>>  
>>
>>> Maybe it isn't always obvious that it's my hand... I believe the brain 
>>> has an internal model of the body. I guess without one it wouldn't find it 
>>> so easy to control it? A body's quite complicated, after all...
>>>
>>
>> Why should the model include its own non-functional presence though?
>>
>>
>>
>> Because the "model", the machine is not just confronted with its own 
>> self-representation, but also with truth, as far as we are. Put 
>> differently, because the machine can't conflate []p and []p & p. Only God 
>> can do that.
>>
>
> I don't see why self-representation would or could go beyond a simple 
> inventory of functions.
>
>
> []p is self representation only.
> But []p & p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate 
> anything 3p-describable for "[]p & p". It is not a representation, but a 
> (meta) link between representation and truth.
>

Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages? Which language's 
word for rain represents the most truth of rain? Why would we need, for 
example, one set of functions to calculate the time and another set of 
functions plus different hardware to display the result of that calculation 
graphically? If the machine had a link between the display of time and the 
truth of time, then there would be no additional parts necessary and our 
representation of time would simply match any machine's representation of 
time. This would ostensibly occur telepathically, just as all number 
relations must occur within comp.

 

>
>
>
>
> It seems a clear double standard to suggest on one hand that once a 
> substitution level is met there can be no difference between your sun in 
> law and a natural person, but on the other hand you are saying that of 
> course machines can tell a difference between two identical functions just 
> because one of them feels alien.
>
>
> It is justified in all details. Follow the "math" thread, perhaps. It is 
> certainly a subtle point.
>

If it's not translatable into a non-math understanding then I'm not 
interested.

Craig
 

>
> 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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[spudboy100]

Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. What this 
implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.


-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)
i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 of that code?
, 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in 
this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that 
isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
on the footprint issue?

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>
>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That
>> is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>
>>
>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't.
>> All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could
>> = mustard.
>
> It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1
> would still be equal to 2.
>
> Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.

You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I
am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the
case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on
me at all.

If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what  
everything depends on.


You have to learn logic.



There would be nothing else but you which could know anything or  
experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you  
are the only truth there is.


Wrong.








>
>
>
>
>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply
>> to everything.
>
> 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that
> theory.
>
> Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense.

This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the
contrary.

Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense.


I am afraid you have to learn logic.





Logic is local truth.


Nope.



It can never include sense itself let alone the absolute  
(pansensitivity). Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the  
water, but there is no water there. "=" is a myth of representation.  
For authentic presence, there is only 'reminds me of' or 'seems  
almost exactly like'.



The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when
possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a
vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order
language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of
the theory.

Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives  
in, which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still  
only a map, and it is a map of distance and measure, not of  
experience.





>
>
>
>
>> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
>> raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the
>> sense which objects make when we count them.
>
> No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.
>
> Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling
> through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to
> the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.

It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their
fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc.

Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things.  
Computationalism is not interested in counting feelings (how many  
feelings do you have? How many now?), yet it presumes to attribute  
feeling to a consequence of counting, using logic that has no idea  
what feeling could be. What hubris!


Straw man.








I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we  
have to meet them halfway:


http://s33light.org/post/77942035998




>
>
>
>
>> That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond
>> literal objects to virtual objects,
>
> If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an
> hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.
>
> A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a
> bucket-like shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.

A "real" bucket? I don't know what that is.

It has all of the aesthetic qualities that we expect of a bucket, as  
well as what is expected by the microphysical conditions that make  
up the bucket.


Ah!
[]p & p.
Good!

Assuming comp, the microphysical is first person plural, as Everett  
confirms, and I can prove that real persons meet real buckets in  
arithmetic.






"real" is what is under
investigation. If I knew what "real" meant, I would stop doing
research (like you apparently).

Real is the density of aesthetic correspondence relative to the  
total continuum of sense.


Really?







>
>
>
>
>> but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior.
>
> You don't know that.
>
> I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and
> that I have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.

Read our posts. Or read my papers, which provides a string evidence to
the contrary, notably in the math part.

That's math though. I don't see that it has any connection to the  
universe that we live 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:34:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ptruth 
> Bpbeliefs 
> Bp & pknowledge 
> Bp & <>p  observations 
> Bp & <>p & p  sensations 
>

I would invert this of course. We do not know that the universe begins with 
'truth'. Truth is a belief about what a sensation represents.

s sense
s-x distance (insensitivity, entropy-negentropy, information)
s(s-x)(s-x) local sensation (qualia, aesthetic presence)
s(s-x)^n nested local sense (emotion, images, beliefs, beliefs of 
knowledge, thoughts, communications, meanings)

The idea idea that truth simply exists or that observations are more 
primitive than sensations doesn't make sense to me. They reveal a bias 
toward human intellectual products rather than the deep roots of psyche and 
nature. Modal logic is a toy model of the intellect that has only to do 
with a kind of cold reading mentalism, not the experiences of the mind.

Craig
 

>
> 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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then 
I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When 
you spring your 'proof' we will find that out.

And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or 
actual truth about VIEWS of simultaneity from different frames. That is 
standard relativity which I accept completely. But you still find it 
impossible to understand we can DEDUCE or calculate an ACTUAL physical 
simultaneity irrespective of VIEWS of it.

And just as proper time invariance is NOT ANY VIEW but a deduction or 
calculation, we CAN use deductions and calculations that DO NOT correspond 
to any particular view to determine relativistic truth That such a 
methodology is permissible?


Do you agree that the symmetric relationship defined by the twins executing 
the exact same proper accelerations at their exact same proper times is a 
meaningful physical concept? That we can speak meaningfully about a 
symmetric relationship? You've been referring to it as if you do. Note that 
the twins certainly consider it a meaningful physical scenario because they 
can exchange and execute specific flight plans on that basis.

If so you agree that some frames preserve that real physical relationship 
and some don't? 

If so please tell me why if we want to analyze that ACTUAL real physical 
relationship we should not choose a frame that preserves it?


And second, do you agree my method is consistently calculating something, 
and that something is transitive, even if you don't agree it's a physically 
meaningful concept? 

If not then please try to prove it's not unambiguous and transitive, using 
MY definitions of MY theory rather than your 3 points. In other words 
assume it and then try to disprove it works.

Edgar





On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you one simple question.
>
> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
> exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
> must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?
>
> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
> exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
> actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>
>
>
> It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T 
> have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics 
> is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR "ACTUAL" TRUTH ABOUT 
> SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an "actual" truth that they are the 
> same age or an "actual" truth that they are different ages. These things 
> are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of 
> which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the "same y 
> coordinates" in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions 
> of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on 
> different worldlines have the "same t coordinate" in any given inertial 
> coordinate system, nothing more.
>
>  
>
>
> What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
> have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
> exact same actual ages when they meet?
>
>
> Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they "do not have 
> the same actual ages", I simply say there is no objective truth about which 
> ages are "actually" simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an 
> arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things 
> work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, 
> the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which 
> twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so 
> the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower 
> after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out exactly 
> ...

-- 
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.

Digital Neurology

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 2 March 2014 22:18, Bruno Marchal >
wrote:
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 08:09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 March 2014 01:40, Bruno Marchal >
wrote:
>
>>> If you start with the assumption that the physics relevant to brain
>>> function is not computable then computationalism is false: it would be
>>> impossible to make a machine that behaves like a human, either zombie
>>> or conscious.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you, the physics *relevant* to brain function has to be
>> computable, for comp to be true. But the point is that below the
>> substitution level, the physical details are not relevant. Then by the
>> FPI,
>> they must be undetermined, and this on an infinite non computable domain,
>> and so, our "computable brain" must rely on a non computable physics, or
a
>> non necessarily computable physics, with some non computable aspect. This
>> is
>> what comp predicts, and of course this is confirmed by QM. Again,
>> eventually, QM might to much computable for comp to be true. That is what
>> remain to be seen.
>>
>>
>>> What I mean by functionalism is that the way the brain processes
>>> information, its I/O behaviour, is what generates mind. This implies
>>> multiple realisability of mental states, insofar as the same
>>> information processing could be done by another machine. If the
>>> machine is a digital computer then functionalism reduces to
>>> computationalism. If the brain utilises non-computable physics then
>>> you won't be able to reproduce its function (and the mind thus
>>> generated) with a digital computer, so computationalism is false.
>>> However, that does not necessarily mean that functionalism is false,
>>> since you may be able to implement the appropriate brain function
>>> through some other means. For example, if it turns out that a digital
>>> implementation of the brain fails because real numbers and not
>>> approximations are necessary, it may still be possible to implement a
>>> brain using analogue devices.
>>
>>
>> OK, but that functionalism seems to me trivially true. How could such
>> functionalism be refuted, if you can invoke arbitrary functions?
>> (Also, "functionalism" is used for a stringer (less general) version of
>> computationalism, by Putnam, so this use of functionalism is non standard
>> and can be confusing.
>> Last remark, I am not sure that the notion of information processing can
>> make sense in a non digital framework. In both quantum and classical
>> information theory, information is digital (words like bits and qubits
>> come
>> from there).
>
> I think functionalism is true, but it's not obviously true, at least to
most
> people. It could be that the observable behaviour of the brain is
reproduced
> perfectly but the resulting creature has no consciousness or a different
> conscious.
>
>
> What if someone says that the function of the brain is to provide
> consciousness. Is that functionalism?
> What if someone says that the function of the brain is to link a "divine"
> soul to a person through a body?
> What is a function?

No, a function is an observable pattern of behaviour. Functionalism says
that if you replicate this, you also replicate the mind. You need to
replicate not only a special behaviour (which could be quite easy) but all
outputs for all inputs.

> That would be the case if consciousness were substrate-dependent.
>
>
> But you can put the substrate in the function. A brain would have the
> function to associate to that substrate the experience. How could I say no
> to the doctor who guaranties that all the function of the brain are
> preserved.
> The term function, like set, is too general, to much powerful.

Then I'm using it in a somewhat precise sense as above.

> It could also be that the behaviour cannot be reproduced by a computer
> because the substitution level requires non-computable physics (true
> randomness, real numbers, non-computable functions), but it could be
> reproduced by a non-computational device. So there are these possibilities
> with brain replacement:
>
> (a) the behaviour is not reproduced and neither is the consciousness;
>
>
> = ~ BEH-MEC
>
>
> (b) The behaviour is reproduced but the consciousness is not reproduced;
>
>
> ~ comp.
>
>
>
> (c) The behaviour is reproduced and so is the consciousness;
>
>
> = comp, unless it is the consciousness is the one by an impostor.
>
>
>
> (d) The behaviour is not reproduced but the consciousness is
>
>
> = "bad" substitution.
>
>
>
>
>>> What can be proved is that if consciousness is due to the brain then
>>> replicating brain function in some other substrate will also replicate
>>> its consciousness.
>>
>>
>> OK. What I meant is that we cannot prove that consciousness is due to the
>> brain.
>
> Yes, a dualist, for example, could consistently deny fuctionalism,
>
>
> Not sure. It depends on how you define function.
>
>
>
> but someone who believes that consciousness is due to the brain could not.
>
>
> Most dualist believes that consciousness is due to the brain

MODAL Last exercise

[Bruno Marchal]

Brent, Liz, others,

I sum up the main things, and give a lot of exercises, or meditation  
subject.


Liz we can do them one at a time, even one halve. Ask questions if the  
question asked seems unclear.


***
A Kripke frame, or multiverse, is a couple (W, R) with W a non empty  
set of worlds, and R a binary relation of accessibility.


An illuminated, or valued, multiverse (W,R, V), is a Kripke multiverse  
together with an assignment V of a truth value (0, or 1) to each   
propositional letter for each world. We say that p is true in that  
world, when V(p) = 1, for that world. If you want V is a collection of  
functions V_alpha in {0, 1}, one for each world alpha.


***
Some class of multiverses will play some role.

A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said reflexive if R is reflexive. alpha  
R alpha, for all alpha in W.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said transitive if R is transitive. That  
is


alpha R beta, and beta R gamma entails alpha R gamma, for all alpha  
beta and gamma in W.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said symmetric if R is symmetric. alpha  
R beta entails beta R alpha, for all alpha in W.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said ideal if there are no cul-de-sac  
worlds. For all alpha, there is beta such that alpha R beta.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said realist if all non cul-de-sac  
worlds can access to a cul-de-sac world.


***
Finally:  (The key thing)

I say that a Kripke multiverse (W,R) respects a modal formula if that  
formula is true in all worlds in W, and this for any valuation V.


***
Show that

(W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is reflexive,
(W, R) respects []A -> [][]A if and only R is transitive,
(W, R) respects  A -> []<>A if and only R is symmetrical,
(W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal,
(W, R) respects <>A -> ~[]<>A if and only if R is realist.

You can try to find small counter-examples, and guess the pattern of  
what happens when you fail.


Of course proving that (W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is  
reflexive, consists in proving both


(W, R) respects []A -> A if  R is reflexive,

and

(W, R) respects []A -> A only if R is reflexive, that is

R is reflexive if (W, R) respects []A -> A

That's a lot of exercises. 10 exercises.

We can do them one at a time. Who propose a proof for

(W, R) respects []A -> A if  R is reflexive, That is:

R reflexive -> (W, R) respects []A -> A

?


Bruno

Oh! I forget this one:

Show that all the Kripke multiverses (W, R), whatever R is, respect [] 
(A -> B) -> ([]A -> []B).



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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:34, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:39:45 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 21:21, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

The "TOE" extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of  
addition and multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you  
can prove the existence of the universal numbers and or all their  
computations, and even interview the Löbian numbers, on what is  
possible for them, in different relative sense.


So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it  
is impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic,  
making arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.


God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added "Add and  
Multiply".

Basically. - Bruno

Start;  "TOE" extracted from comp - so we are talking about a  
fraction of everything, the part as extracted.


The TOE is extracted from a reasoning, but the TOE is not the E,  
like Hubble telescope is not a far away galaxy. The TOE has to be a  
finite object, but the object the TOE is talking about can be  
infinite, and is infinite with comp, and even more so in the inside  
views.




I like to consider Everything as infinite and all, beyond what we  
can know about, identify or understand.


Me too. No problem with this.


Why? Why do you both *like* to consider the world this way that  
condemns the highest dreams of discovery to disappointment and  
futility.


That does not follow at all. On the contrary it is the awe in front of  
the infinite unknown which motivates the research and the exploration.




I could relate to assuming that for a methodological reason. And for  
a sincerely believed theory reason. But I'm struggling with the  
personal preference reason.


Simply because there are no choice, whatever hypotheses we choose, we  
are confronted to very difficult questions, and in theology, we are  
confronted with unanswerable things. That's normal.


The giganticness of the garden does not limit the butterfly, on the  
contrary.











Finish: "GOD" created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,  
And(faith).  He

(or She, or It) added "Add and multiply" - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of  
children).


How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply  
integers, to get 0.123456?

or irrational numbers?


No problem proving the existence of 0.123456.
No problem getting all negative numbers, all rational numbers,  
and ... all constructive real numbers (but the notion of all real  
numbers makes no sense in the 3), but still sense for the internal  
views).


In the comp TOE we cannot derive the existence of all real numbers,  
but we can easily derive the existence of machines believing in all  
real numbers.


For me the most significant part was Irrational Numbers...which you  
seem to have overlooked in your answer.


Well, that the real numbers.



How does the comp ToE, explain, derive, and predict in nature as her  
preference this cult of number? Unlike the others, this is a clear  
and real oppiortunity to say something new we didn't know. Like,  
what are the irrational numbers in nature we don't know about?


?
Well we know well and why, even in pure number theory, why sqrt(2),  
and e and gamma plays role.
The sum of the inverse of the square numbers is PI^2 divided by 6. PA  
can prove this.

I am not sure I understand your question.




What is the origin of this numbers and their function, that only  
they can deliver, only because they are irrational?


I can say many thing on that, but that's math, and not so related to  
the topic. Keep in mind we are on the mind-body problem, and even only  
on its precise comp formulation in arithmetic.


We are not here to answer all question. But most answer here are that  
all those things are consequences of RA or PA, or ZF. Those are  
theories on which many can agree.


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: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an
> observation.
>

If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not
specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And
there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from
stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks
at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his
age just as easily.

A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact
you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known
facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at
coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at
coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT
that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to
T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the
person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple
one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to
predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct
measurement.




> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>


Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper
ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some
other age than their calculation" if you agree all frames will predict
exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will
also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at
that event?

Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be
different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar with
relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an "age", and anyway it's
quite possible to have an inertial coordinate system where he's at rest but
his age still doesn't match the coordinate time, because his birth is
assigned some time coordinate different from t=0.




>
> Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from
> our frame.
>

Actual physical measurements can be seen by any observer, like the example
of looking at the age clock of someone you're in motion relative to, so
there's nothing that one person can "observe" that someone else "cannot
observe" just because they're in a different rest frame, if by "observe"
you mean "measure using a physical instrument". Of course, actual physical
measurements may be interpreted differently depending on what frame we
use--for example, if I see an object pass the x=10 meters mark on some
ruler when the clock there reads t=5 seconds, and later pass the x=20
meters mark on the same ruler when the clock there reads t=6 seconds, then
if I am using a frame that defines the ruler and clocks to be at rest and
the clocks to be synchronized, I'll say these measurements imply the object
had a velocity of 10 meters per second, but if I'm using a frame where the
ruler itself is moving and the clocks are out of sync, I can say that the
velocity of the object itself was larger or smaller.




> That's what I do to establish 1:1 correlations of actual ages. I use
> calculations that trump Views, that trump observations. We don't always
> have to use frame views to establish relativistic truth. Do you agree with
> that? You must if you accept proper age invariance.
>

Of course, you can determine relativistic truth by direct measurement, like
looking at someone's clock. But this only applies to quantities that are
frame-invariant, like proper time or proper acceleration. Other quantities
are DEFINED with respect to reference frames, there's absolutely no way to
determine them in a way that doesn't involve a frame. The x-coordinate of
an event would be an example of a quantity that's defined in terms of a
reference frame, you can't determine some object's x-coordinate except in
reference to a particular coordinate system that has a particular spatial
origin and its x-axis oriented in a particular direction. Likewise, the
t-coordinate of an event can only be defined relative to a particular
frame, and since simultaneity is DEFINED in relativity to mean nothing more
than "events that have the same t-coordinate", simultaneity can only be
defined relative to a particular frame (talking specifically about physical
definitions of simultaneity in relativity--this doesn't preclude the
possibility of some "metaphysical" truth about simultaneity that's
impossible to demonstrate experimentally, and of course it's conceivable
that relativity wi

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:50 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?
>

I have nothing against solar and  I'm in favor of anything that works, but
there is a reason it hasn't taken over by now and its not because of a
sinister secret ruling cabal that enjoys kicking puppies and breathing
dirty air, it's because with current technology solar energy is just too
dilute and unreliable for most (not all) applications. What I'm saying is
that energy supply is a very important matter an unrealistic expectations
can be downright dangerous and with current technology solar can't even
come close to replacing fossil fuel. I wish it were otherwise but wishing
does not make it true.

> No Windfarms?
>

If they ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the
death to stop them. Windfarms are ugly, they're noisy, they disrupt global
wind patterns, and they kill little birds.

> no Geotherm?
>

If it ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the death
to stop it. Geothermal smells bad, if fouls the groundwater, and causes
earthquakes.

Environmentalist love any new energy source as long as it's just on paper
and is never put into practice; they prefer the solution of freezing to
death in the dark.

  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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM, LizR  wrote:


> By the way, here is some scientific evidence, in case you're interested.
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
>
> [image: Inline images 1]
>


If that chart is supposed to be scary it isn't, it shows a .74 degree
Celsius increase in temperature from 1906 to 2005. Ice ages are rare and
we're coming off the tail end of one right now, so if you picked any time
at random in the last 100 million years you can be almost certain that is
was warmer than now, possibly MUCH warmer; at one time Antarctica was
subtropical and the home of cold blooded reptiles, yet back then the
continent was only slightly further north than it is now, and northern
Canada was even closer to the pole than it is now but dinosaurs lived
there. in spite of the warmth the ecosystem on this planet adapted, life
still existed. In fact in the last billion years it has never been warmer
than during the Carboniferous Era 360 million years ago, and I don't
believe life has ever been quite that plentiful again.

  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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
>
> > So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
> > is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
> > being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
> > 
> > Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
> > to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
> > (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
> > days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
> > to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
> > i 
> > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
> > to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
> > ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
> > kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
> > that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
> > ion 
> > If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
> > in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
> > heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
> > where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
> > our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
> > experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
> > object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
> > If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
> > 
> > If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
> > experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
> > conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
> > hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
> > software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
> > thought? The processor? RAM? 
> > 
> > Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
> > and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
> > can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
> > be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
> > would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
> > intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
> > our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
> >  of that code? 
> > , 
> > Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
> > past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
> > having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
> > runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
> > consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
> > only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
> > is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
> > on the footprint issue? 
>
>
> A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 
>
> And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
> consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
> the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 
>
> I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
> suggest the following answer. 
>
> Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
> an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
> person, a first person notion. 
>
 
Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness intrinsic 
of computation?
 
Leaving that to one side, what is the sequence then in your logic that comp 
carries no attribute of consciousness, yet as you define comp for your 
input assumption, from within itself it produces trina replacement device 
seamlessly continuing a conscious existence? As your starting point - 
which is now in the frame for a flaw, because the attribute of 
consciousness must be attached to comp in a step coming before.
 

>
> Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as   
> elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system   
> will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,   
> observe, and feel about itself. 
>
> What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth   
> is confronted at the start with "conflicting ways" to "experience" it.   
> You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus   
> definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening   
> (consistent, consistent and true) variant. 
>
> Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,   
> but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance   
> awareness. 
>
> More on this in my explanation  to Liz. The interest in 

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:54:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:08, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: 
> > >> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?" 
> > >> 
> > >> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That 
> > >> is, it is a fact that 1+1=2. 
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. 
> > >> All it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could 
> > >> = mustard. 
> > > 
> > > It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 
> > > would still be equal to 2. 
> > > 
> > > Not if you were the only mind left in the universe. 
> > 
> > You confirm your tendency toward solipsism. I assume by default that I 
> > am not the only mind left in the universe, and even if that was the 
> > case, this would not imply that 1+1=2, because this does not depend on 
> > me at all. 
> > 
> > If you were the only mind in the universe though, you are what   
> > everything depends on. 
>
> You have to learn logic. 
>

Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.
 

>
>
>
> > There would be nothing else but you which could know anything or   
> > experience anything. If you are the only presence there is, then you   
> > are the only truth there is. 
>
> Wrong. 
>

Why?
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply 
> > >> to everything. 
> > > 
> > > 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that 
> > > theory. 
> > > 
> > > Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense. 
> > 
> > This contradicts the whole field of logic, which precisely shows the 
> > contrary. 
> > 
> > Yes. Logic is a minimalist reflection of sense. 
>
> I am afraid you have to learn logic. 
>

I am afraid that is a dodge.
 

>
>
>
>
> > Logic is local truth. 
>
> Nope. 
>

If it weren't, then you couldn't get away from logic in altered states of 
consciousness. It's quite easy to get away from logic, but there is no 
getting away from sense.
 

>
>
>
> > It can never include sense itself let alone the absolute   
> > (pansensitivity). Mirrors show the light reflecting off of the   
> > water, but there is no water there. "=" is a myth of representation.   
> > For authentic presence, there is only 'reminds me of' or 'seems   
> > almost exactly like'. 
> > 
> > 
> > The notion of proof is made independent on semantics, when 
> > possible, by the completeness and soundness theorem available for a 
> > vats class of theories (like those formalized in first order 
> > language). In that case "1+1=2" will be a law, valid in all models of 
> > the theory. 
> > 
> > Yes, it makes sense within the context of the theory that it lives   
> > in, which is a very popular, common sense theory, but it is still   
> > only a map, and it is a map of distance and measure, not of   
> > experience. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one 
> > >> raining cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the 
> > >> sense which objects make when we count them. 
> > > 
> > > No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot. 
> > > 
> > > Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling 
> > > through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to 
> > > the objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled. 
> > 
> > It is just that we are not interested in counting clouds, but in their 
> > fractal nature, Hausdorff dimension, etc. 
> > 
> > Haha, exactly. Counting is only for countable things.   
> > Computationalism is not interested in counting feelings (how many   
> > feelings do you have? How many now?), yet it presumes to attribute   
> > feeling to a consequence of counting, using logic that has no idea   
> > what feeling could be. What hubris! 
>
> Straw man. 
>
>
"You have to learn logic. Wrong. you have to learn logic. Nope. Straw man."

These aren't answers. You're just putting your fingers in your ears.
  

>
>
>
>
>
> > 
> > I do think that feelings and other qualia can be modeled, but we   
> > have to meet them halfway: 
> > 
> > http://s33light.org/post/77942035998 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond 
> > >> literal objects to virtual objects, 
> > > 
> > > If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an 
> > > hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use. 
> > > 
> > > A real bucket is a literal object. A formu

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly
> then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently.
> When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out.
>

Thanks for addressing the question. As I mentioned in my previous comment
to you, the proof has already been sprung--it is the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart
example from Feb. 9 at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich
I have asked you to address in at least ten different posts since
then.




>
> And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or
> actual truth about VIEWS of simultaneity from different frames. That is
> standard relativity which I accept completely. But you still find it
> impossible to understand we can DEDUCE or calculate an ACTUAL physical
> simultaneity irrespective of VIEWS of it.
>
> And just as proper time invariance is NOT ANY VIEW but a deduction or
> calculation, we CAN use deductions and calculations that DO NOT correspond
> to any particular view to determine relativistic truth That such a
> methodology is permissible?
>
>
> Do you agree that the symmetric relationship defined by the twins
> executing the exact same proper accelerations at their exact same proper
> times is a meaningful physical concept? That we can speak meaningfully
> about a symmetric relationship?
>

Only in terms of coordinate-invariant characterizations of their paths,
like the proper acceleration as a function of proper time, or the total
proper time elapsed between departing and reuniting. There is no logical
reason that this symmetry in coordinate-invariant aspects of their trips
somehow forces us to say that a coordinate system where
coordinate-dependent aspects of their trips are symmetrical too represents
"actual physical reality" where other coordinate systems do not.

Suppose we lay out two measuring tapes on different paths between two
intersection points A and B, and these paths are geometrically symmetrical
in the sense that each one looks like a mirror image of the other if your
mirror is laid out straight between points A and B. Both tapes have their 0
markings coincide with the first intersection point A, and obviously since
the two paths are symmetrical, both measuring tapes will have the same
marking coincide with the second intersection point B. Obviously we could
draw different spatial coordinate axes on the plane, and in some coordinate
systems their paths would be symmetrical in coordinate terms--for example,
a pair of identical markings on each tape would have the same
y-coordinates, and their slopes at these markings would have the same
absolute value--while in others they would not.

I can sketch out a diagram if you can't visualize what I'm talking about,
but assuming you can, do you think that coordinate-based statements based
on a symmetrical coordinate system, like "the 4-centimeter marks on each
measuring tape have the same y-coordinate" would represent "actual
reality", whereas coordinate-based statements in other coordinate systems
would not?





> You've been referring to it as if you do. Note that the twins certainly
> consider it a meaningful physical scenario because they can exchange and
> execute specific flight plans on that basis.
>
> If so you agree that some frames preserve that real physical relationship
> and some don't?
>

No, I don't agree. ALL frames preserve the only symmetries I would
recognize as "objective" ones--same proper acceleration as a function of
proper time, same proper time when the twins reunite--while other
coordinate-depedent statements are not ones I would call a "real physical
relationship". Note that they are perfectly free to agree to use a
coordinate system where the coordinate descriptions of their paths are not
symmetrical, and "exchange and execute specific flight plans on that basis".



>
> If so please tell me why if we want to analyze that ACTUAL real physical
> relationship we should not choose a frame that preserves it?
>
>
> And second, do you agree my method is consistently calculating something,
> and that something is transitive, even if you don't agree it's a physically
> meaningful concept?
>


If you consider more than one pair of twins whose paths cross one another,
as I do in my Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart scenario, then either your method leads
to a contradiction where two different ages of the same observer are judged
simultaneous, or else you'd have to drop one of the assumptions in your
method (meaning it'd no longer be quite the same method). One of those
assumptions was transitivity, so in principle you could drop that if you
wanted to avoid the contradiction I describe, but as I said in my previous
comment, it seems like a much more reasonable assumption to drop is the one
that says inertial clocks at rest relative to one another that are
synchronized in their rest frame must also be synchron

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 11:20 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *meekerdb

*Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 11:14 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

On 3/1/2014 10:59 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com 

[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR

Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html

I grok that

One of the best words ever invented* -- IMO --thank you Heinlein.


I think it was suggested by the poems of Piet Hein.

*Piet Hein* (16 December 1905 -- 17 April 1996) was a Danish 
 scientist, mathematician, inventor, 
designer, author, and poet, often writing under the Old Norse pseudonym "*Kumbel*" 
meaning "tombstone ". His short poems, known as 
/gruks / or grooks (Danish: /gruk/), first started 
to appear in the daily newspaper "/Politiken /" 
shortly after the Nazi occupation  
in April 1940 under the pseudonym "*Kumbel Kumbell*".^[1] 



^The poems contained anti-nazi meanings which could only be grasped intuitively by the 
Danish.


Interesting; always thought it originated from that book. So then is grok 
steganography?



It's usually credited to Heinlein, but I'll bet Heinlein had read some of Hein's grooks; 
he published several books of them in english.  I think I still have a couple.


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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
new case by you.

Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other 
at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the 
entire trip.

At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are in 
a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.

There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
correlation of proper times.

Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.

Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct 
> measurement.
>
>
>  
>
> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>
>
>
> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper 
> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation" if you agree all frames will predict 
> exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will 
> also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at 
> that event? 
>
> Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be 
> different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar with 
> relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an "age", and anyway it's 
> quite possible to have an inertial coordinate system where he's at rest but 
> his age still doesn't match the coordinate time, because his birth is 
> assigned some time coordinate different from t=0.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from 
> our frame.
>
>
> Actual physical measurements can be seen by any observer, like the example 
> of looking at the age clock of someone you're in motion relative to, so 
> there's nothing that one person can "observe" that someone else "cannot 
> observe" just because they're in a different rest frame, if by "observe" 
> you mean "measure using a physical instrument". Of course, actual physical 
> measurements may be interpreted differently depending on what frame we 
> use--for example, if I see an object pass the x=10 meters mark on some 
> ruler when the clock there reads t=5 seconds, and later pass the x=20 
> meters mark on the same ruler when the clock there reads t=6 seconds, then 
> if I am using a frame that defines the ruler and clocks to be at rest and 
> the clocks to be synchronized, I'll say these measuremen

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 11:37 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella > wrote:


>>Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.


IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise retrocausality is like eternal 
inflation - you can use it to explain where the universe comes from, but you still need 
to explain the origin of the laws of physics that allow it to happen. (This is why I 
find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe stuff appealing.)


I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" depend on our demands 
that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a consequence of requiring 
the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.  See Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible 
Cosmos" for full development of the idea that all of physics can be seen this way.  So the 
"laws" are the way they are because we make them up to fit the observations and we only 
want to make them up in certain ways that make them useful for prediction and 
explanation.  If stuff doesn't fit we may reject it as "geography" and then try to come 
back later and explain it from better "laws".  You can see this in the solar system.  
Kepler proposed orbital laws based on the Platonic solids. Newton showed that gravity made 
the orbital motion predictable; but it relegated the spacing of the planets to 
"geography".  Now we study the creation of stars from the accretion of dust clouds and 
have statistical explanations for the "geography".


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: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple
> new case by you.
>
> Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each
> other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration
> of the entire trip.
>
> At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are
> in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every
> second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.
>
> There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses
> because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational
> reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper
> time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as
> each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR
> PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1
> correlation of proper times.
>

Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each
crossing-point.




>
> Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval
> for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have
> a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire
> trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.
>


The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply
moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can
achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same
point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of
course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at
every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about
simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation
throughout the trip.




>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during
> EVERY MOMENT of the trip.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> To address your points in order:
>>
>> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important
>> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks
>> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an
>> observation.
>>
>>
>> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not
>> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And
>> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from
>> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks
>> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his
>> age just as easily.
>>
>> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some
>> fact you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other
>> known facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate
>> velocity v at coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper
>> age is T0 at coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you
>> can PREDICT that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will
>> be equal to T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be
>> using the person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to
>> the simple one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a
>> CALCULATION to predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a
>> direct measurement.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some
>> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper
>> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some
>> other age than their calculation" if you agree all frames will predict
>> exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will
>> also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at
>> that event?
>>
>> Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may
>> be different than his proper age? That would be true, but no one familiar
>> with relativity would conflate a time coordinate with an "age", and anyway
>> it's quite possible to have an inertial coordinate system where he's at
>> rest but his age still doesn't match the coordinate time, because his birth
>> is assigned some time coordinate different from t=0.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from
>> our frame.
>>
>>
>> Actual physical measurements can be seen by any observer, like 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation and 
becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be precise 
amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence when people are 
prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, 
and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific mental 
activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly correlated 
with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused on since last 
sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast majority 
of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we 
conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is 
connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I 
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object and experiences 
what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I 
sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? How is 
facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware parts are 
consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience 
of software, such that the experience is able to think the next thought? The processor? 
RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given these 
processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely known, why is the 
old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for what an emergent 
consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically 
consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and 
exactly

 of that code?


Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, as I experience 
it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on perceptions and 
memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason for this is that 
in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too much to remember 
in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of the events in 
order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the way I would 
design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that would entail 
that it would be conscious.




,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in this 
area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't 
sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to 
survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why is even a 
chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?


?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occuring in computers?  Why 
would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you need a theory of 
consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications.


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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> >> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
> is? If its 
> >> exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
> motivation and 
> >> becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
> >> 
> >> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
> be precise 
> >> amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
> when people are 
> >> prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
> and more easily, 
> >> and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
> >> i 
> >> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
> specific mental 
> >> activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
> strongly correlated 
> >> with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
> on since last 
> >> sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
> >> ion 
> >> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
> the vast majority 
> >> of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
>  Why aren't we 
> >> conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
> place, and is 
> >> connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
> aren't I 
> >> experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
> and experiences 
> >> what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
> twin, why don't I 
> >> sometimes wake up him? 
> >> 
> >> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
> experienced? How is 
> >> facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
> parts are 
> >> consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
> conscious experience 
> >> of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
> thought? The processor? 
> >> RAM? 
> >> 
> >> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
> given these 
> >> processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
> known, why is the 
> >> old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
> what an emergent 
> >> consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
> is intrinsically 
> >> consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
> in terms of, and 
> >> exactly 
> >>  of that code? 
>
> Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
> as I experience 
> it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
> perceptions and 
> memories, about what happens in my life.  


You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make up 
stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a 
story to itself that it already knows?

Craig 

> I think the evolutionary reason for this is that 
> in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
> much to remember 
> in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
> the events in 
> order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
> way I would 
> design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
> would entail 
> that it would be conscious. 
>
>
> >> , 
> >> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
> past 50 
> >> years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
> done in this 
> >> area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize 
> that isn't 
> >> sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
> struggling to 
> >> survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
> tuner? Why is even a 
> >> chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the 
> footprint issue? 
>
> ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occuring in 
> computers?  Why 
> would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you 
> need a theory of 
> consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. 
>
> 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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 05:33,  wrote:

> Hmm. Show me how I disinformed? Oh! By disagreeing. Ah! But what are the
> facts? What is the behavior of pols and billionaires? Where's the panic
> over inundating waters? No crash programs? I guess its easy to be lied to,
> if one is bought off by ideology in the first place. The cause and effect
> part of the brain must go to sleep.
>

Hang on, spudboy, if I read you right you are taking personally a comment I
made about the behaviour of certain organisations who want to give a
spurious scientific front to their already-decided views. Unless you're a
member of the Discovery institute or something, that wasn't directed at you
personally!


>  -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:12 am
> Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>   This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based
> organisations. They created institutes specifically to push some agenda.
> We've had tobacco, big oil, and of course the anti-evolution lot, all with
> their own "think tanks" and "institutes". Personally I reckon they got the
> idea from L Ron Hubbard, who once got into a conversation with fellow
> science fiction writers - I forget who, say James Blish and John W Campbell
> Jr, for the sake of argument - and they all proposed crazy ideas about how
> one could create a science based religion. "We could have little devices
> that let people measure their state of spiritual health!" they chortled,
> imagining this was just one of those games SF writers love to indulge in -
> little realising that Hubbard was making mental notes of everything they
> said.
>
>

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 05:24,  wrote:

> If GW is now upon us, despite weeks and weeks or artic storms here in the
> continental US and Canada,
>

"Oh, we had a cold winter so global warming's a myth!" Please be serious. I
assume you know enough about climate science to realise that arctic storms
have to be driven by something, and one prediction of climate change is
that it will provide more energy to whip up storms. The real questions are
- is the average temperature of the earth increasing (see the graph I
provided) and what effects is this likely to have? The latter is the more
complex issue, but "more and more ferocious storms" seems to be one
prediction. I don't know if we're having those or not - it's hard to tell
when there's so much disinformation flying around - but since I was the one
who bothered to actually check the temperature data, maybe it's your turn
to do some research on storms?

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 07:53, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:13 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>>
>> By the way, here is some scientific evidence, in case you're interested.
>>
>> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
>>
>> [image: Inline images 1]
>>
>
>
> If that chart is supposed to be scary it isn't, it shows a .74 degree
> Celsius increase in temperature from 1906 to 2005.
>

No, it's supposed to be factual. I get fed up with these ad hominem rants
no one is trying to scare you any more than common sense indicates you
should be scared. Please try to grow up and leave out this sort of childish
comment.


> Ice ages are rare and we're coming off the tail end of one right now, so
> if you picked any time at random in the last 100 million years you can be
> almost certain that is was warmer than now, possibly MUCH warmer; at one
> time Antarctica was subtropical and the home of cold blooded reptiles, yet
> back then the continent was only slightly further north than it is now, and
> northern Canada was even closer to the pole than it is now but dinosaurs
> lived there. in spite of the warmth the ecosystem on this planet adapted,
> life still existed. In fact in the last billion years it has never been
> warmer than during the Carboniferous Era 360 million years ago, and I don't
> believe life has ever been quite that plentiful again.
>
> Sorry to be anthropcentric but I don't want the world turned subtropical
if it means homo sapiens loses everything it's achieved. I'm in favour of
intelligence and technology, not evolution and the rule of giant lizards.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.
>

Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?

"Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical."


>
>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" depend on
> our demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a
> consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.
>

That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)


> See Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" for full development of the
> idea that all of physics can be seen this way.  So the "laws" are the way
> they are because we make them up to fit the observations and we only want
> to make them up in certain ways that make them useful for prediction and
> explanation.
>

So are you saying that the conservation of energy is no more fundamental to
physics than the shape of Africa? Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're
saying here (it seems either trivially correct or wrong but I can't tell
which!)

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

Heh, understood Liz, thanks, but I wasn't offended, merely, puzzled. No, a 6000 
year old Earth is not what I see either. I would just warn you, or surprise 
you, that even lots of Phd's get 'bought-off' by being on the 'right side' of 
politicians who provide employment in academia, and the rich that fund the 
pols. I also just wanted to focus on when the climate whammy will happen, and 
we can do about? 


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On 3 March 2014 05:33,   wrote:

Hmm. Show me how I disinformed? Oh! By disagreeing. Ah! But what are the facts? 
What is the behavior of pols and billionaires? Where's the panic over 
inundating waters? No crash programs? I guess its easy to be lied to, if one is 
bought off by ideology in the first place. The cause and effect part of the 
brain must go to sleep. 



Hang on, spudboy, if I read you right you are taking personally a comment I 
made about the behaviour of certain organisations who want to give a spurious 
scientific front to their already-decided views. Unless you're a member of the 
Discovery institute or something, that wasn't directed at you personally!

 



-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:12 am
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany





This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based organisations. They 
created institutes specifically to push some agenda. We've had tobacco, big 
oil, and of course the anti-evolution lot, all with their own "think tanks" and 
"institutes". Personally I reckon they got the idea from L Ron Hubbard, who 
once got into a conversation with fellow science fiction writers - I forget 
who, say James Blish and John W Campbell Jr, for the sake of argument - and 
they all proposed crazy ideas about how one could create a science based 
religion. "We could have little devices that let people measure their state of 
spiritual health!" they chortled, imagining this was just one of those games SF 
writers love to indulge in - little realising that Hubbard was making mental 
notes of everything they said.







-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" depend on 
our
demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a 
consequence
of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.


That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)


Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a lagrangian and the 
existence of a corresponding conserved quantity. But that a lagrangain (or theory in any 
form) have that character is a "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how 
the neutrino was discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just 
look for something new we could count as the energy difference.



See Vic Stenger's "The Comprehensible Cosmos" for full development of the 
idea that
all of physics can be seen this way.  So the "laws" are the way they are 
because we
make them up to fit the observations and we only want to make them up in 
certain
ways that make them useful for prediction and explanation.


So are you saying that the conservation of energy is no more fundamental to physics than 
the shape of Africa?


No, I'm saying it's so fundamental we'd reshape Africa to fit.  It's almost essential to 
having a theory that doesn't refer to a particular time, that applies equally at all times.


Brent

Sorry, I don't quite follow what you're saying here (it seems either trivially correct 
or wrong but I can't tell which!)


--
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>>
>> Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.
>>
>
> Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?
>
> "Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical."
>  
>
>>  
>>
>
Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems 
pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.
 

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:31:28PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:50 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
> 
> > I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?
> >
> 
> I have nothing against solar and  I'm in favor of anything that works, but
> there is a reason it hasn't taken over by now and its not because of a
> sinister secret ruling cabal that enjoys kicking puppies and breathing
> dirty air, it's because with current technology solar energy is just too
> dilute and unreliable for most (not all) applications. What I'm saying is
> that energy supply is a very important matter an unrealistic expectations
> can be downright dangerous and with current technology solar can't even
> come close to replacing fossil fuel. I wish it were otherwise but wishing
> does not make it true.
> 

Solar PV only reached cost parity with oil in the last couple of
years, and is still a year or two away from doing the same with
coal. That is a combination falling prices of PV, and rising prices of
fossil fuels.

One wouldn't expect PV to have replaced fossil fuel yet - but it looks
like it will do so fairly shortly.


> > No Windfarms?
> >
> 
> If they ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the
> death to stop them. Windfarms are ugly, they're noisy, they disrupt global
> wind patterns, and they kill little birds.
> 

That seems to depend on the country. In Denmark, they're quite
popular. In the UK, there is some resistance from environmental
groups. Here in Australia, it is still a small, but growing segment of
energy provision (coal is still really cheap here). One problem (being
worked on) is how to predict accurately what the weather will be at
the turbine blades (accurate micro-weather simulation) so as to
optimise the spot market contract prices. That is being worked on
right now.

> > no Geotherm?
> >
> 
> If it ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the death
> to stop it. Geothermal smells bad, if fouls the groundwater, and causes
> earthquakes.

Aside from places like NZ which are already set up for geothermal, I
suspect this is still not ready for prime time.

But the disadvantages you mention above also apply to fracking, and
that seems to be a full-speed juggernaut in spite of the environmental 
objections!

> 
> Environmentalist love any new energy source as long as it's just on paper
> and is never put into practice; they prefer the solution of freezing to
> death in the dark.
> 
>   John K Clark
> 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time 
limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me 
restate it:

Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our 
previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
EVERY minimum time interval of the trip EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CRISS CROSSES.

We have confirmed there are proper age correlations (at every second) for 
the criss cross trip but it's exactly the same in principle as any non 
criss cross trip. Therefore there must also be proper age correlations (at 
every second) for ALL symmetric trips.

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
> new case by you.
>
> Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each 
> other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration 
> of the entire trip.
>
> At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are 
> in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
> second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.
>
> There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
> because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
> reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
> time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
> each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
> PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
> correlation of proper times.
>
>
> Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each 
> crossing-point.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
> for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
> a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
> trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.
>
>
>
> The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply 
> moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can 
> achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same 
> point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of 
> course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at 
> every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about 
> simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation 
> throughout the trip.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
> EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct 
> measurement.
>
>
>  
>
> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>
>
>
> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper 
> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some 
> other age

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

Its not just the weather outside, its worldwide, its not matching the models I 
have looked at (courtesy IPCC and NASA) and they fall down. Inaccurate. Word 
games are played by your side, demonstrating that its been the 2nd hottest year 
on record, squeal!" But, why not go for clean energy? Do we have it? Do we have 
it ready to go? Should we do it when the great inundation is about us. Its not 
about a fix, a way out, its about job security for climate scientists (you need 
us you really need us-especially when we're appointed to government jobs), its 
about billionaires manipulating the system to their own benefit, and its about 
ideologists pursuing their religion. 

"Oh, we had a cold winter so global warming's a myth!" Please be serious. I 
assume you know enough about climate science to realise that arctic storms have 
to be driven by something, and one prediction of climate change is that it will 
provide more energy to whip up storms. The real questions are - is the average 
temperature of the earth increasing (see the graph I provided) and what effects 
is this likely to have? The latter is the more complex issue, but "more and 
more ferocious storms" seems to be one prediction. I don't know if we're having 
those or not - it's hard to tell when there's so much disinformation flying 
around - but since I was the one who bothered to actually check the temperature 
data, maybe it's your turn to do some research on storms?





-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:14 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On 3 March 2014 05:24,   wrote:

If GW is now upon us, despite weeks and weeks or artic storms here in the 
continental US and Canada, 



"Oh, we had a cold winter so global warming's a myth!" Please be serious. I 
assume you know enough about climate science to realise that arctic storms have 
to be driven by something, and one prediction of climate change is that it will 
provide more energy to whip up storms. The real questions are - is the average 
temperature of the earth increasing (see the graph I provided) and what effects 
is this likely to have? The latter is the more complex issue, but "more and 
more ferocious storms" seems to be one prediction. I don't know if we're having 
those or not - it's hard to tell when there's so much disinformation flying 
around - but since I was the one who bothered to actually check the temperature 
data, maybe it's your turn to do some research on storms?




-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>>  I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" depend
>> on our demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is
>> a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation invariant.
>>
>
>  That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)
>
>  Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a
> lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But
> that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a
> "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how the neutrino was
> discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look
> for something new we could count as the energy difference.
>

I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous
comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or
Vic Stenger).

IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey
conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that
everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300
years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately
assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out,
they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond
being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such
as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support
(e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).

Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly
detected, and scientists were duly surprised.

I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a
postmodernist take on how scientists operate.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.
>>>
>>
>> Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?
>>
>> "Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical."
>>
>>>
> Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems
> pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by sense / logical here?

For something to make sense, it has to have certain properties - say "The
worst witch" makes sense as long as the magic being portrayed has internal
consistency.

Is that logical, captain?

-- 
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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect 
to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) 
even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they 
are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that there is any 
correlation of actual ages possible. Is that correct?

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:37:13 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple 
> new case by you.
>
> Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each 
> other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration 
> of the entire trip.
>
> At each 1 second meeting I'm sure you would agree their proper times are 
> in a 1:1 correlation so their proper times are in a 1:1 correlation every 
> second of the duration of the trip and both twins agree on that.
>
> There is a 1:1 correlation of proper age clocks at the criss crosses 
> because they are in "the same point of space and time" by your operational 
> reflected light definition AND they both compute both their 1 second proper 
> time intervals since the last criss cross as the same invariant number as 
> each other, AND they BOTH HAVE AGREED TO CRISS CROSS WHEN EACH OF THEIR 
> PROPER TIMES READS 1 SECOND INTERVALS which in itself ensures the 1:1 
> correlation of proper times.
>
>
> Sure, there is complete agreement about their respective ages at each 
> crossing-point.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Now just take the limit of that and imagine a vanishingly small interval 
> for the criss crosses. If we do that then clearly we can say the twins have 
> a 1:1 correlation of their proper ages at EVERY MOMENT during the entire 
> trip to any limit of accuracy we wish.
>
>
>
> The problem is that in this limit, they also approach a state of simply 
> moving right alongside each other (since the spatial separation they can 
> achieve between crossings approaches zero), remaining at exactly the same 
> point in space at any given time, so their worldlines are identical. Of 
> course it is true in such a case that their ages will remain the same at 
> every moment in a frame-invariant sense, but this tell us anything about 
> simultaneity in a case where they have a finite spatial separation 
> throughout the trip.
>
>
>  
>
>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is no different in principle than our 
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have 
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during 
> EVERY MOMENT of the trip. 
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 1:18:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> To address your points in order:
>
> 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
> point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
> at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
> observation.
>
>
> If he "looks at his age clock", that's a direct measurement that is not 
> specifically tied to ANY frame, including his own comoving frame. And 
> there's nothing stopping an observer who is moving relative to him from 
> stealing a glance at his age clock too as she passes him nearby (or looks 
> at him through her telescope), so she can make a direct measurement of his 
> age just as easily.
>
> A reference frame only needs to be used when you want to PREDICT some fact 
> you don't already know through direct measurement, given some other known 
> facts. For example, if you know that someone has a coordinate velocity v at 
> coordinate time t0 in some frame, and you know their proper age is T0 at 
> coordinate time t0, then as long as they move inertially, you can PREDICT 
> that at some later coordinate time t1, their proper age T1 will be equal to 
> T0 + (t1 - t0)*sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]. Of course if you happen to be using the 
> person's inertial rest frame where v=0, this formula reduces to the simple 
> one T1 = T0 + (t1 - t0), but this still qualifies as a CALCULATION to 
> predict his proper age at a later coordinate time t1, not a direct 
> measurement.
>
>
>  
>
> In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the views.
>
>
>
> Huh? You're not making any sense--you just got through agreeing "proper 
> ages are invariant", how can you still maintain they'll "observe A at some 
> other age than their calculation" if you agree all frames will predict 
> exactly the same age for him at any event on his worldline, and this will 
> also be the age that he will be observed to have on his personal clock at 
> that event? 
>
> Do you just mean that the time coordinate they assign to that event may be 
> different than his proper age? That would be true, but n

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect
> to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation)
> even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they
> are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that there is any
> correlation of actual ages possible. Is that correct?
>
>

No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth
about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. What
part of "all frames are equally valid" don't you understand? Or do you not
get that if we use an inertial frame where the twins are both moving with
the same constant velocity, they do NOT have identical ages at any given
moment in this frame? (assuming they had identical ages at any given moment
in their rest frame)

Jesse

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Mikes]

Dear Russell,

please allow me to address your contribution after so much of emotionally
impaired and poorly adjusted hoopla
in this discussion. Let me join your considerate way - if I am capable of -
and speak about SOME details only.
I spent a lifetime in environmentally 'infected' science/technology R&D so
my conclusions are not just hot air - I hope.

We are not ready to switch from the polluting practices into 'clean' (not
RENEWABLE, please) energy. JohnK's
remark on 'geotherm' are unfounded. The methods he visualizes are in the
obsolescence of one method. What I was
hintig at, is a lowered (deepened?) double-tube in types like ongoing oil
wells in a closed system, pumping down
ultrapure deionized water and letting up high pressure steam into turbines.
I have nothing against solar applications
with certain caveats I explained lately. Hydro-applications depend on the
subsistence of ground water (questioned
after the snowcaps melted away).

Main point:* we will need a multiple production of energy *and are not
ready to choose what kind.
Maybe all of them? I consider the energy domain as 'second' - we still
manage as well as we can.
The first biggest concern  is water, for* irrigation*, for *potable* (human
- animal) for *industry* and *ENERGY purposes*.
There is plenty in the oceans (*ref: *Liz asking about a bigger energy
source nearby than the sun). Desalination to
different levels may take care of all the listed problems.

It is a question of willingness! as long as our well established
capitalists insist in reaping profits from existing plants,
(fossil that is). Their 'owned' governments will do nothing. It is (and
will be) a long struggle and a successful research.
Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's
knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.

Then, - when new results are available, the third biggest problem can be
addressed: food from available sources,
no matter if synthesized from fossil products, plants, or purely synthetic
basis (atmospheric) for a population on Earth
(hopefully in reduced numbers, both as human and animal counts.)

I would not go into dreamlike prophecy  of millions of years. We have not
the foundation of thinking ahead so far.

Besst regards

John Mikes Ph.D., D.Sc. ret. scientist




On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:31:28PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:50 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
> >
> > > I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?
> > >
> >
> > I have nothing against solar and  I'm in favor of anything that works,
> but
> > there is a reason it hasn't taken over by now and its not because of a
> > sinister secret ruling cabal that enjoys kicking puppies and breathing
> > dirty air, it's because with current technology solar energy is just too
> > dilute and unreliable for most (not all) applications. What I'm saying is
> > that energy supply is a very important matter an unrealistic expectations
> > can be downright dangerous and with current technology solar can't even
> > come close to replacing fossil fuel. I wish it were otherwise but wishing
> > does not make it true.
> >
>
> Solar PV only reached cost parity with oil in the last couple of
> years, and is still a year or two away from doing the same with
> coal. That is a combination falling prices of PV, and rising prices of
> fossil fuels.
>
> One wouldn't expect PV to have replaced fossil fuel yet - but it looks
> like it will do so fairly shortly.
>
>
> > > No Windfarms?
> > >
> >
> > If they ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the
> > death to stop them. Windfarms are ugly, they're noisy, they disrupt
> global
> > wind patterns, and they kill little birds.
> >
>
> That seems to depend on the country. In Denmark, they're quite
> popular. In the UK, there is some resistance from environmental
> groups. Here in Australia, it is still a small, but growing segment of
> energy provision (coal is still really cheap here). One problem (being
> worked on) is how to predict accurately what the weather will be at
> the turbine blades (accurate micro-weather simulation) so as to
> optimise the spot market contract prices. That is being worked on
> right now.
>
> > > no Geotherm?
> > >
> >
> > If it ever became really common environmentalists would fight to the
> death
> > to stop it. Geothermal smells bad, if fouls the groundwater, and causes
> > earthquakes.
>
> Aside from places like NZ which are already set up for geothermal, I
> suspect this is still not ready for prime time.
>
> But the disadvantages you mention above also apply to fracking, and
> that seems to be a full-speed juggernaut in spite of the environmental
> objections!
>
> >
> > Environmentalist love any new energy source as long as it's just on paper
> > and is never put into practice; they prefer the solution of freezing to
> > death in the dark.
> >
> >   John K Clark
> >
>
> --
>
>
> ---

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time
> limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me
> restate it:
>
> Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our
> previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is clear that we have
> proven there is a 1:1 proper age correlation for any symmetric trip during
> EVERY minimum time interval of the trip EVEN IF THERE ARE NO CRISS CROSSES.
>

Nonsense. We both agree that in case A where they are right next to each
other throughout the whole trip (same spatial position at every single
moment), there is an objective 1:1 correlation in their ages throughout the
trip. We disagree about whether there is a 1:1 correlation throughout the
trip in case B, where they do NOT occupy the same position through the
trip. So now you think you can "prove" your belief about CASE B by
considering a series of cases that IN THE LIMIT would have a 1:1
correlation throughout the trip, even though IN THE LIMIT this just reduces
to CASE A, which we already agreed on? Sorry, but this fails basic logic.

Jesse

-- 
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: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth
> about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist.
>

Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there
is any unique "actual" truth about the CORRELATION between their ages, i.e.
whether or not they reach the same age simultaneously (of course there is
still a unique truth about each one's age at any specific event on his
worldline). They do reach the same age simultaneously in their comoving
inertial frame, but this frame's judgments can't be considered any more
"valid" than a different inertial frame.

Jesse

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" depend 
on our
demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of energy is a
consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation 
invariant.


That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)

Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a lagrangian 
and the
existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But that a lagrangain (or 
theory
in any form) have that character is a "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata. 
Remember how the neutrino was discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve

energy, we'd just look for something new we could count as the energy 
difference.


I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous comment to come 
from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or Vic Stenger).


IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey conservation 
laws, given their success to date. That is, given that everything in the universe that 
had been studied over the previous 300 years or so appeared to obey these principles, 
why would they immediately assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it 
turned out, they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond 
being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such as being 
directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support (e.g. in how the sun 
operates and how supernovas explode).


Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing something not 
previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby achieve conservation.  I 
don't think the general conservation of energy was considered a firm principle until the 
mid 1800's and its violation was seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the 
idea that the "laws of physics" should not depend on time or place goes back much further 
and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also metaphysical. Notice how 
outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a universal clock.  How would it 
sound to put forth a theory that reference a specific time?  No one would accept it as 
fundamental.




Also, some processes /do /violate symmetries, and these have been duly detected, and 
scientists were duly surprised.


Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry and so doesn't 
fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an absolute requirement (notice I said 
"desiderata") but it's surprising how much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did 
you read Stenger's essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, 
and others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant theory, then 
we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough attention to the fact that 
we make up the laws of physics.


Brent



I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a postmodernist 
take on how scientists operate.


--
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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.

BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, 
and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion 
you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1 
correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose their 
1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP!

The way you state it this is EITHER OR. Either there is a 1:1 at rest, but 
if they are NOT at rest in the very slightest amount then they COMPLETELY 
AND ABSOLUTELY lose any 1:1 age correlation.

Now if you do NOT agree to that then you are forced to try to claim that 
it's a matter of degree then you have to come up with some mathematical 
function that tells us what VARYING AMOUNT of 1:1 age correlation holds 
with what amount of relative motion. What defines the degree of 1:1 age 
correlation or lack thereof? I certainly don't think relativity theory has 
any such function. For relativity it is absolutely either or. Is this not 
correct?

Or, on the other hand if you use simple logic from my many proofs you just 
admit that any two twins ALWAYS have a 1:1 actual real proper age 
correlation in all situations. And that is is always unambiguously 
calculable in a manner that all observers agree to, but that is not in 
general observable. And this problem and all the other problems simply go 
away

Which is it?

Edgar

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>>
>> No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth 
>> about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. 
>>
>
> Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there 
> is any unique "actual" truth about the CORRELATION between their ages, i.e. 
> whether or not they reach the same age simultaneously (of course there is 
> still a unique truth about each one's age at any specific event on his 
> worldline). They do reach the same age simultaneously in their comoving 
> inertial frame, but this frame's judgments can't be considered any more 
> "valid" than a different inertial frame.
>
> Jesse
>
>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 6:47:51 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 3 March 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:34:50 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 March 2014 07:53, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 Sometimes you have to set logic aside to come to your senses.

>>>
>>> Why do I get a McCoy - Spock vibe here?
>>>
>>> "Fascinating suggestion, Doctor, but completely illogical."
>>>

>> Logic has to make sense, but sense does not have to be logical. It seems 
>> pretty straightforward to me. Sense = horse, Logic = cart.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by sense / logical here?
>
> For something to make sense, it has to have certain properties - say "The 
> worst witch" makes sense as long as the magic being portrayed has internal 
> consistency.
>

I don't think that it has to have certain properties. It only has to be an 
experience in which aesthetic coherence is encountered. It's primal. An 
infant does not make sense of their own discomfort through any kind of 
logical vetting. They are overwhelmed with the convulsive quality of it and 
their crying is a way to participate in that experience.

Pain makes sense without logic.
 

>
> Is that logical, captain?
>

I'm interested in the logic of reality, but I think most people here are 
interested in the reality of logic.

 

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 13:39, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey
> conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that
> everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300
> years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately
> assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out,
> they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond
> being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such
> as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support
> (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).
>
>
> Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing
> something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby
> achieve conservation.  I don't think the general conservation of energy was
> considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was
> seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the idea that the
> "laws of physics" should not depend on time or place goes back much further
> and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also
> metaphysical.
>

But only because observations indicate that is how the universe works.
(Actually we do have a theory that references a specific time - the Big
Bang.- but I know what you mean.)

Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just wants a universal
> clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that reference a specific
> time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.
>

However, Edgar's p-time would have seemed perfectly plausible to a
Newtonian physicist.

> Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly
> detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
>
>  Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry
> and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an
> absolute requirement (notice I said "desiderata") but it's surprising how
> much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you read Stenger's
> essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and
> others, idea that if we *just* get the right math, or the most elegant
> theory, then we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough
> attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics.
>

I would dispute your use of "just" here! Obviously they are hopeful that we
will eventually uncover "the truth", even if we can never prove we've done
so, but I'm not sure that is *necessarily* unrealistic, even if it proves
to be impossible in practice.

I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at
least trying to get his head around the big questions, like why is there
something rather than nothing? In fact his is the *only* satisfactory
answer to that question I've ever come across, which is quite an
achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement comes to mind. It's seen as a silent,
gradual but finalizing invasion of Europe/US sovereignty by large corporate
interests, according to "Le Monde" as example. "Harmonization" of for
example environmental and health standards entail the imposition of the
"lowest, market friendliest standards for all..."

Otherwise of course, this whole thing will not make sense according to the
most powerful lobbies. Not just large US corporations, but the UK's
"financial industry" is pushing hard for the lowering of standards as well.

Labor unions in Europe will have to scale back demands and expectations,
because we need lower standards across the board, to harmonize. Apparently,
Europe's standards in way too many areas, including agriculture, food
production, industrial waste, hydraulic fracturing, or limiting corporate
interests' legal power to sue for losses due to balance sheet losses,
consumer protection etc. are way too high/strong.

If you're some large fossil fuel based corporation, you should be able to
sue governments and taxpayers more effectively for their irresponsible
market behavior in developing more sustainable technologies, because this
costs jobs and slows real growth and profit.

Germany will be interesting to watch in this regard, because popular
opinion/protest is mobilizing against much of this, but government and the
ever present German guilt over the war, puts the country in no position to
"say (dictate...)" much, even if many politicians are convinced by
sustainability concerns, via their records. So no say there. Especially not
to allied interests of large corporations and US/UK savior alliance, that
saved the world AND them from themselves. Germany is said to have sent
"lightweight obedient" to the negotiations, and at this point you can't
expect more from a country who's head of state has her phone bugged and
manages a "Spying among friends is not good" statement, as consequence.

Media is fed bits and pieces of "transparency" in EU, as in some US
lobbyist going "your food safety standards are way too high... why not dip
your chickens in Cl before packaging to save on all these stupid costs of
keeping farms clean you impose etc." (as if you could eat from the floor of
an EU farm...), but members from European Parliament are barred from seeing
the actual texts being negotiated, that lobbyists are said to be actively
penning, "helping us to harmonize properly".

And guess what? The European Centre for International Political Economy,
that should ideologically be favoring this "endeavor", predicts GDP growth
of 0-point something percent! This relies on you giving faith to "lower
customs means increased growth", which is quite blue eyed. If you don't buy
this, according to the authors of the study, then indeed, GDP growth will
increase only by 0.06 percent... from 2029 onwards though. So a family of
four will increase its income per member by around 4.54 Euros a month, in
about a ten year span.

Not hard to see who has the upper hand here and where things are headed
concerning this. Uhm...lower standards for the growth. But we really
want/have to test our luck to not even produce that growth, don't we? PGC


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:45 PM,  wrote:

> Heh, understood Liz, thanks, but I wasn't offended, merely, puzzled. No, a
> 6000 year old Earth is not what I see either. I would just warn you, or
> surprise you, that even lots of Phd's get 'bought-off' by being on the
> 'right side' of politicians who provide employment in academia, and the
> rich that fund the pols. I also just wanted to focus on when the climate
> whammy will happen, and we can do about?
>  -Original Message-
> From: LizR 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:09 pm
> Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>   On 3 March 2014 05:33,  wrote:
>
>>  Hmm. Show me how I disinformed? Oh! By disagreeing. Ah! But what are
>> the facts? What is the behavior of pols and billionaires? Where's the panic
>> over inundating waters? No crash programs? I guess its easy to be lied to,
>> if one is bought off by ideology in the first place. The cause and effect
>> part of the brain must go to sleep.
>>
>
>  Hang on, spudboy, if I read you right you are taking personally a
> comment I made about the behaviour of certain organisations who want to
> give a spurious scientific front to their already-decided views. Unless
> you're a member of the Discovery institute or something, that wasn't
> directed at you personally!
>
>
>>   -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>>  Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:12 am
>> Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>>
>>This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based
>> organisations. They created institutes specifically to push some agenda.
>> We've had tobacco, big oil, and of course the anti-evolution lot, all with
>> their own "think tanks" and "institutes". Personally I reckon they got the

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.
>
> BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the
> earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your
> criterion you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more
> 1:1 correlation of their ages, that they COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY lose
> their 1:1 age correlation they had at rest even if they take a SINGLE STEP!
>

You seem to have misunderstood me, although I thought I was pretty clear--I
said that they did NOT have a unique "actual" correlation in their ages
when they were at rest relative to each other but at different positions in
space, so nothing changes if they start walking, they still don't have any
unique "actual" correlation in their ages. Try reading what I wrote again
(with the correction I mentioned that 'any unique "actual" truth about
their ages' has been changed to 'any unique "actual" truth about the
correlation between their ages'):

'No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth
about the correlation between their ages in this case, nor would any
mainstream physicist. What part of "all frames are equally valid" don't you
understand? Or do you not get that if we use an inertial frame where the
twins are both moving with the same constant velocity, they do NOT have
identical ages at any given moment in this frame? (assuming they had
identical ages at any given moment in their rest frame)'

Jesse



> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:13:31 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>>
>>> No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique "actual" truth
>>> about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there
>> is any unique "actual" truth about the CORRELATION between their ages, i.e.
>> whether or not they reach the same age simultaneously (of course there is
>> still a unique truth about each one's age at any specific event on his
>> worldline). They do reach the same age simultaneously in their comoving
>> inertial frame, but this frame's judgments can't be considered any more
>> "valid" than a different inertial frame.
>>
>> Jesse
>>
>>  --
> 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Brent,

You claim my p-time theory "sounds outrageous" but you haven't been able to 
meaningfully comment on my many demonstrations of how it actually works 
that I've made to Jesse.

For example Jesse claims that there is no 1:1 correlation of proper ages of 
twins separated by distance in relative motion but there is when the twins 
are at rest relative to each other even at distance.

But what if the twins are separated by a great distance and just start 
walking away from each other? Do they then magically somehow COMPLETELY 
LOSE ALL their 1:1 correlation of proper ages? If not, ithen the DEGREE OF 
CORRELATION of proper ages must be dependent on the amount of relative 
motion in contradiction to how most interpret relativistic non-simultaneity?

My point is that Jesse and I are having a real detailed discussion of 
P-time theory, and for someone not following the details of that discussion 
to pass judgment on it without actually engaging with the theory is pretty 
presumptuous.

I'd be happy for you to join the discussion if you think you are up to 
it

Or to discuss my theory of how spaceCLOCKtime emerges from quantum events 
which you claim to be interested in but never actually engage with or ask 
questions about. I for one look forward to such a discussion

Edgar



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 7:39:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/2/2014 3:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 3 March 2014 11:54, meekerdb >wrote:
>
>>  On 3/2/2014 2:38 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 3 March 2014 08:33, meekerdb >wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>>  I don't think Tegmark appreciates how much the "laws of physics" 
>>> depend on our demands that the "laws" be invariant, e.g. conservation of 
>>> energy is a consequence of requiring the lagrangian to be time-translation 
>>> invariant.
>>>
>>
>>  That isn't a demand, it's an observation. (Made by Emmy Noether, IIRC.)
>>   
>>  Noether observed the connection between continuous symmetry in a 
>> lagrangian and the existence of a corresponding conserved quantity.  But 
>> that a lagrangain (or theory in any form) have that character is a 
>> "demand"; or at least a strong desiderata.  Remember how the neutrino was 
>> discovered.  If some process seemed to not conserve energy, we'd just look 
>> for something new we could count as the energy difference.
>>
>
>  I don't want to nitpick here, but that sounds like a highly disingenuous 
> comment to come from someone who knows a lot about physics (either you or 
> Vic Stenger).
>
> IMHO it makes perfect sense to expect an unexplained phenomenon to obey 
> conservation laws, given their success to date. That is, given that 
> everything in the universe that had been studied over the previous 300 
> years or so appeared to obey these principles, why would they immediately 
> assume that they wouldn't apply to a new discovery? And as it turned out, 
> they were right. Neutrinos have observational consequences above and beyond 
> being a mere "accounting process" in beta decay, or whatever it was, such 
> as being directly detected, as well as having strong theoretical support 
> (e.g. in how the sun operates and how supernovas explode).
>   
>
> Of course different forms of energy were identified - but by showing 
> something not previously accounted for could be called 'energy' and thereby 
> achieve conservation.  I don't think the general conservation of energy was 
> considered a firm principle until the mid 1800's and its violation was 
> seriously entertained in the case of beta decay.  But the idea that the 
> "laws of physics" should not depend on time or place goes back much further 
> and had broader historical support; not just empirical but also 
> metaphysical.  Notice how outrageous Edgar's p-time appears, and he just 
> wants a universal clock.  How would it sound to put forth a theory that 
> reference a specific time?  No one would accept it as fundamental.
>
>
>  Also, some processes *do *violate symmetries, and these have been duly 
> detected, and scientists were duly surprised.
>   
>
> Sure, SR violate Galilean symmetry, CPT isn't even a continuous symmetry 
> and so doesn't fall under Noether's theorem.  I don't claim it's an 
> absolute requirement (notice I said "desiderata") but it's surprising how 
> much you can get out of symmetry principles.  Did you read Stenger's 
> essay?  My main point though was to look a little askance at Tegmark, and 
> others, idea that if we just get the right math, or the most elegant 
> theory, then we'll know what's really real.  I don't think they pay enough 
> attention to the fact that we make up the laws of physics.
>
> Brent
>
>   
> I'm kind of surprised myself to see you coming out with what seems like a 
> postmodernist take on how scientists operate.
>
>   -- 
> 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...@google

Re: Block Universes

[LizR]

A little consideration of trains travelling at half lightspeed with photons
bouncing between parallel mirrors, and people observing lights being turned
on in the station should suffice to demonstrate that there is no objective
truth about the order of spatially separated events. This margin is too
narrow to contain the exact proof, but maybe Brent can oblige?

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 11:45,  wrote:

> I also just wanted to focus on when the climate whammy will happen, and we
> can do about?
>
> That's the $64 trillion question, indeed. I'm happy to focus on that,
rather than speculating about which left- or right-wing conspiracy is
currently trying to obfuscate the facts.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 12:42,  wrote:

> Its not just the weather outside, its worldwide, its not matching the
> models I have looked at (courtesy IPCC and NASA) and they fall down.
> Inaccurate. Word games are played by your side, demonstrating that its been
> the 2nd hottest year on record, squeal!" But,
>

Still having difficulty taking you seriously when you make comments like
this, especially with references to "my side" - that already shows you're
making unwarranted assumptions about my views on this matter. If we have
the hottest year on record, how is that a word game, exactly? Either it's
the hottest year on record or it isn't. And climate modelling isn't the
issue. We all know that's very difficult, that the earth is a complex
system full of feedback loops, so if you warm it up you MAY increase cloud
cover and hence cool it down (if you're very lucky - alternatively, you MAY
melt the methane clathrate and blow us all to kingdom come). The question
is what are we going to do, given that (a) we are destroying the
environment right now, in a measurable way, (b) we're going to run out of
fossil fuel eventually, and (c) we may have already precipitated a climate
crisis, with unpredictable consequences?


> why not go for clean energy? Do we have it? Do we have it ready to go?
> Should we do it when the great inundation is about us. Its not about a fix,
> a way out, its about job security for climate scientists (you need us you
> really need us-especially when we're appointed to government jobs), its
> about billionaires manipulating the system to their own benefit, and its
> about ideologists pursuing their religion.
>
> It's still hard to see what you're saying, or to find a point in the above
worthy of the name.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 13:06, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dear Russell,
>
> please allow me to address your contribution after so much of emotionally
> impaired and poorly adjusted hoopla
> in this discussion. Let me join your considerate way - if I am capable of
> - and speak about SOME details only.
> I spent a lifetime in environmentally 'infected' science/technology R&D so
> my conclusions are not just hot air - I hope.
>
> We are not ready to switch from the polluting practices into 'clean' (not
> RENEWABLE, please) energy. JohnK's
>

My apologies if you don't like "renewable" - obviously the Sun will run
down eventually, and so on, but it seems like a reasonable term to use on
the human scale.


> remark on 'geotherm' are unfounded. The methods he visualizes are in the
> obsolescence of one method. What I was
> hintig at, is a lowered (deepened?) double-tube in types like ongoing oil
> wells in a closed system, pumping down
> ultrapure deionized water and letting up high pressure steam into
> turbines. I have nothing against solar applications
> with certain caveats I explained lately. Hydro-applications depend on the
> subsistence of ground water (questioned
> after the snowcaps melted away).
>
> Main point:* we will need a multiple production of energy *and are not
> ready to choose what kind.
> Maybe all of them? I consider the energy domain as 'second' - we still
> manage as well as we can.
> The first biggest concern  is water, for* irrigation*, for *potable*(human - 
> animal) for
> *industry* and *ENERGY purposes*.
> There is plenty in the oceans (*ref: *Liz asking about a bigger energy
> source nearby than the sun). Desalination to
> different levels may take care of all the listed problems.
>

Yes, water is going to be a huge problem, indeed it already is in many
parts of the world. Again I apologise for not highlighting this myself
because it's a big concern.

>
> It is a question of willingness! as long as our well established
> capitalists insist in reaping profits from existing plants,
> (fossil that is). Their 'owned' governments will do nothing. It is (and
> will be) a long struggle and a successful research.
>

This isn't completely true but it is about 90%.


> Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's
> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.
>

Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's
knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do
anything?!

>
>
>

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 13:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

> Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement comes to mind. It's seen as a silent,
> gradual but finalizing invasion of Europe/US sovereignty by large corporate
> interests, according to "Le Monde" as example. "Harmonization" of for
> example environmental and health standards entail the imposition of the
> "lowest, market friendliest standards for all..."
>
> Otherwise of course, this whole thing will not make sense according to the
> most powerful lobbies. Not just large US corporations, but the UK's
> "financial industry" is pushing hard for the lowering of standards as well.
>
> Labor unions in Europe will have to scale back demands and expectations,
> because we need lower standards across the board, to harmonize. Apparently,
> Europe's standards in way too many areas, including agriculture, food
> production, industrial waste, hydraulic fracturing, or limiting corporate
> interests' legal power to sue for losses due to balance sheet losses,
> consumer protection etc. are way too high/strong.
>
> If you're some large fossil fuel based corporation, you should be able to
> sue governments and taxpayers more effectively for their irresponsible
> market behavior in developing more sustainable technologies, because this
> costs jobs and slows real growth and profit.
>
> Germany will be interesting to watch in this regard, because popular
> opinion/protest is mobilizing against much of this, but government and the
> ever present German guilt over the war, puts the country in no position to
> "say (dictate...)" much, even if many politicians are convinced by
> sustainability concerns, via their records. So no say there. Especially not
> to allied interests of large corporations and US/UK savior alliance, that
> saved the world AND them from themselves. Germany is said to have sent
> "lightweight obedient" to the negotiations, and at this point you can't
> expect more from a country who's head of state has her phone bugged and
> manages a "Spying among friends is not good" statement, as consequence.
>
> Media is fed bits and pieces of "transparency" in EU, as in some US
> lobbyist going "your food safety standards are way too high... why not dip
> your chickens in Cl before packaging to save on all these stupid costs of
> keeping farms clean you impose etc." (as if you could eat from the floor of
> an EU farm...), but members from European Parliament are barred from seeing
> the actual texts being negotiated, that lobbyists are said to be actively
> penning, "helping us to harmonize properly".
>
> And guess what? The European Centre for International Political Economy,
> that should ideologically be favoring this "endeavor", predicts GDP growth
> of 0-point something percent! This relies on you giving faith to "lower
> customs means increased growth", which is quite blue eyed. If you don't buy
> this, according to the authors of the study, then indeed, GDP growth will
> increase only by 0.06 percent... from 2029 onwards though. So a family of
> four will increase its income per member by around 4.54 Euros a month, in
> about a ten year span.
>
> Not hard to see who has the upper hand here and where things are headed
> concerning this. Uhm...lower standards for the growth. But we really
> want/have to test our luck to not even produce that growth, don't we? PGC
>
> Thank God I live in New Zealand!

Although of course we're doing our best to screw it up...

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:
I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at least trying to 
get his head around the big questions, like why is there something rather than nothing? 


To quote the late Norm Levitt: "What is there?  Everything! So what isn't there?  
Nothing!"

Or Frank Wilczek (Nobel prize 2004): "The reason that there is Something rather than 
Nothing is that Nothing is unstable."


In fact his is the /only/ satisfactory answer to that question I've ever come across, 
which is quite an achievement, imho, even if it proves to be wrong.


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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

Well to the idea about clathrates, is that if we cannot develop solar or 
fusion, we'll have to use gas hydrate to survive and burn it, rather than 
release it. I do keep informed and we do need to know what is occurring.  What 
does this say about our arguments?


http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

The political manipulations are fact, but like most people, we can do zero 
about it. We are as the eunuchs at the Roman orgy who can do nothing but point 
and gossip. I take your comment as you care not to gossip, which is 
understandable.
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 8:21 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On 3 March 2014 12:42,   wrote:

Its not just the weather outside, its worldwide, its not matching the models I 
have looked at (courtesy IPCC and NASA) and they fall down. Inaccurate. Word 
games are played by your side, demonstrating that its been the 2nd hottest year 
on record, squeal!" But, 



Still having difficulty taking you seriously when you make comments like this, 
especially with references to "my side" - that already shows you're making 
unwarranted assumptions about my views on this matter. If we have the hottest 
year on record, how is that a word game, exactly? Either it's the hottest year 
on record or it isn't. And climate modelling isn't the issue. We all know 
that's very difficult, that the earth is a complex system full of feedback 
loops, so if you warm it up you MAY increase cloud cover and hence cool it down 
(if you're very lucky - alternatively, you MAY melt the methane clathrate and 
blow us all to kingdom come). The question is what are we going to do, given 
that (a) we are destroying the environment right now, in a measurable way, (b) 
we're going to run out of fossil fuel eventually, and (c) we may have already 
precipitated a climate crisis, with unpredictable consequences?

 

why not go for clean energy? Do we have it? Do we have it ready to go? Should 
we do it when the great inundation is about us. Its not about a fix, a way out, 
its about job security for climate scientists (you need us you really need 
us-especially when we're appointed to government jobs), its about billionaires 
manipulating the system to their own benefit, and its about ideologists 
pursuing their religion.



 It's still hard to see what you're saying, or to find a point in the above 
worthy of the name.

 



-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar
Cowboy
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 4:51 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement comes to mind. It's seen as a silent,
gradual but finalizing invasion of Europe/US sovereignty by large corporate
interests, according to "Le Monde" as example. "Harmonization" of for
example environmental and health standards entail the imposition of the
"lowest, market friendliest standards for all..." 

Otherwise of course, this whole thing will not make sense according to the
most powerful lobbies. Not just large US corporations, but the UK's
"financial industry" is pushing hard for the lowering of standards as well.

Labor unions in Europe will have to scale back demands and expectations,
because we need lower standards across the board, to harmonize. Apparently,
Europe's standards in way too many areas, including agriculture, food
production, industrial waste, hydraulic fracturing, or limiting corporate
interests' legal power to sue for losses due to balance sheet losses,
consumer protection etc. are way too high/strong. 

If you're some large fossil fuel based corporation, you should be able to
sue governments and taxpayers more effectively for their irresponsible
market behavior in developing more sustainable technologies, because this
costs jobs and slows real growth and profit.   

 

Germany will be interesting to watch in this regard, because popular
opinion/protest is mobilizing against much of this, but government and the
ever present German guilt over the war, puts the country in no position to
"say (dictate...)" much, even if many politicians are convinced by
sustainability concerns, via their records. So no say there. Especially not
to allied interests of large corporations and US/UK savior alliance, that
saved the world AND them from themselves. Germany is said to have sent
"lightweight obedient" to the negotiations, and at this point you can't
expect more from a country who's head of state has her phone bugged and
manages a "Spying among friends is not good" statement, as consequence. 

Media is fed bits and pieces of "transparency" in EU, as in some US lobbyist
going "your food safety standards are way too high... why not dip your
chickens in Cl before packaging to save on all these stupid costs of keeping
farms clean you impose etc." (as if you could eat from the floor of an EU
farm...), but members from European Parliament are barred from seeing the
actual texts being negotiated, that lobbyists are said to be actively
penning, "helping us to harmonize properly". 

And guess what? The European Centre for International Political Economy,
that should ideologically be favoring this "endeavor", predicts GDP growth
of 0-point something percent! This relies on you giving faith to "lower
customs means increased growth", which is quite blue eyed. If you don't buy
this, according to the authors of the study, then indeed, GDP growth will
increase only by 0.06 percent... from 2029 onwards though. So a family of
four will increase its income per member by around 4.54 Euros a month, in
about a ten year span. 

Not hard to see who has the upper hand here and where things are headed
concerning this. Uhm...lower standards for the growth. But we really
want/have to test our luck to not even produce that growth, don't we? PGC

 

You are so right about the race to the bottom. The race so good for short
term profit; so foolish for long term preservation. With leadership like
this, one could ask: who needs enemies.

Chris

 

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:45 PM,  wrote:

Heh, understood Liz, thanks, but I wasn't offended, merely, puzzled. No, a
6000 year old Earth is not what I see either. I would just warn you, or
surprise you, that even lots of Phd's get 'bought-off' by being on the
'right side' of politicians who provide employment in academia, and the rich
that fund the pols. I also just wanted to focus on when the climate whammy
will happen, and we can do about? 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

On 3 March 2014 05:33,  wrote:

Hmm. Show me how I disinformed? Oh! By disagreeing. Ah! But what are the
facts? What is the behavior of pols and billionaires? Where's the panic over
inundating waters? No crash programs? I guess its easy to be lied to, if one
is bought off by ideology in the first place. The cause and effect part of
the brain must go to sleep. 

 

Hang on, spudboy, if I read you right you are taking personally a comment I
made about the behaviour of certain organisations who want to give a
spurious scientific front to their already-decided views. Unless you're a
member of the Discovery institute or something, that wasn't directed at you
personally!

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everyt

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 14:58,  wrote:

> Well to the idea about clathrates, is that if we cannot develop solar or
> fusion, we'll have to use gas hydrate to survive and burn it, rather than
> release it. I do keep informed and we do need to know what is occurring.
>

Yes, mining offshore methane seems to be a possibility. This will of course
add to the greenhouse gases in the air (as solar and fusion wouldn't, or
not very much) which will perhaps continue the warming trend. The problem
is that if we warm the oceans very much - they're a lot harder to warm than
the atmosphere, of course - tt's possible that dissolved gases will come
out of suspension, so all the CO2 they've soaked up (and thereby kept
atmospheric levels down plus all the dissolved methane. The earth's
atmosphere was once mainly methane I believe so there's a lot available. A
so-called "methane burp" could mean the end of civilisation.


>   What does this say about our arguments?
>

I don't know.

>
>
> http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
>
> The political manipulations are fact, but like most people, we can do zero
> about it. We are as the eunuchs at the Roman orgy who can do nothing but
> point and gossip. I take your comment as you care not to gossip, which is
> understandable.
>
> As you say there is no point. However I will take any action I think may
help (within reason, and given my parlous finances that isn't very far).

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 15:33, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
> You are so right about the race to the bottom. The race so good for short
> term profit; so foolish for long term preservation. With leadership like
> this, one could ask: who needs enemies.
>
> Ain't that the truth. Of course Karl Marx had something to say about the
war between us and our (so called) leaders way back when.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 3 March 2014 14:46, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/2/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> I find Tegmark's metaphysical speculations interesting, because he is at
> least trying to get his head around the big questions, like why is there
> something rather than nothing?
>
> To quote the late Norm Levitt: "What is there?  Everything! So what isn't
> there?  Nothing!"
>

As Russell will tell you they may be one and the same.

>
> Or Frank Wilczek (Nobel prize 2004): "The reason that there is Something
> rather than Nothing is that Nothing is unstable."
>

With all due respect to Wilczek, who I suspect you may be quoting out of
context, that hasn't answered the question, has it? - The question being,
where did the laws of physics come from that made nothing unstable?

You may as well rope in Edgar to explain why it's logically impossible for
there to be nothing because blah whatever.

-- 
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: MODAL Last exercise

[LizR]

So does reflexive (alpha R alpha) mean that all universes are
*only*accessible to themselves, or does it mean that all universes are
accessible
to themselves and possibly, but not necessarily, to each other?

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 7:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

On 3 March 2014 15:33, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

You are so right about the race to the bottom. The race so good for short
term profit; so foolish for long term preservation. With leadership like
this, one could ask: who needs enemies.

 

Ain't that the truth. Of course Karl Marx had something to say about the war
between us and our (so called) leaders way back when.

He also said a few things about making enough rope. this global race to the
bottom will - IMO -- finally prove him correct on this point. It is
unsustainable on so many levels in the long term and yet it seems
unstoppable in the short term.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 8:20 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *LizR

*Sent:* Sunday, March 02, 2014 7:39 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

On 3 March 2014 15:33, Chris de Morsella > wrote:


You are so right about the race to the bottom. The race so good for short term profit; 
so foolish for long term preservation. With leadership like this, one could ask: who 
needs enemies.


Ain't that the truth. Of course Karl Marx had something to say about the war between us 
and our (so called) leaders way back when.


He also said a few things about making enough rope... this global race to the bottom 
will -- IMO -- finally prove him correct on this point. It is unsustainable on so many 
levels in the long term and yet it seems unstoppable in the short term.




Aren't you thinking of Thomas Malthus?

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: MODAL Last exercise

[meekerdb]

On 3/2/2014 9:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Brent, Liz, others,

I sum up the main things, and give a lot of exercises, or meditation subject.

Liz we can do them one at a time, even one halve. Ask questions if the question asked 
seems unclear.


***
A Kripke frame, or multiverse, is a couple (W, R) with W a non empty set of worlds, and 
R a binary relation of accessibility.


An illuminated, or valued, multiverse (W,R, V), is a Kripke multiverse together with an 
assignment V of a truth value (0, or 1) to each  propositional letter for each world. We 
say that p is true in that world, when V(p) = 1, for that world. If you want V is a 
collection of functions V_alpha in {0, 1}, one for each world alpha.


***
Some class of multiverses will play some role.

A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said reflexive if R is reflexive. alpha R alpha, for all 
alpha in W.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said transitive if R is transitive. That is

alpha R beta, and beta R gamma entails alpha R gamma, for all alpha beta and 
gamma in W.

A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said symmetric if R is symmetric. alpha R beta entails 
beta R alpha, for all alpha in W.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said ideal if there are no cul-de-sac worlds. For all 
alpha, there is beta such that alpha R beta.


A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said realist if all non cul-de-sac worlds can access to a 
cul-de-sac world.


***
Finally:  (The key thing)

*I say that a Kripke multiverse (W,R) respects a modal formula if that formula is true 
in all worlds in W, and this for any valuation V.*


***
Show that

(W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is reflexive,


R is reflexive implies (alpha R alpha) for all alpha.  []A in alpha implies A is true in 
all beta where (alpha R beta), which includes the case beta=alpha. So R is reflexive 
implies (W,R) respects []A->A.


Assume (W,R) respects []A->A, so that []A->A is true in all W.  That means that every 
world has another R-accessible world and whatever valuation any formula A has in the 
world, it has the same valuation in the R-accessible world.  Hmm?  I don't see how that 
implies R is reflexive, unless I can say that any two worlds whose valuation is the same 
for every formula are just the same world.


Brent


(W, R) respects []A -> [][]A if and only R is transitive,
(W, R) respects  A -> []<>A if and only R is symmetrical,
(W,R) respects []A -> <>A if and only if R is ideal,
(W, R) respects <>A -> ~[]<>A if and only if R is realist.

You can try to find small counter-examples, and guess the pattern of what happens when 
you fail.


Of course proving that (W, R) respects []A -> A if and only if R is reflexive, consists 
in proving both


(W, R) respects []A -> A if  R is reflexive,

and

(W, R) respects []A -> A only if R is reflexive, that is

R is reflexive if (W, R) respects []A -> A

That's a lot of exercises. 10 exercises.

We can do them one at a time. Who propose a proof for

(W, R) respects []A -> A if  R is reflexive, That is:

R reflexive -> (W, R) respects []A -> A

?


Bruno

Oh! I forget this one:

Show that all the Kripke multiverses (W, R), whatever R is, respect [](A -> B) -> ([]A 
-> []B).



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.


--
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 8:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

On 3/2/2014 8:20 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 7:39 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

On 3 March 2014 15:33, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

You are so right about the race to the bottom. The race so good for short
term profit; so foolish for long term preservation. With leadership like
this, one could ask: who needs enemies.

 

Ain't that the truth. Of course Karl Marx had something to say about the war
between us and our (so called) leaders way back when.

He also said a few things about making enough rope. this global race to the
bottom will - IMO -- finally prove him correct on this point. It is
unsustainable on so many levels in the long term and yet it seems
unstoppable in the short term.


Aren't you thinking of Thomas Malthus?

"The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope."

Is the quote I was referring to. 



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.

-- 
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: MODAL Last exercise

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Mar 2014, at 04:55, LizR wrote:

So does reflexive (alpha R alpha) mean that all universes are only  
accessible to themselves, or does it mean that all universes are  
accessible to themselves and possibly, but not necessarily, to each  
other?


Good question. Mathematician are literalist, so when we say:

>


It means that for all alpha, we have alpha R alpha.
And you cannot deduce from this, that ~(alpha R beta) when alpha R beta.

For example, a (W, R) can be both reflexive and transitive.

You can also derive that if R is reflexive then R is ideal. If R is  
reflexive, there is no cul-de-sac, as all worlds can access *at least  
one world*, itself.


OK?

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: Modal Logic (Part 1: Leibniz)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Jan 2014, at 11:14, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Thanks for the info. It is very  interesting and It helps in many  
ways.


You are welcome.




The problem with mathematical notation is that it is good to store and
systematize knowledge, not to make it understandable. The transmission
of knowledge can only be done by replaying the historical process that
produces the discovery of that knowledge, as Feyerabend said. And this
historical process of discovery-learning-transmission can never have
the form of some formalism, but the form of concrete problems and
partial steps to a solution in a narrative in which the formalism is
nothing but the conclussion of the history, not the starting point.

Doing it in the reverse order is one of the greatest mistake of
education at all levels that the positivist rationalsim has
perpetrated and it is a product of a complete misunderstanding that
the modern rationalism has about the human mind since it rejected the
greek philosophy.

Another problem of mathematical notation, like any other language, is
that it tries to be formal,  but part of the definitions necessary for
his understanding are necessarily outside of itself. Mathematics may
be a context-free language, but philosophy is not, as well as
mathematics when it is applied to  something outside of itself. but
that is only an intuition that I have not entirely formalized.


You are right, and I hope you will understand that machine understand  
this, in some technical sense.



For example, you have done in the above mail an excellent work of
narrative pedagogy, unlike in other cases. But sorry I don´t want to
deviate you from the subject of modal logic, that is very interesting.
Please forget my responses for now.


Oops, I forget to forget  :)

Bruno





2014/1/21, Bruno Marchal :

On 20 Jan 2014, at 23:47, LizR wrote:


On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

If you remember Cantor, you see that if we take all variables into
account, the multiverse is already a continuum. OK? A world is
defined by a infinite sequence like "true, false, false, true, true,
true, ..." corresponding to p, q, r, p1, q1, r1, p2, q2, ...

I assume it's a continuum, rather than a countable infinity because
if it was countable we could list all the worlds, but of course we
can diagonalise the list by changing each truth value.



Very good.

(Those who does not get this can ask for more explanations).




On 21 Jan 2014, at 01:32, LizR wrote:


On 21 January 2014 08:38, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

Are the following laws?  I don't put the last outer parenthesis for
reason of readability.

p -> p

This is a law because p -> q is equivalent to (~p V q) and (p V ~p)
must be (true OR false), or (false OR true) which are both true

(p & q) -> p

using (~p V q) gives (~(p & q) V q) ... using 0 and 1 for false and
true ... (0,0), (0,1) and (1,0) give 1, (1,1) gives 1 ... so this is
true. So it is a law. I think.

(p & q) -> q

Hmm. (~(p & q) V q) is ... the same as above.

p -> (p V q)

(~p V (p V q)) must be true because of the p V ~p  that's in there
(as per the first one)

q -> (p V q)

Is the same...hm, these are all laws (apparently). I feel as though
I'm probably missing something and getting this all wrong. Have I
misunderstood something ?


No, it is all good, Liz!

What about:

(p V q) -> p

and

p -> (p & q)

What about (still in CPL) the question:

is (p & q) -> r equivalent with p -> (q -> r)

Oh! You did not answer:

((COLD & WET) -> ICE)   ->  ((COLD -> ICE) V (WET -> ICE))

So what? Afraid of the logician's trick? Or of the logician's  
madness?

Try this one if you are afraid to be influenced by your intuition
aboutCOLD, WET and  ICE:

((p & q) -> r)   ->   ((p -> r) V (q -> r))

Is that a law?

And what about the modal []p -> p ? What about the []p -> [][]p, and
<>p -> []<>p ? Is that true in all worlds?

Let me an answer the first one:  []p -> p. The difficulty is that we
can't use the truth table, (can you see why) but we have the meaning
of "[]p". Indeed it means that p is true in all world.
Now, p itself is either true in all worlds, or it is not true in all
worlds. Note that p -> p is true in all world (as you have shown
above, it is (~p V p), so in each world each p is either true or  
false.


If p is true in all worlds, then p is a law.  But if p is true in all
world, any "A -> p" will be true too, given that for making "A -> p"
false, you need p false (truth is implied by anything, in CPL). So if
p itself is a law, []p -> is a law. For example (p->p) is a law, so  
[]

(p->p) -> (p->p) for example.
But what if p is not a law? then ~[]p is true, and has to be true in
all worlds. With this simple semantic of Leibniz, []p really simply
means that p is true in all world, that is automatically true in all
world. If p is not a law, ~[]p is true, and, as I said, this has to  
be

true in all world (in all world we have that p is not a law).
So []p is false in all worlds. But false -> anything in CPL. OK? So
[]p 

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:52:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2014, at 03:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:


In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we  
need a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not  
Alien?


Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you  
that it's your hand?


Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What  
difference does it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it  
performs as a hand.


Maybe it isn't always obvious that it's my hand... I believe the  
brain has an internal model of the body. I guess without one it  
wouldn't find it so easy to control it? A body's quite  
complicated, after all...


Why should the model include its own non-functional presence though?



Because the "model", the machine is not just confronted with its  
own self-representation, but also with truth, as far as we are. Put  
differently, because the machine can't conflate []p and []p & p.  
Only God can do that.


I don't see why self-representation would or could go beyond a  
simple inventory of functions.


[]p is self representation only.
But []p & p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate  
anything 3p-describable for "[]p & p". It is not a representation,  
but a (meta) link between representation and truth.


Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages?


Because we duplicate too slowly, unlike amoeba, which have not the  
cognitive abilities to exploit this.
This entails that in natural language we use the same indexical term  
"I" for both the 3-I and the 1-I. We say "I lost a tooth" ("3-I") ,  
and "I feel pain in my mouth (1-I)". Only teleportation and  
duplication, or deep reflexion on belief and knowledge,  makes clear  
the difference. It appears clearly in Theaetetus, and in other  
fundamental texts.


Bruno


PS for reason of scheduling, I will comment only paragraph that I  
understand.

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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics.



What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics  
from consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then  
physics emerge from arithmetic?

Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?

Bruno






What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness  
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is  
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of  
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the  
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all  
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer  
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little  
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,  
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why  
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done  
on the footprint issue?

--
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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Truth is a belief about what a sensation represents.


Not at all. By definition, truth is independent of belief. Arithmetic  
truth does explain where the belief come from. If not you fall into  
solipsism.


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: Digital Neurology

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 18:51, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:




On 2 March 2014 22:18, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 08:09, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1 March 2014 01:40, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>> If you start with the assumption that the physics relevant to  
brain
>>> function is not computable then computationalism is false: it  
would be
>>> impossible to make a machine that behaves like a human, either  
zombie

>>> or conscious.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you, the physics *relevant* to brain function has to  
be

>> computable, for comp to be true. But the point is that below the
>> substitution level, the physical details are not relevant. Then  
by the

>> FPI,
>> they must be undetermined, and this on an infinite non computable  
domain,
>> and so, our "computable brain" must rely on a non computable  
physics, or a
>> non necessarily computable physics, with some non computable  
aspect. This

>> is
>> what comp predicts, and of course this is confirmed by QM. Again,
>> eventually, QM might to much computable for comp to be true. That  
is what

>> remain to be seen.
>>
>>
>>> What I mean by functionalism is that the way the brain processes
>>> information, its I/O behaviour, is what generates mind. This  
implies

>>> multiple realisability of mental states, insofar as the same
>>> information processing could be done by another machine. If the
>>> machine is a digital computer then functionalism reduces to
>>> computationalism. If the brain utilises non-computable physics  
then

>>> you won't be able to reproduce its function (and the mind thus
>>> generated) with a digital computer, so computationalism is false.
>>> However, that does not necessarily mean that functionalism is  
false,

>>> since you may be able to implement the appropriate brain function
>>> through some other means. For example, if it turns out that a  
digital

>>> implementation of the brain fails because real numbers and not
>>> approximations are necessary, it may still be possible to  
implement a

>>> brain using analogue devices.
>>
>>
>> OK, but that functionalism seems to me trivially true. How could  
such

>> functionalism be refuted, if you can invoke arbitrary functions?
>> (Also, "functionalism" is used for a stringer (less general)  
version of
>> computationalism, by Putnam, so this use of functionalism is non  
standard

>> and can be confusing.
>> Last remark, I am not sure that the notion of information  
processing can
>> make sense in a non digital framework. In both quantum and  
classical
>> information theory, information is digital (words like bits and  
qubits

>> come
>> from there).
>
> I think functionalism is true, but it's not obviously true, at  
least to most
> people. It could be that the observable behaviour of the brain is  
reproduced
> perfectly but the resulting creature has no consciousness or a  
different

> conscious.
>
>
> What if someone says that the function of the brain is to provide
> consciousness. Is that functionalism?
> What if someone says that the function of the brain is to link a  
"divine"

> soul to a person through a body?
> What is a function?

No, a function is an observable pattern of behaviour.


You do use "function" in a non standard sense.




Functionalism says that if you replicate this, you also replicate  
the mind. You need to replicate not only a special behaviour (which  
could be quite easy) but all outputs for all inputs.


At all levels. Your functionalism is just what is called "mechanism".  
That generalizes indeed "digital mechanism", that is comp.
It is not "functionalism" in the sense of philosopher of mind, where  
it means computationalism, with a fuzzy fixed level.






> That would be the case if consciousness were substrate-dependent.
>
>
> But you can put the substrate in the function. A brain would have  
the
> function to associate to that substrate the experience. How could  
I say no

> to the doctor who guaranties that all the function of the brain are
> preserved.
> The term function, like set, is too general, to much powerful.

Then I'm using it in a somewhat precise sense as above.


Unfortunately, "observable pattern of behavior" is not that much  
precise. "observable" is a complex epistemic notion for example. But I  
got it.






> It could also be that the behaviour cannot be reproduced by a  
computer

> because the substitution level requires non-computable physics (true
> randomness, real numbers, non-computable functions), but it could be
> reproduced by a non-computational device. So there are these  
possibilities

> with brain replacement:
>
> (a) the behaviour is not reproduced and neither is the  
consciousness;

>
>
> = ~ BEH-MEC
>
>
> (b) The behaviour is reproduced but the consciousness is not  
reproduced;

>
>
> ~ comp.
>
>
>
> (c) The behaviour is reproduced and so is the consciousness;
>
>
> = comp, unless it is the consciousness is the one by an impostor.
>
>
>
> (d) The behaviour is not 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it
> is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop
> being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass
>
> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
> to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
> (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over
> days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
> to normal until all the REM is made up for)
> i
> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
> to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
> ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
> kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
> that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
> ion
> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
> in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
> heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
> where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
> our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
> experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
> object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?
> If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
>
> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
> experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
> conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
> hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
> software, such that the experience is able to think the next
> thought? The processor? RAM?
>
> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
> and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
> can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
> be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness
> would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
> intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
> our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
>  of that code?
> ,
> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the
> past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
> having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
> runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
> consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
> only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
> is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
> on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic
suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary.  
Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia,  
out of time and space and physics, which arises from their views from  
inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
"affirmatively", we do it because we *hope* we get a level right, but  
the theory will explain that we are "invoking God" implicitly in the  
process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.






Leaving that to one side, what is the sequence then in your logic  
that comp carries no attribute of consciousness, yet as you define  
comp for your input assumption, from within itself it produces trina  
replacement device seamlessly continuing a conscious existence? As  
your starting point - which is now in the frame for a flaw, because  
the attribute of consciousness must be attached to comp in a step  
coming before.


On the contrary. The weak version of comp I am studying does not make  
any link between my consciousness and my brain, but only on a bet of  
its invariance for some substitution.
This will break the usual mind-brain identity thesis, and the brain is  
only a device which make my platonic consciousness able to manifest  
itself relatively to possible others.








Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmeti