Adam and Eve’s Anthropic Superpowers

2018-11-23 Thread Mason Green
Hi everyone,

I found an interesting blog post that attempts to refute the Doomsday Argument. 
It suggests that different worlds ought to be weighted by the number of people 
in them, so that you should be more likely to find yourself in a world where 
there will be many humans, as opposed to just a few. This would cancel out the 
unlikeliness of finding yourself among the first humans in such a world.

I’m curious as to what the contributors here think. (I’m new here, I found out 
about this list through Russell’s Theory of Nothing book).

https://risingentropy.com/2018/09/06/adam-and-eves-anthropic-superpowers/

-Mason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state.

2018-11-23 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 5:29:05 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> agrays...@gmail.com 
>
> *>** So Feynman adds this additional hypothesis to QM. Is this kosher?*
>
>  
> It had better be kosher because it works!
>
> *> ** introducing an infinity of universes seems extraneous and confusing 
>> for a solution to this problem. AG*
>
>  
> Far from being extraneous Feynman's method is the easiest way to make a 
> calculation in Quantum Electrodynamics, a calculation that would take weeks 
> or months using other methods can be done with pencil and paper in just a 
> few hours doing it Feynman's way. Feynman said the magnetic moment of an 
> electron can't be exactly 1 as had been previously thought, he calculated 
> it to be 1.00115965246, while the best experimental value that was found 
> much later is   1.00115965221. That's like measuring the distance between 
> Los Angeles and New York to the thickness of a human hair.  This is the 
> most accurate prediction in all of science, Feynman must have been doing 
> something right
>
> *> I don't like this approach -- in fact I abhor it*
>
>
> The Universe likes it, and it's likes and dislikes are far more important 
> than yours.
>


*Quantum theory is replete with mathematics that works, that we don't 
understand why it works. What is different about this case? Incidentally, 
can you shed any light on my question about coherent states of a 
superposition? TIA, AG *

>
>  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-11-23 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:40:23 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:22 PM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>  
>
>> > True intelligence is *experiential intelligence*.
>>
>
> What sort of intelligence do your fellow human beings have? How does true 
> intelligence behave differently than untrue intelligence? If untrue 
> intelligence can outsmart true intelligence it sure doesn't seem very 
> untrue to me.
>
> John K Clark
>  
>

Some in AI will say if something is just informationally intelligent (or 
pseudo-intelligent) but not experientially intelligent then it will not 
ever be remarkably creative - in literature, music, painting, or even 
science.

And it will not be conscious, as all humans are.

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:22 PM Philip Thrift 
wrote:


> > True intelligence is *experiential intelligence*.
>

What sort of intelligence do your fellow human beings have? How does true
intelligence behave differently than untrue intelligence? If untrue
intelligence can outsmart true intelligence it sure doesn't seem very
untrue to me.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state.

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
agrayson2...@gmail.com

*>** So Feynman adds this additional hypothesis to QM. Is this kosher?*


It had better be kosher because it works!

*> ** introducing an infinity of universes seems extraneous and confusing
> for a solution to this problem. AG*


Far from being extraneous Feynman's method is the easiest way to make a
calculation in Quantum Electrodynamics, a calculation that would take weeks
or months using other methods can be done with pencil and paper in just a
few hours doing it Feynman's way. Feynman said the magnetic moment of an
electron can't be exactly 1 as had been previously thought, he calculated
it to be 1.00115965246, while the best experimental value that was found
much later is   1.00115965221. That's like measuring the distance between
Los Angeles and New York to the thickness of a human hair.  This is the
most accurate prediction in all of science, Feynman must have been doing
something right

*> I don't like this approach -- in fact I abhor it*


The Universe likes it, and it's likes and dislikes are far more important
than yours.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-11-23 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 6:22:39 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Philip Thrift  > wrote:
>
> *> An alternative is that consciousness (or experientiality - in the 
>> philosophers' jargon) is intrinsic (more jargon) to matter. A change in 
>> matter would indeed change consciousness.*
>>
>
> Because a change in matter changes a computation and a change in 
> computation changes intelligence and a change in intelligence changes 
> consciousness.
>

 

>
>  John K Clark
>
>  
>
>

One can have a system that consists of only information processing: It has 
a "knowledge base" like Wikipedia, can converse on any topic, make jokes, 
can learn stuff reading online news, and so on. That system has* 
informational intelligence *- but does not have "experience". True 
intelligence is *experiential intelligence*.

- pt

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 22 Nov 2018, at 21:02, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> >In logic, a model is a reality. 
> 
> If so then "reality" is a very silly thing and logicians are very silly 
> people.

It is so, as again you would see if you read any introduction to mathematical 
logic. A model is usually an infinite structure, quite different from a theory, 
and semantics is given by a “satisfaction” relation between models and formula. 
The model of Peano arithmetic, for example, is the set N together with the 
addition and multiplication functions intepreteting the symbol “+” and “*” in 
the usual sense. 


> 
> > A reality is anything which satisfies a theory
>  
> And that is a very silly thing to say. Harry Potter flying on a broom 
> satisfies the theory that Harry Potter is a wizard therefore Harry Potter 
> flying on a broom is a reality.






> 
> > By definition of computations, all computations are done without primary 
> > matter. 
> 
> And there we have those magical words again "by definition” .

Yes, in a precise context, when doing science/mathematics, it is useful to have 
precise mathematical definition.



> You should just say that "correct" means what Bruno Marchal says and 
> therefore all your ideas are "correct" by definition.

No I use the standard definition. You are wanting to change them to suit your 
personal agenda, which does not seem to “understand” the works already done, so 
as to avoid the consequences. You define computation through an ontological 
commitment. That is not the standard way to proceed in this field, and well, in 
science in general.



> Definitions do not change reality and you're never going to discover anything 
> new just by making definitions.

Any formal or mathematical definition will do, and with Church thesis this 
applies to any possible different future definition.

That all computations are executed in arithmetic is just a standard fact knows 
since 1931-1936. 




>  
> > The appearance of matter is explained by the way some computations are seen 
> > from inside. 
> 
> Computations don't seem like anything from the inside or the outside  if they 
> don't exist, and without matter that obeys the laws of physics they don’t;

You assume Aristotle theology. That simply cannot work, unless you are right 
about the non existence of the first person indeterminacy, but you have failed 
to give an algorithm capable of violating it, so ...






> and even the magical incantation "by definition" can't change that fact.
> 
> > If you believe in some primary, non deductible matter and that such primary 
> > matter has a role for consciousness,
> 
> We've observed experimentally that a change in matter changes consciousness 
> and a change in consciousness changes matter, I don't see how you could get 
> better evidence than that indicating matter and consciousness are related.


In a video games, you can also have such relations, them being processed in the 
physical reality, or in a brain in a vat, or in arithmetic, the same effect can 
take place, and thus, what you say cannot be a valid argument for the existence 
of a primary matter playing a role in the brain, or in consciousness.



>  
> > it is up to you to explain how 
> 
> It is not necessary to explain how if you can prove that it does.


It would work if your brain was unique, but there is no reason to believe this, 
and it is refutable with Mechanism, as they are infinitely many “brains” in 
arithmetic.




>  In science if someone makes a experimental discovery they are not also 
> required to explain why things are that way, if they can that would be great 
> but it's not required. In 1998 astronomers discovered that the universe was 
> accelerating, they had no idea why it is doing that and we still don't, but 
> the astronomers received the Nobel for their discovery anyway. When somebody 
> discovers why its accelerating I have no doubt another Nobel Prize will be 
> produced.


You identify physics and metaphysics. That is not valid.



> 
> > that matter can select computation(s) in arithmetic.
> 
> Turing showed that matter can make any computation that can be composted, 
> what more do you need.

Sure, but we talk on primary matter, and it is this one that you have to 
explain the role in consciousness, and how it select the computations in 
arithmetic, or what it does not select them, which seems pure magic. You cannot 
invoke your personal conviction, as you did above and in other posts.




> 
> >   either A) that matter role is not Turing emulable, but then mechanism is 
> > false. Or,
> 
> You've got it backwards. Again. Turing proved that matter can do mathematics 
> he did NOT prove that mathematics can do matter,


Yes, that is my result, but it is based on Turing’s definition of computation, 
based on its thesis or on Church’s thesis.



> and as far back as Newton we knew that mathematics can not solve the 3 

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

2018-11-23 Thread agrayson2000


On Friday, November 23, 2018 at 11:29:14 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Nov 2018, at 18:03, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:52:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18 Nov 2018, at 14:00, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 12:19:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 15:38, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM UTC, scerir wrote:


 Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 



 On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, scerir wrote:


 Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 agrays...@gmail.com ha scritto: 



 On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir wrote:

 Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) 
 [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .

 If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle 
 through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the 
 particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.


 *Why?  Won't the measured value be along the x axis in both directions, 
 in effect Up or Dn? AG*

 "Hence we must conclude that the system described by the |+>x state is 
 not the
 same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and !-> states. This means that 
 each atom in the
 beam is in a state that itself is a combination of the |+> and |-> 
 states. A superposition
 state is often called a coherent superposition since the relative phase 
 of the two terms is
 important."

 .see pages 18-19 here *https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu 
 *


 *Try answering in your own words. When the SG device is oriented along 
 the x axis, now effectively the z-axix IIUC, and we're dealing with 
 superpositions, the outcomes will be 50-50 plus and minus. Therefore, 
 unless I am making some error, what you stated above is incorrect. AG *

 sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  is a superposition, but since sqrt(1/2) 
 [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  =  (s+)_x the particle will always emerge 'up'

>>>
>>> I'll probably get back to on the foregoing. In the meantime, consider 
>>> this; I claim one can never MEASURE Up + Dn or Up - Dn with a SG apparatus 
>>> regardless of how many other instruments one uses to create a composite 
>>> measuring apparatus (Bruno's claim IIUC). The reason is simple. We know 
>>> that the spin operator 
>>>
>>>
>>> Which one? 
>>>
>>
>> *Good question. AG*
>>
>> There are spin operator for each direction in space. The superposition of 
>>> up and down is a precise pure state, with precise eigenvalues, when 
>>> measuring state in the complementary directions.
>>>
>>
>> *As I wrote earlier, based on scerir's superpositions on different axes, 
>> and simulation, I now think that Up + Dn and Up - Dn can be measured along 
>> the x axis but not along the z axis (which I was focused on). *
>>
>>
>> All you need to do is a change of base. The operator will be defined 
>> clearly by the Eigen value on the diagonal in the corresponding base. You 
>> can prepare any state, and measure them “in any base”. 
>>
>
>
> *I'll get back to this issue in my next post. AG *
>
>> *You were probably correct about x axis measurements, but perhaps were 
>> not clear enough. You were not explicit that measurements along the x axis 
>> is a different SG experiment from along z axis.*
>>
>>
>> OK. Sorry. 
>>
>> * I thought you meant do them in succession, not as separate experiments.*
>>
>>
>> Ah? OK.
>>
>>
>> * Also introducing an infinity of universes seems extraneous and 
>> confusing for a solution to this problem. AG *
>>
>> I are probably different on this. I don’t take the word “universe” too 
>> much seriously, as with mechanism we know at the start that there is 
>> “physical universe” at all, just the natural numbers with the laws of 
>> addition and multiplication. Both the computational and the quantum state 
>> are relative, and high level, pertaining to what is “observable” for some 
>> the point of view of some locally finite subject, run by some computation.
>>
>> The empirical point, though, is that to predict correctly an event in 
>> quantum mechanics, we have to take into account may simultaneous 
>> “incompatible path”, like going through each hole in a plane. Quantum 
>> computations, for example, exploits that seemingly parallelism. 
>>
>
> *I don't like this approach -- in fact I abhor it -- since it implies 
> simultaneous interference among a multitude of paths to the same point on 
> the detection screen. This adds an unnecessary mystery to QM. In the 
> Hilbert Space representation, the wf is what it is, but can be represented 
> in a multitude of different bases. It is therefore misleading to claim the 
> system being analyzed is in a multitude of states; rather it is in one 
> state, 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> An alternative is that consciousness (or experientiality - in the
> philosophers' jargon) is intrinsic (more jargon) to matter. A change in
> matter would indeed change consciousness.*
>

Because a change in matter changes a computation and a change in
computation changes intelligence and a change in intelligence changes
consciousness.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state

2018-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 21 Nov 2018, at 18:03, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 3:52:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Nov 2018, at 14:00, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 12:19:20 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 16 Nov 2018, at 15:38, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 10:14:32 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 Il 16 novembre 2018 alle 10.19 agrays...@gmail.com <> ha scritto: 
 
 
 
 On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 2:14:48 PM UTC, scerir wrote:
 
 
> Il 15 novembre 2018 alle 14.29 agrays...@gmail.com <> ha scritto: 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 at 8:04:53 AM UTC, scerir wrote:
> Imagine a spin-1/2 particle described by the state psi = sqrt(1/2) 
> [(s+)_z + (s-)_z] .
> 
> If the x-component of spin is measured by passing the spin-1/2 particle 
> through a Stern-Gerlach with its field oriented along the x-axis, the 
> particle will ALWAYS emerge 'up'.
> 
> 
> Why?  Won't the measured value be along the x axis in both directions, in 
> effect Up or Dn? AG
 "Hence we must conclude that the system described by the |+>x state is not 
 the
 same as a mixture of atoms in the |+> and !-> states. This means that each 
 atom in the
 beam is in a state that itself is a combination of the |+> and |-> states. 
 A superposition
 state is often called a coherent superposition since the relative phase of 
 the two terms is
 important."
 
 .see pages 18-19 here https://tinyurl.com/ybm56whu 
 
 
 Try answering in your own words. When the SG device is oriented along the 
 x axis, now effectively the z-axix IIUC, and we're dealing with 
 superpositions, the outcomes will be 50-50 plus and minus. Therefore, 
 unless I am making some error, what you stated above is incorrect. AG
>>> sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z +(s-)_z]  is a superposition, but since sqrt(1/2) [(s+)_z 
>>> +(s-)_z]  =  (s+)_x the particle will always emerge 'up'
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'll probably get back to on the foregoing. In the meantime, consider this; 
>>> I claim one can never MEASURE Up + Dn or Up - Dn with a SG apparatus 
>>> regardless of how many other instruments one uses to create a composite 
>>> measuring apparatus (Bruno's claim IIUC). The reason is simple. We know 
>>> that the spin operator
>> 
>> Which one?
>> 
>> Good question. AG
>> 
>> There are spin operator for each direction in space. The superposition of up 
>> and down is a precise pure state, with precise eigenvalues, when measuring 
>> state in the complementary directions.
>> 
>> As I wrote earlier, based on scerir's superpositions on different axes, and 
>> simulation, I now think that Up + Dn and Up - Dn can be measured along the x 
>> axis but not along the z axis (which I was focused on).
> 
> All you need to do is a change of base. The operator will be defined clearly 
> by the Eigen value on the diagonal in the corresponding base. You can prepare 
> any state, and measure them “in any base”. 
> 
> I'll get back to this issue in my next post. AG 
>> You were probably correct about x axis measurements, but perhaps were not 
>> clear enough. You were not explicit that measurements along the x axis is a 
>> different SG experiment from along z axis.
> 
> OK. Sorry. 
>> I thought you meant do them in succession, not as separate experiments.
> 
> Ah? OK.
>> Also introducing an infinity of universes seems extraneous and confusing for 
>> a solution to this problem. AG 
> I are probably different on this. I don’t take the word “universe” too much 
> seriously, as with mechanism we know at the start that there is “physical 
> universe” at all, just the natural numbers with the laws of addition and 
> multiplication. Both the computational and the quantum state are relative, 
> and high level, pertaining to what is “observable” for some the point of view 
> of some locally finite subject, run by some computation.
> 
> The empirical point, though, is that to predict correctly an event in quantum 
> mechanics, we have to take into account may simultaneous “incompatible path”, 
> like going through each hole in a plane. Quantum computations, for example, 
> exploits that seemingly parallelism. 
> 
> I don't like this approach -- in fact I abhor it -- since it implies 
> simultaneous interference among a multitude of paths to the same point on the 
> detection screen. This adds an unnecessary mystery to QM. In the Hilbert 
> Space representation, the wf is what it is, but can be represented in a 
> multitude of different bases. It is therefore misleading to claim the system 
> being analyzed is in a multitude of states; rather it is in one state, which 
> due to linear algebra, has many representations. AG


I can be OK with this, if you agree that the consciousness of the observer