Re: CMBR

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:38 PM > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 8:27:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the 
>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a very 
>>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This 
>>> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body distribution 
>>> and not a pulse with a very narrow spread? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Is this a really dumb question and the reason for zero replies; or is it 
>> because no one here has the answer? Or maybe just no interest in another 
>> puzzle? AG
>>
>
> Dumb question. CMB is thermal radiation, not the recombination energy. It 
> reflects the temperature at the time the universe became transparent to 
> radiation of all wavelengths -- because the electron-proton plasma 
> recombined to form less reactive hydrogen.
>
> Bruce 
>

FWIW, the origin of the "dumb question" was my impression, from texts I 
have read, that the CMBR* originated *with recombination, in which case it 
should be totally a function of that recombination. In fact, it is just the 
black body radiation of the universe projected forward in time, with the 
hydrogen absorption lines imposed. Then I made a second error in forgetting 
that hydrogen has a countably infinite set of energy states, not simply a 
single one.  Anyway, now I see my errors, and thank everyone for their 
indulgence. AG

-- 
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: CMBR

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 11:36:24 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the 
> > recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the 
> > cooled BB radiation of pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR 
> > tell us? AG 
>
> It tells us it was hot.  So those lines were smeared out by doppler 
> shifts due the motion of the particles. 
>
> Brent 
>

More important IMO, is that it tells us that the cosmological red shift is 
due to an expanding universe, not, say, to "tired light". AG 

-- 
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

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:49 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>> *the academy of Plato .*...
>>
>> >>  ... knew less science than one bright third grader today.
>
>
> >*You told me you did not have study it.*
>

You only need to look at Plato's academy for about 25 seconds to know that
they didn't know where the sun went at night but a bright modern third
grader does.


> > *You invoke your god.*
>

Apparently your a fan of transcendental meditation and  believe if you just
keep chanting your mantra long enough you can make it come true. You've
been doing it for a decade now but I guess that's not quite long enough.


>> A valid proof shows that a statement is grammatically correct in the
>> language of mathematics but it does not prove that it exists. If you prove
>> that every sentence in a Harry Potter book is grammatically correct in the
>> language of English you have not proven that dragons exist.  Dragons don't
>> exist but the English word "dragons" does.
>
>
>
> *> 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic, but that has nothing to
> do with ^provability or with truth.*
>

Exactly. All true statements about things that exist made in the language
of mathematics are grammatically correct, but there is no reason to think
all grammatically correct statements made in the language of mathematics
are about things that exist. You can write both fiction and nonfiction in the
English language and the same is true of the Mathematics language.


>
>
>>A digital computer needs atoms
>
>
> > Not at all. A physical computer needs some physical objects, but the
> whole point of the discovery of the universal machine, is that they are not
> physical machine.
>

And a non-physical Turing Machine can make real calculations in exactly the
same way as a dragon in a Harry Potter book can breath real fire.

>> it is a fact that even AFTER your "experiment" is over there is STILL no
>> way for anyone
>
>
> *> For anyone? *
>

Yes for anyone.

*> Then you deny consciousness to both copies. *
>

I deny that your "question" is a question at all because it is about the
fate of a personal pronoun with no clear referent that a personal pronoun
with no clear referent is supposed to answer. It takes more than a question
mark at the end of a stream of gibberish to turn it into into a question.



> > *Basically, you say that we die in the teleportation experience,*
>

The Helsinki Man does indeed die in the teleportation experience, but only
if a very very silly definition of "The Helsinki Man" is used. It's silly
because even without teleportation or people duplicating machined it would
mean even in the everyday non exotic world we all die a billion times every
second or so.

 > “The” alludes to the first person experience.

In a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as
*THE* first
person experience; you need to be more specific but you can't because if
you did the glaring flaws in your argument would be obvious to all, so
things must remain ambiguous.



> *> They both feel “I see only one city”.*
>

You say "both" so that means there are 2 of them, so if Mr. I is the
Helsinki Man then the Helsinki Man saw 2 cities. And Mr. I is the Helsinki
Man if you really meant what you said about the Helsinki Man being anyone
who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday, but of course you didn't
really mean it and will now start equivocating.


> > *Both copies knows very well what happened.*
>

Yes they know what happened, everybody does, but nobody understands what
question has been asked. Certainly you don't.


> *> They pushed on a button, and they got a results that they understand
> was not predictable with certainty.*
>

Everybody correctly predicted that the Moscow Man will see Moscow and the
Washington man will see Washington and everybody correctly predicted that
both will have a first person experience tomorrow and nobody in Helsinki
will. There is nothing more to predict.


> * > We know that both are right, by Mechanism, in saying “I was in
> Helsinki, yesterday, *
> and now I am still in only one city”.


If both say "I see a city" and if the cities are different and if both say
“I was in Helsinki, yesterday" and both are right and if the Helsinki Man
is anybody who remember being in Helsinki yesterday then it does not
require a PhD in logic to conclude that the Helsinki Man ended up seeing 2
cities. Yes each individual only saw one city but each individual is only
half of the Helsinki man because *THE HELSINKI MAN HAS BEEN DUPLICATED* and
that is what the word "duplicated" means.



> *> You play with words*
>

Over the last decade you must have said that close to a hundred times, you
say it so often not because I am some sort of smooth talking city
slicker lawyer
but because that is your only defense when I catch you in a logical
contradiction. And that happens a lot.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To 

Connection between Provability Logic (GL) and geometry?

[Philip Thrift]

Might have something of interest ...

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/325702/connection-between-provability-logic-gl-and-geometry

...

There seems to be an existing literature on topological semantics and 
provability logics. Thomas Icard has slides on this 
, and the Stanford 
Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a bit on the topic 
. 
I'm not sure how related this is to the specific topological/geometric 
intuitions you give here, but it might be of interest more broadly. – Noah 
Schweber  31 mins ago 



- 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: CMBR

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, March 18, 2019 at 12:36:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the 
> > recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the 
> > cooled BB radiation of pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR 
> > tell us? AG 
>
> It tells us it was hot.  So those lines were smeared out by doppler 
> shifts due the motion of the particles. 
>
> Brent 
>

The spread in a spectral line with a broadening 1/f' - 1/f is red shifted 
as z(1/f' - 1/f) and so spread in frequency is zff'/(f - f'). For f' close 
to f this is large to begin with. Then with the z factor this amplifies 
things. The spread in frequencies spills over the gap.

LC

-- 
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: CMBR

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 3/18/2019 2:34 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the 
recombination in the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the 
cooled BB radiation of pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR 
tell us? AG


It tells us it was hot.  So those lines were smeared out by doppler 
shifts due the motion of the particles.


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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 17 Mar 2019, at 21:37, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:22 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > You confess not to read the pre-dogmatic theology.
> 
> I don't even know what "pre-dogmatic theology" means in Brunospeak 


It is the science theory, before it has been stolen by the state (in occident 
this occurred in 529). In the Middle-East, this occurred (notably) in 1248, 
when Al Ghazali “won” its dispute with Averroes. In both case, this has led to 
obscurantism.



>  
> > Are you aware that after Justinian, in 529 ...
> 
> I don't give a hoot in hell what happens after Justinian, in 529.

But if you would be aware of all this, you would be able to distinguish a 
science, and what humans can do with a science when they bring the use of 
authoritative argument in there. That happened with Genetics in the ex-USSR. 



> 
> > the academy of Plato 
> 
> ... knew less science than one bright third grader today.


You told me you did not have study it. Are you just repeating stuff?





> 
> > You know you dislike both reading old text,
> 
> That's because every minute I spend reading crap by a fossilized ancient 
> Greek is a minute not spent reading a real book written by somebody who, 
> unlike the Greeks, was not scientifically illiterate.  






>
>  
> > you still assume a god
> 
> Yes I know Bruno, you've repeated that in nearly every post for at least the 
> last 5 years. I'm really curious to know if you'll ever be able to break out 
> of your infinite loop so you can invent some new insults but I can't figure 
> out if you ever will or not because the Halting Problem has no solution.


Sorry, but you are the one invoking a material reality, without evidence. Then 
you just don’t look neither at the ancient literature, nor to the contemporary 
studies, showing such commitment is incompatible with mechanism, or with the 
empirical facts.





>  
> > Primary matter, or primary physics is the idea that the fundamental reality 
> > is the physical reality.
> 
> I don't know of any physicist who claims to have found fundamental reality or 
> even something close to it, most would probably say such a thing does not 
> even exist.


But physics does not even aboard the question. Why should they?






> Richard Feynman said:
> 
> "People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No I 
> am not. I am just looking to find out more about the world. And if it turns 
> out there is a simple ultimate law that explains everything so be it. That 
> would be very nice discovery. If it turns out it’s like an onion with 
> millions of layers and we just sick and tired of looking at the layers then 
> that’s the way it is! But whatever way it comes out it’s nature, it’s there, 
> and she’s going to come out the way she is. And therefore when we go to 
> investigate we shouldn’t pre-decide what it is we are trying to do except to 
> find out more about it.”


Feynman just say that he does not do metaphysics. We knew.




> 
> > Even if you're right and pure mathematics can produce matter (and I can't 
> > see any way it could)
> 
> > I reassure you, nor do I.
> 
> Then you have no reason to believe mathematics is more fundamental than 
> physics.

This does not follow, given that if mathematics does not produce matter, once 
we accept Church-Turing thesis, it is a theorem of set theory that the 
arithmetic realities (the models of RA) emulates all computations.




> I can understand how physics could give birth to mathematics because physics 
> can give birth to us and we need a good language to describe the workings of 
> nature, but I don't see how it could go the other way. 
>  
> > But the sigma_1 arithmetical relation does emulate computations,
> 
> They could if  sigma_1 arithmetical relations existed, but there is no 
> evidence that they do. 

You beg again the question. You invoke your god. You see, you did it again. Can 
you give just one evidence for it? Or you confuse Matter, which exist of 
course, and primary matter, the god of Aristotle and the the Christians’ 
creation.  Sorry, but that is not my religion, and beside, when doing science, 
we cannot invoke any ontological commitment.




> A valid proof shows that a statement is grammatically correct in the language 
> of mathematics but it does not prove that it exists. If you prove that every 
> sentence in a Harry Potter book is grammatically correct in the language of 
> English you have not proven that dragons exist.  Dragons don't exist but the 
> English word "dragons" does.


2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic, but that has nothing to do with 
^provability or with truth.




> 
> >> it would still be necessary for mathematics to first produce matter before 
> >> intelligence or consciousness could emerge.
> 
> > Not if you can survive with a digital computer,
> 
> A digital computer needs atoms


Not at all. A physical computer needs some physical 

Re: CMBR

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 6:17:01 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 1:36:22 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 12:12:58 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2019 4:50 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 3:05:14 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote: 



 On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: 
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 7:38 PM  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 14, 2019 at 8:27:58 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote: 
>>>
>>> IIUC, the combined mass of an electron and proton is larger than the 
>>> hydrogen atom they form at recombination time. Thus, I would expect a 
>>> very 
>>> narrow pulse of energy as a result when recombination occurs. This 
>>> apparently being the case, why does the CMBR have a black body 
>>> distribution 
>>> and not a pulse with a very narrow spread? TIA, AG
>>>
>>
>> Is this a really dumb question and the reason for zero replies; or is 
>> it because no one here has the answer? Or maybe just no interest in 
>> another 
>> puzzle? AG
>>
>
> Dumb question. CMB is thermal radiation, not the recombination energy. 
> It reflects the temperature at the time the universe became transparent 
> to 
> radiation of all wavelengths -- because the electron-proton plasma 
> recombined to form less reactive hydrogen.
>
> Bruce 
>

 But the recombination energy must be part of the mix at recombination 
 time and this is never mentioned in the texts I have read. I suppose this 
 is another dumb question. AG 

>>>
>>> What this thread shows is that I don't understand the CMBR. Maybe no one 
>>> does. ISTM that the universe was cooling *prior* to recombination time 
>>> and therefore must have had a thermal spectrum *independent* of the 
>>> recombination. Yet the going assumption, AFAICT, is that the CMBR *comes 
>>> into existence* at recombination time, but is independent of the 
>>> physical recombination which is never included or mentioned as part of the 
>>> observed spectrum.  Can anyone explain what is actually going on in this 
>>> model? TIA, AG
>>>
>>>
>>> Your mistake is assuming that this recombination is one big jump from 
>>> complete dissociation to bound hydrogen atom.  A hydrogen atom has lots of 
>>> energy states and, as the plasma cooled due to expansion, there would be a 
>>> continuous shift of energy from the proton/electron to the gamma rays.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> In fact, hydrogen has a countably infinite set of energy states, which I 
>> forgot. Is it correct to say that these recombination states form the 
>> thermal signature which is observed (in which case Bruce's explanation is 
>> misleading)? AG  
>>
>
> I am presuming you are raising the prospect of there being absorption 
> lines in the spectrum, just as we see the same with the sun. There were 
> such lines for the hydrogen atom after recombination that would have been 
> visible. However, with red shifting by z = 1100 and spectral broadening 
> they have been smeared out. 
>
> LC
>

If that's the case, then there's no visible remnant of the recombination in 
the observed CMBR, and what we observe is simply the cooled BB radiation of 
pre-combination times. So what does the CMBR tell us? AG  

>
> [image: spectrum of the sun.jpg]
>  
>

-- 
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.