Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity. All right. But note that both String Theory and Loop Gravity (the main attempt to marry QM and GR) keep the quantum theory and changes the GR. Note that the most weird aspect of the quantum have been verified, and also that comp only predicts large feature of that weirdness. (Note that QM should be completely false for coming back to aristotle, making QM an approximation makes its weirdness more weird). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior entanglement. In that case I can expect some bits of information from looking only the electron, and some bits from looking only the proton, but an observation of the whole atom would makes those bits not genuine. It is weird but the quantum facts confirms this QM prediction. Quantum weirdness is an observed fact. We assume that it is, somehow, an intrinsic property of subatomic particles; but perhaps there is a hidden factor or as yet undiscovered theory which may explain it further. That would be equivalent to adding hidden variables. But then they have to be non local (just to address the facts, not just the theory). Of course if the hidden factor is given by the many worlds or comp, then such non local effects has to be retrospectively expected. But then we have to forget the idea that substance (decomposable reality) exists, but numbers. You could get a neutron at high enough energies, I suppose, but I don't think that is what you mean. Is it possible to bring a proton and an electron appropriately together and have them just sit there next to each other? Locally yes. In QM this is given by a tensor product of the corresponding states. But it is an exceptional state. With comp it is open if such physical state acn ever be prepared, even locally. There is no sense to say an atom is part of the UD. It is part of the necessary discourse of self-observing machine. Recall comp makes physics branch of machine's psychology/theology. Isn't that the *ultimate* reduction of everything? Given that a theology rarely eliminates subjects/person, I don't see in what reasonable sense this would be a reduction. Not really because the knot is a topological object. Its identity is defined by the class of equivalence for some topological transformation from your 3D description. If you put the knot in your pocket so that it changes its 3D shape (but is not broken) then it conserve its knot identity which is only locally equivalent with the 3D shape. To see the global equivalence will be tricky, and there is no algorithm telling for sure you can identify a knot from a 3D description. People can look here for a cute knot table: http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html I was thinking of a physical knot, which is not the same as the Platonic ideal, even if there is no such thing as a separate physical reality. I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not in such or such cartesian picture, even the concrete knots I put in my pocket. The knots looses its identity if it is cut. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 07:48, Kim Jones a écrit : Lurking, lurking... This thread started I believe with Tom's 3 magnificent questions, aeons ago on my birthday last year. Thankee, Tom A little refresher now: On 31/12/2006, at 8:25 AM, Tom Caylor wrote: Besides the question of how meaning relates to this List, the question of meaning itself can be asked at several different levels, so I'll list a few: 1) Why does the universe exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? 2) Why do human beings in general exist? 3) Why do I exist? 1) We don't know. But assuming the consistency of elementary arithmetic, we can explain why machines will develop exactly such questions. Assuming moreover comp, we can know why *we* are such questions, and why we believe in universes. 2) because all lobian (not necessarily consistent) machine exists. 3) this is equivalent with: why am I in Washington after a self Washington/Moscow duplication. Or, why do I observed a spin up, after a preparation in the complementary base. Here again, with just elementary arithmetic we can explain where such question come from, and with comp, we can explain why we ask and why we will never get an answer. Even a God cannot explain that! Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Stathis Papaiaonnou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:15, Kim Jones a écrit : I believe that the 'ability to conceive of nothing' - in a Loebian machine context might be forbidden under comp (I could be wrong) The problem with words like nothing and everything is that they have as many meaning than there are theories or philosophical frame. As example, you cannot represent the quantum vacuum by the empty set. Those are completely different and opposite notion of nothingness. The empty set can be simulated by a simple non universal machine. The quantum void is already turing universal. I am not sure that a notion of nothingness can have some absolute meaning. It is rich and interesting, but hardly basic and primitive. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is infinite has been a major advance in science, if not the major advance. We can come back on this later. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more bigger the room seems to be. So I certainly agree with you. Meaning: perhaps we are both wrong! Bon week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a crit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is infinite has been a major advance in science, if not the major advance. We can come back on this later. I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3 pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- infinity.doc Description: MS-Word document
Re: The Meaning of Life
On Mar 15, 2:45 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Yes, in that it makes sense to argue (from a 'contingentist' perspective) that the justification for 'primeness' (or indeed any other concept) derives ultimately from persistent aspects of contingent states of affairs (in this case a degree of persistence we abstract as 'necessity'). So from this perspective 17 is 'necessarily' prime, but this very 'necessity' is limited to the contingent framework that supports the conceptual one. In this view, positing 'platonic primeness' does no further work. This is not to take issue with Bruno's alternative numerical basis for contingency, but rather to see it as just that - an alternative, not a knock-down argument. David On 3/15/07, David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mar 14, 10:18 pm, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps using the term existence for mathematical objects is misleading. It doesn't mean they exist as separate objects in the real world, just that they exist as concepts. This is mathematical Platonism. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm saying that nevertheless I can conceive of a radical negation in which even Platonic objects have no existence, conceptual or otherwise. Consequently AFAICS arguments for Platonic 'necessity' are in fact derived wholly from contingent states of affairs. It's something Bruno, in particular, has discussed at length. Is it possible that 17 is only contingently prime? Stathis Papaiaonnou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior entanglement. In that case I can expect some bits of information from looking only the electron, and some bits from looking only the proton, but an observation of the whole atom would makes those bits not genuine. It is weird but the quantum facts confirms this QM prediction. Quantum weirdness is an observed fact. We assume that it is, somehow, an intrinsic property of subatomic particles; but perhaps there is a hidden factor or as yet undiscovered theory which may explain it further. That would be equivalent to adding hidden variables. But then they have to be non local (just to address the facts, not just the theory). Of course if the hidden factor is given by the many worlds or comp, then such non local effects has to be retrospectively expected. But then we have to forget the idea that substance (decomposable reality) exists, but numbers. If you admit non-local hidden variables then you can have a theory like Bohmian quantum mechanics in which randomness is all epistemological, like statistical mechanics, and there is no place for multiple-worlds. You could get a neutron at high enough energies, I suppose, but I don't think that is what you mean. Is it possible to bring a proton and an electron appropriately together and have them just sit there next to each other? Locally yes. I'm not sure what you mean by locally. Since they have opposite charge they will be attracted by photon exchanges and will fall into some hydrogen atom state by emission of photons. Brent Meeker In QM this is given by a tensor product of the corresponding states. But it is an exceptional state. With comp it is open if such physical state acn ever be prepared, even locally. There is no sense to say an atom is part of the UD. It is part of the necessary discourse of self-observing machine. Recall comp makes physics branch of machine's psychology/theology. Isn't that the *ultimate* reduction of everything? Given that a theology rarely eliminates subjects/person, I don't see in what reasonable sense this would be a reduction. Not really because the knot is a topological object. Its identity is defined by the class of equivalence for some topological transformation from your 3D description. If you put the knot in your pocket so that it changes its 3D shape (but is not broken) then it conserve its knot identity which is only locally equivalent with the 3D shape. To see the global equivalence will be tricky, and there is no algorithm telling for sure you can identify a knot from a 3D description. People can look here for a cute knot table: http://www.math.utoronto.ca/~drorbn/KAtlas/Knots/index.html I was thinking of a physical knot, which is not the same as the Platonic ideal, even if there is no such thing as a separate physical reality. I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. A remark only a mathematician could make ;-) I think Bruno just means a knot is defined by the topology of its embedding in space - not by its material or its coordinates; as a triangle is defined by having three sides, not any particular size, orientation, or material. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-mars-07, à 05:03, Brent Meeker a écrit : But there is no reason to believe there is any root cause that is deeper than variation with natural selection. You have not presented any argument for the existence of this ultimate or root. You merely refer to closed science as though that proved something - but it begs the question. You have to show there is something outside science in order to know that it is closed; not just that there is something science has not explained, there's lots of that, but something that science cannot, in-principle explain. Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. I think that depends on what you count as explanation. There are certainly possible evolutionary explanations for why humans invented counting of say sheep instead of looking at each sheep as a unique thing. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). But can comp explain why there is einselection of large objects and the world is approximately classical. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is infinite has been a major advance in science, if not the major advance. We can come back on this later. I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3 pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist. -- Torgny Tholerus Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually agree with you that it doesn't exist - though not because it's *logically* impossible. I think what you've shown is that there are other consistent number systems - which just illustrates the point that what you get from logic and mathematics depends on what you take as axioms and rules of inference. But the problem is that a lot of mathematics would become very difficult and convoluted if we didn't allow infinity (and infinitesimals). This doesn't bother physicists much because they are accustomed to regarding mathematics as an approximate model and only using as much infinity as seems useful. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thanks for a clear mind, Bruno. But isn't it obvious? We can know about what we don't know ONLY if we do know 'about it'. Copernicus did not know that he does not know radioactivity. Aristotle did not denigrate the linearity of QM because he did not know these items. My 'firm' knowledge of my ignorance stems from earlier memory: I know (remember) not having learnt many things I would have needed later on (by laziness or lack of interest). Nowadays I find myself exposed to other items of my ignorance and feel lazy to start studying things I did not study at 21. Don't even have the time (?) and tutor (school) - plus: I have a suspicious (violent?) mind and start arguing instead of learning. So I stay stupid (but happily so). Have a good weekend you too Machine John PS For some (taste?) reasons I like 'organisation' - or 'organism' - better than 'machine', which carries a notion of a composition (contraption): structural and designed ingredients assembled for some purpose. Loebian machine is different, (I hesitate to call it 'unlimited' or the questionable 'infinite') but the word is not. - J. - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life Le 14-mars-07, à 20:51, John Mikes a écrit : I am not in favor of human omniscience. The more a machine knows, the more she is able to see the bigness of its ignorance. Knowledge for lobian machine is really like a lantern in an infinite room. The more powerful is the lantern, the more bigger the room seems to be. So I certainly agree with you. Meaning: perhaps we are both wrong! Bon week-end, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
I looked at your paper, interesting. One question: what do you mean by exist (Notably: does NOT exist)? We think about it (no matter in how vague terms and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our thinking for that term, - does this not suffice for (in a WIDER??? meaning) existence? I agree: it is logically (physically?) hardly identifiable but do we stand only on a (material?) physical basis? And I make no difference between infinite small and infinite big. None of them understandable. Brent's 'infinitesimal' is a good idea in this topic, yet I consider it scale-oriented, an infinitesimally close in 1000 orders of magnitude smaller scale can be 'miles' away. (No 'real' miles implied) - Best regards John M - Original Message - From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : (among others) Infinity is a logically impossible concept. Infinity Does Not Exist. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
Bruno and Brent: Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. Qualia, functions, even out-of-boundary effects are active in identifying an item. It is in our many centuries old explanatory ways to say a proton and an electron make a H-atom and vice versa. First off: hydrogen (gas) is not the assemblage of H-atoms, it is an observational item that - when destructed in certain ways - results in other observables resembling H-atoms or even protons and electrons (if you have the means to look at them - not in an n-th deduction and its calculations). Same with 'other' atoms - molecules, singularly or in bunch. Reduced to a 2-D sketch. Nice game, I spent 50 years producing such (macromolecules that is) and 'studied'/applied them. Of course none of the destruction-result carries the proper charactersitics of the original ensemble. And NO proper 'observation' does exist. It is the explanatory attempt for a world(part?) - not understood, just regarded as a model of whatever our epistemic enrichment has provided to THAT time. This is the 'reducing': to visualize this part as the total and utter the Aristotelian maxim. One can not extrapolate 'total ensemble' characteristics from studying the so called parts we discovered so far. We can think only within our already acquired knowledge. John M - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior entanglement. In that case I can expect some bits of information from looking only the electron, and some bits from looking only the proton, but an observation of the whole atom would makes those bits not genuine. It is weird but the quantum facts confirms this QM prediction. Quantum weirdness is an observed fact. We assume that it is, somehow, an intrinsic property of subatomic particles; but perhaps there is a hidden factor or as yet undiscovered theory which may explain it further. That would be equivalent to adding hidden variables. But then they have to be non local (just to address the facts, not just the theory). Of course if the hidden factor is given by the many worlds or comp, then such non local effects has to be retrospectively expected. But then we have to forget the idea that substance (decomposable reality) exists, but numbers. If you admit non-local hidden variables then you can have a theory like Bohmian quantum mechanics in which randomness is all epistemological, like statistical mechanics, and there is no place for multiple-worlds. You could get a neutron at high enough energies, I suppose, but I don't think that is what you mean. Is it possible to bring a proton and an electron appropriately together and have them just sit there next to each other? Locally yes. I'm not sure what you mean by locally. Since they have opposite charge they will be attracted by photon exchanges and will fall into some hydrogen atom state by emission of photons. Brent Meeker In QM this is given by a tensor product of the corresponding states. But it is an exceptional state. With comp it is open if such physical state acn ever be prepared, even locally. There is no sense to say an atom is part of the UD. It is part of the necessary discourse of self-observing machine. Recall comp makes physics branch of machine's psychology/theology. Isn't that the *ultimate* reduction of everything? Given that a theology rarely eliminates subjects/person, I don't see in what reasonable sense this would be a reduction. Not really because the knot is a topological object. Its identity is defined by the class of equivalence for some topological transformation from your 3D description. If you put the knot in your pocket so that it changes its 3D shape (but is not broken) then it conserve its knot identity which is only locally equivalent with the 3D shape. To see the global equivalence will be tricky, and there is no algorithm telling for sure you can identify a knot from a 3D description. People can look here for a cute knot table:
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
John M wrote: Bruno and Brent: Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. But components are only part of a reductionist model - it also includes the interactions of the components, e.g how an electron interacts with a proton. To identify scientific reductionism with 'component-analysis' is a straw man. No one is satisfied with a reductionist model that just names components - the model must be able to go the other way and synthesize the behavior of the thing modeled. Modeling a hydrogen atom as an electron interacting via photons with a proton is a successful model because it predicts behavoir of the hydrogen atom, e.g. it EM spectrum, its stability, the heat capacity of an H2 gas. Qualia, functions, even out-of-boundary effects are active in identifying an item. It is in our many centuries old explanatory ways to say a proton and an electron make a H-atom and vice versa. First off: hydrogen (gas) is not the assemblage of H-atoms, it is an observational item that - when destructed in certain ways - results in other observables resembling H-atoms or even protons and electrons (if you have the means to look at them - not in an n-th deduction and its calculations). How small does n have to be? Does n=0 correspond to seeing photons? Same with 'other' atoms - molecules, singularly or in bunch. Reduced to a 2-D sketch. Nice game, I spent 50 years producing such (macromolecules that is) and 'studied'/applied them. Of course none of the destruction-result carries the proper charactersitics of the original ensemble. And NO proper 'observation' does exist. What's a proper observation? and why does its non-existence matter? It is the explanatory attempt for a world(part?) - not understood, just regarded as a model of whatever our epistemic enrichment has provided to THAT time. This is the 'reducing': to visualize this part as the total and utter the Aristotelian maxim. One can not extrapolate 'total ensemble' characteristics from studying the so called parts we discovered so far. We can think only within our already acquired knowledge. Then how can we ever acquire additional knowledge? The whole point of models like particles is to extrapolate beyond what we can observed. When such extrapolations agree with further observations we put greater credence in them. When the credence is great enough we start taking the model to be known - at least until we find a problem with it. This is nothing esoteric, it's the way we learn what tables and chairs are as well as protons and electrons. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
- Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:34 AM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life (Brent's question skipped)... BM: Assuming comp, we can know that science will never been able to explain where natural numbers come from. That's an insoluble mystery. It makes science open. Forever. But then comp *can* explain (but does not yet provide more than an embryo of explanation, yet already confirmed) where waves and particles come from, and also, unlike physics, why waves and particles can hurt (cf G/G*). Bruno A question in the 1st par: (Not the assuming or not part): it is the nature of that particular type 'science' prohibiting to disclose the origin of ANY numbers. * As evolutionary complexity (and I emphasize this 'comp') goes, the hominid compared things, fingers, etc. and found 2 (two) hands/feet. Paralle to its mental development it realized 5 fingers on each. Compared to children in the cave and as the veins in his neck widened (through increasing holes in the skull etc.) for more blood into the developing neuronal brain, named the 'count', added both hands if there were many kids and so on. I skip the ramifications, counting was developed with 'numbers named' and it is only a quanti developmental difference to arrive at a Hilbert space, or CQD. The growing neural complexity allowed the coordination of hand-muscles to make the hand-ax a projectile, something chimps have not yet achieved. It went in quantitative (no qualitative emergence and no random invention) steps to the spacerocket application. Then, gradually, the human mind became capable of more complexity - to explain natural observation at the level of the time in a quantised (physicalistic) fashion. * In another science-view, if we look at the processes as in a reductionist model separation, the numbers may appear as God, creating the universe. Unexplainably. It is another viewpoint of another form of 'science'. The above is not my obsession, I see it as free thinking. * Bruno, I looked at your 'knots' (my head still spins from them) and agree to their topological - math view, no need of a material input. Which one was Alexander's? Best wishes John M http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Thank you, Russell John - Original Message - From: Russell Standish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life I think high energy physicists talk about colour charge, rather than colour pole, but this is by analogy to electricity with its +ve -ve charges, rather than analogy to magnetism with its north and south poles. However at the level of analogy, which is what your story is, this distinction is unimportant. In the real world, objects tend to be electrically neutral (even when charged, objects have only a slight imbalance between positive and negative charges). This is a not quite analogy to the need for magnets to always have two poles. Incidently, physicists also talk about monopoles, but aside from one isolated experiment, monopoles have never been seen. With the strong force, the colours can never be imbalanced on everyday objects. Only quarks have colour. Bigger objects from protons up are said to be white or colourless. The reason for this is confinement, but I'll let you look that up on Wikipedia if you're interested. Cheers On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:04:59PM -0400, John Mikes wrote: Russell, I apologize for my flippant quip of yesterday, it was after several hours of reading and replying internet discussion lists. Besides: it was true.G I never considered the features named as distinguishing 'colors' in QCD as poles. Also it is new to me that the strong force has 3 poles. In my usage a 'pole' represents ONE charge of the TWO we know of - the positive and the negative. Well, it seems those non-physicists are simpleminded brutes. It felt so good to 'invent' something (for fun) beyond our grasp. What nature would that 3rd pole present in the strong force? (I ask this question, because I did not read about the 3-pole distinction of it). Cheers John M On 3/12/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 11:58:58AM -0400, John Mikes wrote: In the sci-fi I wrote in 1988-89 I depicted the 'story' of human evolving as done by an experiment of aliens from another universe, to which I assigned energy with 3 (three) poles. One +, one -, and a THIRD one. (Maybe your math could formulate this, but I could not. I accepted it as something beyond our human mind. The strong force has 3 poles. To think about them in a human fashion, we name them red, green and blue, and the theory describing the strong force is called quantum chromodynamics. It doesn't seem beyond the human mind at all. I dare say if we had a reason to have a theory with four poles, someone will come up with a way of thinking about these too. Prof Russell Standish -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 3/15/2007 11:27 AM --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But these ideas illustrate a problem with everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to assign any measure to it, and without a measure, something to pick out this rather than that, the theory is empty. It just says what is possible is possible. But if there a measure, something picks out this rather than that, we can ask why THAT measure? Isn't that like arguing that there can be no number 17 because there is no way to assign it a measure and it would get lost among all the other objects in Platonia? Stathis Papaioannou I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all of them. A theory that just says all integers exist doesn't help answer that. But if the integers are something we make up (or are hardwired by evolution) then it makes sense that we are only acquainted with small ones. OK, but there are other questions that defy such an explanation. Suppose the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, and contained an infinite number of observers. Wouldn't that make your measure effectively zero? And yet here you are. Stathis Papaioannou Another observation refuting Tegmark! :-) Seriously, even in the finite universe we observe my probability is almost zero. Almost everything and and everyone is improbable, just like my winning the lottery when I buy one a million tickets is improbable - but someone has to win. So it's a question of relative measure. Each integer has zero measure in the set of all integers - yet we are acquainted with some and not others. So why is the acquaintance measure of small integers so much greater than that of integers greater than 10^10^20 (i.e. almost all of them). What picks out the small integers? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument
Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But these ideas illustrate a problem with everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems impossible to assign any measure to it, and without a measure, something to pick out this rather than that, the theory is empty. It just says what is possible is possible. But if there a measure, something picks out this rather than that, we can ask why THAT measure? Isn't that like arguing that there can be no number 17 because there is no way to assign it a measure and it would get lost among all the other objects in Platonia? Stathis Papaioannou I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all of them. A theory that just says all integers exist doesn't help answer that. But if the integers are something we make up (or are hardwired by evolution) then it makes sense that we are only acquainted with small ones. OK, but there are other questions that defy such an explanation. Suppose the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, and contained an infinite number of observers. Wouldn't that make your measure effectively zero? And yet here you are. Stathis Papaioannou Another observation refuting Tegmark! :-) Seriously, even in the finite universe we observe my probability is almost zero. Almost everything and and everyone is improbable, just like my winning the lottery when I buy one a million tickets is improbable - but someone has to win. So it's a question of relative measure. Each integer has zero measure in the set of all integers - yet we are acquainted with some and not others. So why is the acquaintance measure of small integers so much greater than that of integers greater than 10^10^20 (i.e. almost all of them). What picks out the small integers? Brent Meeker If you see each integer with a successor notation, 2 is S(1) and 3 is S(2) which is S(S(1)) and so on, you see that big integers contains the small integers and the smalls are over represented... just a though ;-) Quentin Yes, I think there's a grain of truth in that. The integers aren't *just out there*. By Peano's, or anyone else's, axioms they are generated as needed. We don't want to run out so we (except Torgny) always allow one more, but we never need the whole set at once until we want to make diagonalization arguments. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.
On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not in such or such cartesian picture, even the concrete knots I put in my pocket. The knots looses its identity if it is cut. There are related examples, like letters of the alphabet, which survive even non-topological transformations and defy any algorithmic specification. Nevertheless, any particular concrete example of a knotted string or letter on a page is completely captured by a physical description. There is no special knottiness or letterness ingredient that needs to be added to ensure that they are knots or letters. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
