Re: Free will in MWI
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it is simpler to use comp to justify this). If a wave washes one pile of sand onto another, thereby 'adding' them together, why does that generate universal internal observers? I don't think you understood Bruno's original point, which was that indeterminism (i.e. true randomness) emerges as a first person phenomenon in a deterministic multiverse. There's no valid argument that indeterminism is required for consciousness or decision-making, but even if it were so, a rich enough deterministic world can still provide it. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Does somebody know what Vacuum is ?
Does somebody know what Vacuum is ? 1. Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138. ‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero simple have no meaning.’ / Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 / 2. ‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’ / Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208 by Danah Zohar. / 3. And Paul Dirac wrote: ‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex? ‘ ==. Does somebody know what Vacuum is ? ==. Socratus -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On May 16, 2:39 am, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it is simpler to use comp to justify this). If a wave washes one pile of sand onto another, thereby 'adding' them together, why does that generate universal internal observers? I don't think you understood Bruno's original point, which was that indeterminism (i.e. true randomness) emerges as a first person phenomenon in a deterministic multiverse. There's no valid argument that indeterminism is required for consciousness or decision-making, but even if it were so, a rich enough deterministic world can still provide it. I don't think you understand what I understand. Of course the limitation of the 1p view excludes information relative to a 3p view, but the reverse is true as well. Indeterminism emerges as a third person phenomenon in that subjective privacy cannot be experienced through it. Determinism emerges as both a first and third person phenomenon in the form of sense. Motive or will (or 'energy' in third person') emerges as an orthogonal category relative to determinism; self-determination, which is the impulse and capacity to make the indetermined determined. 'I am become will, the collapser of wave functions.' Craig Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Poking the bear.
Cool. I commented there and on my blog: http://s33light.org/post/23162796054 Craig On May 15, 11:53 pm, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: Hi all, You might be interested in a little article I wrote, published here: http://theconversation.edu.au/learning-experience-lets-take-conscious... I am embarked on the long process of getting science to self-review. Enjoy! Colin -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it is simpler to use comp to justify this). If a wave washes one pile of sand onto another, thereby 'adding' them together, why does that generate universal internal observers? Adding is not enough. You need multiplication, and iteration. Then universal digital creatures appear, by logical consequences, and, as always, reflect themselves and all universal creatures, digital, and non digital, which leads them to harder and harder problems and questions. Even if that's true, from where do they appear? To say they appear is to admit that they are not themselves contained within addition or multiplication. They are. Anything Turing emulable appears, and reappears in arithmetic, related to bigger and bigger natural numbers. To say they are creatures implies a creation. Why not. You could say that they are created by the addition and multiplication laws. You need only to bet that 1+1=2 and alike does not depend on us. What necessary logic turns a nuclear chain reaction (addition and multiplication) into a nursery for problem solving sentience? The same logic making tiny system Turing universal. Usually some small part of classical logic is enough. Bruno Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On May 16, 10:41 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 May 2012, at 19:44, Craig Weinberg wrote: On May 15, 1:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But a deterministic world, if rich enough to add and multiply, and thus to contain universal internal observers, leads already to indeterminist first person realities (even without comp, although it is simpler to use comp to justify this). If a wave washes one pile of sand onto another, thereby 'adding' them together, why does that generate universal internal observers? Adding is not enough. You need multiplication, and iteration. Then universal digital creatures appear, by logical consequences, and, as always, reflect themselves and all universal creatures, digital, and non digital, which leads them to harder and harder problems and questions. Even if that's true, from where do they appear? To say they appear is to admit that they are not themselves contained within addition or multiplication. They are. Anything Turing emulable appears, and reappears in arithmetic, related to bigger and bigger natural numbers. The appearance is contingent though, upon something being able to recognize the pattern which is appearing to them. That pattern recognition is not automatically guaranteed by any arithmetic logic. We need a physical machine that remembers that it can remember, and can experience that memory as an event. It needs to know what kinds of strings of remembered digits constitute a meaningful pattern, or that there could even be such a thing as a pattern. To say that patterns appear and reappear in arithmetic takes the appearance of pattern itself for granted, then usurps the primacy of the sense experience which provides it. To say they are creatures implies a creation. Why not. You could say that they are created by the addition and multiplication laws. You need only to bet that 1+1=2 and alike does not depend on us. Because there's no mathematical logic to how or why that creation could occur. If we posit a universe of arithmetic realism, how can we accept that it falls off a cliff when it comes to the arithmetic of it's own origins? What makes 1+1=2? Sense. Not primitive sense either, but high order cognitive abstraction. There is no '1' or '2' literally, they are ideas about our common sense - what we have in common with everything. Numbers are literally 'figures', symbols which can be applied mentally to represent many things, and to deploy orderly control of some physical systems - but not everything can be reduced to or controlled by numbers. What necessary logic turns a nuclear chain reaction (addition and multiplication) into a nursery for problem solving sentience? The same logic making tiny system Turing universal. Usually some small part of classical logic is enough. Why would any kind of universality or logic entail the automatic development of sentience? What is logical about sentience? Craig -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly beaten by a opponent. If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not making decisions? What does winning or losing a game against a non-person have to do with awareness and subjectivity? If you get run over by a car does that mean it's suspicious if you state that the driver was at fault and not the car? That's a awful lot of questions and they all seem related to figuring out why I wrote what I did, and yet I don't see how that can possibly be the case. You think I have this thing you call free will and you say that means I'm not deterministic, so asking me the reason I wrote that sentence you don't like makes no sense, if I'm not deterministic then obviously there is no reason whatsoever I wrote that sentence. And someone might think my sentence cause you to write your list of questions, that is to say you wouldn't have written what you did if I didn't first write what I did; but no, you have free will too so you wrote what you did for no reason just like me and it must have been a coincidence that your list of questions came out right after my sentence. And you believe that although there was no reason behind your list of questions it was not random either, it was caused by nothing and it wasn't caused by nothing, and that doesn't make the free will noise a logical self contradiction because,..., because,... because you just don't want it to be contradictory and if you wish hard enough you can make it so. And even I could beat Kasparov at chess if a robot or a surgeon first gave Kasparov a brain lobotomy. But Kasparov would know the difference. Deep Blue never would. Machines can detect when they have suffered damage just like people, otherwise the red warning light on the dashboard of your car would never come on. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Poking the bear.
On 16.05.2012 05:53 Colin Geoffrey Hales said the following: Hi all, You might be interested in a little article I wrote, published here: http://theconversation.edu.au/learning-experience-lets-take-consciousness-in-from-the-cold-6739 I am embarked on the long process of getting science to self-review. Enjoy! Colin Hi Colin, I have read recently Jeffrey A. Gray, Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem and reading now Max Velmans, Understanding Consciousness. These books show that one will find something different from NCC as well. An interesting question is where phenomenal consciousness. Is it completely in the brain? Max Velmans develops a reflexive model of perception where phenomenal consciousness is outside of the brain: http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/05/brain-and-world.html Evgenii -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On May 16, 12:41 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That's exactly what a sore looser would say after he'd been thoroughly beaten by a opponent. If I were beaten by a human opponent, why would I accuse them of not making decisions? What does winning or losing a game against a non-person have to do with awareness and subjectivity? If you get run over by a car does that mean it's suspicious if you state that the driver was at fault and not the car? That's a awful lot of questions and they all seem related to figuring out why I wrote what I did, and yet I don't see how that can possibly be the case. You think I have this thing you call free will and you say that means I'm not deterministic, I don't say that means you're not deterministic, I say that means you can make determinations. Sometimes those determinations are influenced more by conditions you perceive as external to yourself, and sometimes it is you who are influencing external conditions. The result is that you are neither 100% deterministic nor 100% indeterministic. so asking me the reason I wrote that sentence you don't like makes no sense, if I'm not deterministic then obviously there is no reason whatsoever I wrote that sentence. I didn't ask you the reason you wrote that sentence, I was giving examples of how the reasoning you used in that sentence applied to another situation doesn't work. I point this out only to present an alternative to you that you can voluntarily choose to reason differently if it makes the same sense to you as it does to me. If you are completely deterministic, then how do you know that the car isn't driving you instead of you driving a car? There are stories about the drug scopolomine being used to turn people into 'zombies' in Columbia...whether there is any truth to those stories or not, the fact that we understand the difference between someone who is able to determine their own actions vs someone who is under the control of another would need to be explained in a deterministic world. What difference could it make who controls you, when everyone is controlled by physical forces? And someone might think my sentence cause you to write your list of questions, that is to say you wouldn't have written what you did if I didn't first write what I did; but no, you have free will too so you wrote what you did for no reason just like me and it must have been a coincidence Some of us have been pointing out repeatedly that free will is neither fully deterministic nor random, nor fully not deterministic nor random. Just as Spring is neither fully Summer nor Winter, nor is it completely not Summer or Winter. Subjectivity sets teleological purpose as orthogonal to the objective determinism. If you insist upon arbitrarily reducing the universe to a single dimension of determined vs random, then you cannot understand consciousness as it actually is. that your list of questions came out right after my sentence. And you believe that although there was no reason behind your list of questions There were all kinds of reasons behind my listing of questions, but they were mostly my reasons. I created them by reasoning. it was not random either, it was caused by nothing and it wasn't caused by nothing, It was caused by me. I can be described as nothing or not nothing, depending on what kind of thing you are comparing me to. and that doesn't make the free will noise a logical self contradiction because,..., because,... because you just don't want it to be contradictory and if you wish hard enough you can make it so. It's not me that doesn't want it to be a contradiction, it's the universe. Determinism and randomness are ideas within the experience of conscious deliberation. Consciousness itself precedes those categories. It determines and fails to determine. Consciousness is like the mammal and determinism is the like the primate. You are flipping the taxonomy and forcing reality which is far richer and deeper than the intellect into a reduced intellectual framework that has no way to accommodate the reality of awareness, just as you can't draw a graph that explains 'dizzy' or 'sleepy'. And even I could beat Kasparov at chess if a robot or a surgeon first gave Kasparov a brain lobotomy. But Kasparov would know the difference. Deep Blue never would. Machines can detect when they have suffered damage just like people, otherwise the red warning light on the dashboard of your car would never come on. The red light doesn't grow out of the dashboard by itself like ours do though. Nothing in the car will know the difference if you remove it. Your car has no way to feel that 'It seems like something is wrong but I'm not sure what'. Craig -- 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
Re: Dualism via Quantum Mechanics
On May 12, 8:00 pm, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 5/12/2012 10:19 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:20 AM, scerir sce...@libero.it wrote: A few quotes below to dualism from Max Velmans. Evgenii H. Kragh (Dirac: a Scientific Biography, Cambridge U.P., 1990) reports a 1927 discussion between Dirac, Heisenberg and Born, about what actually gives rise to the so called collapse (reduction of waves packet). Dirac said that it is 'Nature' that makes the choice (of measurement outcome). Born agreed. Heisenberg however maintained that, behind the collapse, and the choice of which 'branch' the wavefunction would be followed, there was the free-will of the human observer. Leibniz, IMO, would also claim that Nature makes the choice, but that his collection of monads perceive (based on their consciousness) what is the best possible wave function choice to obtain the best possible universe. What Leibniz apparently leaves out of his philosophy is that human free-will consciousness can make the world imperfect, perhaps even suicidal. String theory seems consistent with Leibniz in that the discrete balls of compactified dimensions have some monad properties, which is these days what I preach. And I wonder if this could be consistent with COMP, since it's all theological. Richard Hi Richard, We can strip out all the religiosity from Leibniz' ideas. Leibniz' monads where perseptions themselves, not entities that where conscious and perceived things. What we have previously discussed as Observer Moments are a better analogy to what Leibniz had in mind. He did postulate that God arranged them such that their content was always synchronized; this is the pre-established harmony (PEH) concept. I think that Leibniz' mistake was to assume that there exists an absolute observer with a view from nowhere that defined an objective 3-p. There are strong mathematical inconsistencies with this idea. For one thing, a PEH requires the discovery and application of a solution to an infinite SAT complexity problem, not the mere existence of one.- Onward! Hi Stephan, If what you say is true about monads, that each does not see the entire universe, then they cannot be the balls of compactified dimensions of string theory because Brian Greene's 2d solution indicates that each maps the entire outside plane to its inside. Now that may not be consciousness and Leibniz did say that his monads were not exactly conscious. But to me mapping the universe to the interior, a kind of inverse holography, sounds exactly like what Leibniz says of his monads in his tract Monadology. I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above. Inward, Richard Hi Richard, It is not correct to think of the monads as compactified dimensions in the usual way as this would define an inside-outside relation on them that does is incompatible with the duality. The relation is similar to what Brian Greene describes, but the relation is not the usual mapping between geometric manifolds. Leibniz used a very simple notion of consciousness. Craig's notion of Sense is the closest analogy that I have found so far. The pre-established harmony (PEH) concept is equivalent to an infinite theory or model that defines all of the states of the universe in a way that does not allow any contradictions. Onward! Stephen P. King -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote I don't say that [the free will noise] means you're not deterministic, I would be glad to hear you say that except that according to illogical Weinbergian logic just because something is not not deterministic does not mean its deterministic, so I don't know what the hell you mean. I say that means you can make determinations. If a determination is not made for a reason then its not a determination, it’s a crap-shoot. Sometimes those determinations are influenced more by conditions you perceive as external to yourself, Sometimes a computer's CPU works on data already in it's memory unit, and sometimes it works on newly inputted data. and sometimes it is you who are influencing external conditions. And sometimes computers output data to external things like printers or video screens or internet connections and sometimes they do not. you can voluntarily choose to reason differently Yes I can change my mind, I've done it before but in the past whenever I changed my internal programming I have always done so for a reason, if I ever find myself changing my mind for no reason then I intend to call 911 because I'm undergoing a serious medical emergency of some sort and a hardware malfunction is going on in my brain. If you are completely deterministic, then how do you know that the car isn't driving you instead of you driving a car? If I determine that the brake needs to be applied I find that my foot depresses the brake peddle and I feel (correctly I think) that I am in control. free will is neither fully deterministic nor random, nor fully not deterministic nor random. That makes no sense. You say I have free will so I don't see how randomness can help you clarify what that means because I is something but something does not cause random things to happen, nothing does, so the concept of randomness is no help at all in understanding what the ASCII sequence I have free will means. Just as Spring is neither fully Summer nor Winter, Large complex things like the weather usually happen for many reasons, but every one of those reasons themselves happened for a reason or they did not happen for a reason. And one thing is beyond dispute to any logical person, spring is summer or spring is not summer. If you insist upon arbitrarily reducing the universe to a single dimension of determined vs random, then Then I have understood the lesson taught on day one of logic 101, that X is Y or X is not Y and there is no third alternative. you cannot understand consciousness as it actually is. I'll be damned if I understand why determinism is supposed to be the enemy of consciousness or why things that happen for no reason at all, randomness, is supposed to make everything all better. that your list of questions came out right after my sentence. And you believe that although there was no reason behind your list of questions There were all kinds of reasons behind my listing of questions Yes, there are many different types of deterministic processes. I created them by reasoning. Yet another deterministic process. It was caused by me. If it's caused then it's obviously deterministic. I can be described as nothing or not nothing Obviously gibberish. It determines and fails to determine. More of the same, up is down black is white gibberish is not gibberish and clarity is nowhere to be found in your universe. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
