Re: NDE's Proved Real?
Hi John, On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:10, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, I stand corrected (redface): I had a closed mind for NDE considered only as the observable experience on the 'patient' in a dying-like situation. Your airplane-example opened my eyes: it may refer to experiences when someone (a group?) faces death. Thanks for telling me. I knew you are a serious guy :) Adding my story to my mistake: I had a similar experience in the 1944 siege of Budapest when 5 of us were crammed into a small WC watching the sounds of explosions of the Russian serial gun-hits closing in on us 1-2 seconds apart. We did not know which next one will hit us. Every participant had a totally different attitude, I kept a strong observing eye on them (to keep myself sane). Fortunately the salvos hit higher than where we were and destroyed a higher étage. I forgot to realize that things have more than one aspect to watch. This WAS a NDE - on others. We just knew that we're gona die. No philosophy, no physiology, no 'return'. Then we heard the explosions passing us? i.e. coming from further and further. Yes, that's a third person NDE. I am happy you survived. Best, Bruno John On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 23:56, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, thanks for the consenting remarks to my post. HOWEVER you wrote: ...Some non-toxic and non-addictive drugs provokes NDE or alike. Anyone, with a few practice, can see by itself. I have a theory that salvia might go farer, and be a genuine DEAD experience. You have the choice to stay there, and they send a copy of you on earth. This does not contradict comp, because the copy, despite being fully conscious all the time, get your memory back slowly, so that the copy feels becoming you, but you can see your original self staying there. This is frequent in the salvia reports (the copy effect, or the max effect as I call it in the entheogen.net forum) .With comp the NDE is predictable, and the logic G and G* can be described as the logic of the near inconsistency state, which is the normal logic of the self-referentially correct machine (there are cul-de-sac accessible from any state). In a sense, life is a near death experience all along. What is still amazing, and might contradict comp, is that we can live NDE or DE and come back with some realist memories of the event. .. Who told you about a real??? NDE? Live people imagine various fables. Hi John, sorry, I was probably unclear, by a real NDE I mean when someone concretely approach death. My favorite collection is given by the plane crash investigations. I call that sometime third person NDE, and they are or not related to what is called NDE and which concerns usually the first person report (the light, the tunnel, ...). So, when you are in a plane, and the plane fall 5000 miles, you do a near death experience, with or without the usual first person NDE account. In some context, by a non real NDE, I can also mean a NDE brought by the use of a drug (like DMT or salvia), as opposed as the experience brought by going concretely near death, like when falling from a mountain, or surviving a plane crash. Congrats to your 'theory' about Salvia, - still within your imagination. All theories are within our imagination. But the one brought by salvia can be shown to be also in the imagination of all universal machine. But it belongs to G* - G, and is not communicable as such. Fable, I could say, about the COPY, the SENDING B A C K to Earth, etc. etc. That's a report of experience. It is like a dream report. Nobody should take the content as something believed or even believable. All these are good for discussions on the Everything list - no merit in my opinion. I tried to get 'entheogen.net': Google did not find it. You might try clicking on this: http://entheogen-network.com/forums/index.php?sid=5f144b42a9e7d2045066513721ec5436 or this (salvia discussion) http://entheogen-network.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=8 My username there is salvialover24. Nobody CAME BACK from a real NDE or DE especially not with REALIST Memories. Fantasies - maybe. Sorry, Bruno, I don't want to spoil your game or good feeling. Just chat. No problem. I will come back on this some day, perhaps, but the NDE is rather easy to explain in the comp theory/belief. I don't insist on that, as the notion of NDE is a bit hard for many to keep being rational on, but this is just one more symptom of the Aristotelian widespread superstition in Matter, primary physicalness, etc. With salvia, on me and on others, I have also got a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of any theology. It is morbid subject matter. But we need to use it a little bit to grasp where the physical reality comes from, when we assume computationalism. Bruno John Mikes On Sat,
Re: Can anyone explain this ?
This is thread is completely off-topic, but anyway: The evolutionary roots of envy and social justice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93890864/Punitive-sentiment-against-successful-individuals-as-a-psychological-device-for-anti-hidden-free-riders-in-ancestral-hunter-gatherers 2013/4/14 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Sunday, April 14, 2013 7:56:35 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: One of the great mysteries of liberalism is the contradiction in its political stance concerning rich corporations. On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives to lower corporate taxes. Liberals see that wealth inequality is a critically important issue in the US. “For every one dollar of assets owned by a single black or Hispanic womanhttp://www.insightcced.org/uploads/CRWG/LiftingAsWeClimb-WomenWealth-Report-InsightCenter-Spring2010.pdf, a member of the Forbes 400 has over forty million dollarshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/richest-people-america-forbes-400_n_1896828.html .” America Split in Two: Five Ugly Extremes of Inequalityhttp://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequality http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequality But on the other hand, it will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors to prevent their failure. Whoever is in power is going to support big bailouts, as the conservatives proved in 2004 when they supported TARP. Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows. Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544.html Craig How's that again ? Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/14/2013 http://team.academia.edu/**RogerCloughhttp://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Freedom From Choice is Easy
From the Devo song Freedom of Choice: In ancient Rome There was a poem About a dog Who found two bones He picked at one He licked the other He went in circles He dropped dead Freedom of choice Is what you got Freedom from choice Is what you want Thinking about the relationship between choice and freedom, and how there is a difference between voluntary and mandatory choice. Even in freedom there is bondage when that freedom is tied to significant consequences. The appeal of recreation, of gaming, and drugs has to do with the disjoining the connections along the axis of meta-choicechoiceconsequences. On vacation, we seek a state of ease which is accomplished primarily by increasing our meta-choice. Our power to exercise our preference over whether or not we exercise our preference. A cruise offers the exemplary condition for this - many choices are offered: excursions, activities, passive entertainment, private relaxation, and of course food. At any given time we can engage in a huge number of voluntary choices or we can opt not to choose anything at all and nobody will bother us for lingering in a lounge chair on deck for a week. This is leisure and ease. If we were only allowed to stay on the lounge chair, or if we had to accomplish a certain number of activities, then it would be a prison or at least a kind of work. So far, no machine has been made that can tell the difference between work and leisure or leisure and play. Playing involves forgoing the meta- aspect of choice by presenting the opportunity to play the game. Once we voluntarily choose to play a game, we have given up our pure leisure state (our native superposition if you will) and collapsed into a state of unqualified choice making. A game gives us pleasure despite causing us the need to make choices, because the choices are disjoined from real-world consequences for the most part. It can be argued that sport and further professional sport represent a progressive undoing of the game aspect, becoming an activity which can be both better and worse than work or play. All of this is yet another attempt to show the very limited conceptualization of free will which has been used to prop up determinism. In a deterministic universe, there really could not plausibly be any way of disjoining choice from consequences, work from play, or leisure from choice. The number of 'choices' executed by a program, and the sequence in which they are executed are all that can matter. A branching logic tree can be looped and accelerated indefinitely with no complaint from the computer. A computer's Groundhog Day can have no difference between day three of a Caribbean cruise and day 400 of trench warfare, as long as the number of opportunities are the same, the computational cost would be the same. Why then do we care about the difference between freedom of choice and freedom from choice, and how can we even conceive of it in the first place if the universe of our minds were truly deterministic? I think that the answer is obviously that our minds are not truly deterministic but rather heavily impacted by the significance of our interaction with the real world. All games are created equal, but games which have real world consequences are not games. This of course maps to the simulation argument - where all simulations are interchangeable with each other, but none of them are interchangeable with the fundamental non-simulation. Digital fire can burn down a simulated house in the game or a meta-simulatied house within a game within a simulated house, but it can never burn down a real house outside of all of the games. Games are easy, reality is harder. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Can anyone explain this ?
On Monday, April 15, 2013 5:56:31 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: This is thread is completely off-topic, but anyway: The evolutionary roots of envy and social justice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/93890864/Punitive-sentiment-against-successful-individuals-as-a-psychological-device-for-anti-hidden-free-riders-in-ancestral-hunter-gatherers What is successful about an heir to a dynastic fortune or the beneficiary of some arbitrary condition of exploitation? Craig 2013/4/14 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: On Sunday, April 14, 2013 7:56:35 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: One of the great mysteries of liberalism is the contradiction in its political stance concerning rich corporations. On the one hand, it rejects the attempts of conservatives to lower corporate taxes. Liberals see that wealth inequality is a critically important issue in the US. “For every one dollar of assets owned by a single black or Hispanic womanhttp://www.insightcced.org/uploads/CRWG/LiftingAsWeClimb-WomenWealth-Report-InsightCenter-Spring2010.pdf, a member of the Forbes 400 has over forty million dollarshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/richest-people-america-forbes-400_n_1896828.html .” America Split in Two: Five Ugly Extremes of Inequalityhttp://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequality http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17878-america-split-in-two-five-ugly-extremes-of-inequality But on the other hand, it will bail out rich corporations such as General Motors to prevent their failure. Whoever is in power is going to support big bailouts, as the conservatives proved in 2004 when they supported TARP. Nearly half of Americans incorrectly think President Obama started the the bank bailout program, otherwise known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a new poll shows. Just 34 percent of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center correctly said that TARP was enacted by the Bush administration. Almost half -- 47 percent -- think Mr. Obama started the bank bailout, according to the survey, conducted July 1-5. There was no partisan divide on the issue. - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013452-503544.html Craig How's that again ? Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/14/2013 http://team.academia.edu/**RogerCloughhttp://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
On 14 Apr 2013, at 23:45, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15/04/2013, at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false, logically. Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences were that physics is Newtonian, I would say that comp would be quite doubtful. Why? Comp implies that there is a substitution level, and it implies that if we look around us below that substitution level we must find the traces of the infinitely many parallel computations leading to our states (by the first person indeterminacy). Comp implies that physics must be derived from arithmetic, and this leads to a MW sort of physics, both qualitatively (like in the UDA), and formally, when assuming the classical theory of knowledge, like in the translation of UDA in arithmetic. In that case we can generate the set of experimental configurations capable of refuting comp (or showing that we are in a second order simulation built to make us believe in non-comp). There are other reason as well. A Newtonian physics uses action at a distance, arguably a non comp phenomenon. Newton was aware of that problem, and he already took this as a symptom that his physics was only an approximation, but this has been of course solved by relativity theory. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
On 15 Apr 2013, at 02:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, April 14, 2013 1:27:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Apr 2013, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:47:47 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Apr 2013, at 21:18, Craig Weinberg wrote: With comp, matter relies on the numbers law, or Turing equivalent. Matter also relies on geometry, which comp cannot provide. ? Does that mean you think that comp can generate geometry, or that matter doesn't relay on geometry? comp can generate geometry does not mean something clear. I think its pretty clear. Without a printer or video screen, my computer cannot generate geometry. Why? (printer and video screen are not geometry). Printers and video screen have no other purpose other than to manifest geometric forms in public. There are program able to solve geometrical puzzle by rotating mentally (in their RAM, without using screen, nor printer) complex geometrical figure, ... That's what I'm saying. All geometric function can be emulated computationally with no literal geometry. The puzzle shapes aren't literally in the RAM. There is no presentation of shape in that universe, and the addition of shape (from screens or printers) would add nothing to that computation. That's a reson to doubt that what you call literal geometry makes no sense. It doesn't matter how much CPU power or memory I have, the functions will come no closer to taking on a coherent geometric form somewhere. I can make endless computations about circles and pi, but there is never any need for any literal presentation of a circle in the universe. No actual circle is present. Not sure I have ever see an actual circle anywhere, nor do I think that seeing proves existence ... I don't think that there is 'existence'. There is seeing, feeling, touching, etc. That makes my point. With comp all this is already implemented in arithmetic. I don't understand what you mean by not being sure if you have seen an actual circle anywhere. see? If those are circles, then I doubt that PI = 3,141592... Those are actual circles that you see on your screen. Not at all. They are polygonal gross approximations of circle. The computer doesn't see those though. It doesn't see the similarity between o,O,0,O,o, etc. He can, if you let them learn the difference. Some software can already see such similarities. To the computer there are different quantities associated with the ASCII characters, different codes for font rendering as screen pixels or printer instructions, etc, but unless you are running an OCR program, the computer by default has no notion of visual circularity associated with . Of course. Current laptop are blind, but you can't derive a universal big fact from a biased small sample. But what can be shown is that in the comp theory, you can assume only number (or combinators) and the + and * laws, this generates all the dreams, which can be shown to generate from the machine points of view, geometry, analysis, and physics. That's only because you have given + and * the benefit of the dream to begin with. No. I begin with assuming that the brain is Turing emulable. It is not that obvious to get everything (brain and consciousness) from + and *. It's one thing to assume that the brain is Turing emulable, but another to assume that interior experience is isomorphic to brain activity. You cannot be more right on this. It has been part of my job to show that if the brain is Turing emulable, then the interior experience is not at all isomorphic to brain activity. It is already done explicitely in step seven (you don't need the more subtle step 8). My view is that it is not. Good, but it contradicts some of your other posts, where mind and matter seems to be dual. To the contrary, exteriority is the anesthetic, orthomodular reflection of interiority. This orthomodularity is total, so that it circumscribes both arithmetic truth and ontological realism entirely. http://multisenserealism.com/2013/04/14/1060/ Comp is tautology. If comp was tautology, I would like you to attribute to my sun in law, the one with the digital brain, a little more tautological consideration. You should accept that he has consciousness then. He doesn't have consciousness, but he has the capacity to broadly and deeply enrich our consciousness. I give him the appropriate consideration, he gets a nice juicy retro-memory implant of a generic steak eating experience - free of charge! But that does not make sense if he cannot taste it consciously, and comp asserts, non tautologically, that he will taste it, which was my point. But of course that is not the case, as comp might be false, logically. Indeed, it can be shown refutable, and if the evidences were that physics is Newtonian, I
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:02, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains, it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. Yes. Basically, getting the fits person plural is the same as getting the physical laws. It seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want something like the axiom of choice That is asking too much, as I have already explained. I don't assume set theory. and foundation to force the collection of *some first person plural indeterminacy* into a partition, but I argue that this is equivalent to assuming that satistiability obtains for collections of propositions automatically - something we know it false! It is for this reason that I reject the timelessness of Platonism and adopt a 'Process view where Becoming is ontologically fundamental and time is defined locally by the 1p measures of observers. You should convince Craig, not a computationalist, as UDA shows that physical time is not primitive. Bruno On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like there is an indeterminacy in the 3p sense, but without collapse, it is only a first person indeterminacy of the same kind of comp (UDA step 3). With comp, we are automatically in the superposed state brought by the infinitely many universal numbers competing to generate our state. Indeterminacy is predicted once we look around below our substitution level. The sharable experiment comes from some first person plural indeterminacy. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en . To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You
Re: Losing Control
On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:21, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, if comp only produces what is already known to science, how do we know that comp is responsible? String theory has this problem We never know such thing. We can only propose a theory, derive facts, and verify them. If the facts follow the theory, we still don't know if the theory is correct or responsible, not that it is true. In fact we can only hope that the theory will be refuted, so that we can progress. Now comp, especially in the weak version I propose, (It exists a level such that ...) is a very common assumption, a priori independent of physics, and it provides some explanation of the origin of the physical reality, based on the numbers laws only, so we can love it for its elegance, but in science we never know if a theory is true. Bruno On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.? This is more or less planned for the FOAR list. In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the big truth (about consciousness and matter) is in your head. With you = any universal machine. So you can program a universal machine to look inward, and extract its theory of consciousness and matter. To test comp, it remains to compare the matter part the machine found in her head with the empirical facts. This has been done, to some degree, and thanks to QM, it fits rather well up to now. That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by science? ? Comp is part of science. It is a theory (synonym: belief, hypothesis, guess, idea, etc.). Physical science, seen as TOE, like with physicalism, presupposes a physical reality, but if comp is correct, the physical reality is a stable pattern emerging from coherence conditions in machines' self- reference, and this is reducible to number theory, or to any theory rich enough to emulate a Turing universal machine. What comes to my mind is consciousness. Comp starts from some assumption on consciousness, (like its invariance for digital substitution *at some level*), and then it is later plausibly explained in term of some truth that some machine can know in some sense, yet not prove or justify to other machine. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena. Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of digital substitution. I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them, in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be wrong. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Hi Bruno, Interleaving On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:02, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains, it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. Yes. Basically, getting the fits person plural is the same as getting the physical laws. OK, but could you be a bit more elaborative? We have already agreed that our goal is to be able to derive 'physical laws', so we cannot assume something equivalent to them (by your account!) without explanation. I think that we get 1st person plurality by solving the solipsism problem for numbers: How can a number distinguish its dreams of itself and its dreams of not-itself? It seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want something like the axiom of choice That is asking too much, as I have already explained. I don't assume set theory. Of course, I am not asking you to assume it. I am asking you to look at how set theory seems to be necessary to obtain 1st person plurality. and foundation to force the collection of *some first person plural indeterminacy* into a partition, but I argue that this is equivalent to assuming that satistiability obtains for collections of propositions automatically - something we know it false! It is for this reason that I reject the timelessness of Platonism and adopt a 'Process view where Becoming is ontologically fundamental and time is defined locally by the 1p measures of observers. You should convince Craig, not a computationalist, as UDA shows that physical time is not primitive. Bruno I do not know what you mean by physical time. The time you use is the lexicographical ordering of numbers and does not refer to any kind of 'change' as there is nothing that 'becomes' in Platonia, everything just 'is'. This is where our ways of thinking differ the most. I assume that becoming is primitive (ontologically fundamental), pace Parmenides and you agree with Parmenides and assume Being is primitive. Time then is defined relative to an individual's measure of Becoming and since there is no 'ultimate' observer in my ontology, there is no primitive time eithe; there is only local times (plural) as there must exist multiple observers as there necessarily exist multiple measures of Becoming and Being. (Being is the equivalence class of automorphisms of Becoming.) On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like there is an indeterminacy in the 3p sense, but without collapse, it is only a first person indeterminacy of the same kind of comp (UDA step 3). With comp, we are automatically in the superposed state brought by the infinitely many universal numbers competing to generate our state. Indeterminacy is predicted once we look around below our substitution level. The sharable experiment comes from some first person plural indeterminacy. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 15 Apr 2013, at 15:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Interleaving On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:02, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Bruno, Unless we can explain how the *some first person plural indeterminacy* obtains, it does not give a satisfactory explanation of 'shared experience'. Yes. Basically, getting the fits person plural is the same as getting the physical laws. OK, but could you be a bit more elaborative? We have already agreed that our goal is to be able to derive 'physical laws', so we cannot assume something equivalent to them (by your account!) without explanation. I think that we get 1st person plurality by solving the solipsism problem for numbers: How can a number distinguish its dreams of itself and its dreams of not-itself? It seems to me that you are right, in so far as, the necessity of such, but I argue that that alone is insufficient. You might want something like the axiom of choice That is asking too much, as I have already explained. I don't assume set theory. Of course, I am not asking you to assume it. I am asking you to look at how set theory seems to be necessary to obtain 1st person plurality. In some non comp theory, perhaps. and foundation to force the collection of *some first person plural indeterminacy* into a partition, but I argue that this is equivalent to assuming that satistiability obtains for collections of propositions automatically - something we know it false! It is for this reason that I reject the timelessness of Platonism and adopt a 'Process view where Becoming is ontologically fundamental and time is defined locally by the 1p measures of observers. You should convince Craig, not a computationalist, as UDA shows that physical time is not primitive. Bruno I do not know what you mean by physical time. The time you use is the lexicographical ordering of numbers and does not refer to any kind of 'change' as there is nothing that 'becomes' in Platonia, everything just 'is'. This is where our ways of thinking differ the most. I assume that becoming is primitive (ontologically fundamental), pace Parmenides and you agree with Parmenides and assume Being is primitive. Time then is defined relative to an individual's measure of Becoming and since there is no 'ultimate' observer in my ontology, there is no primitive time eithe; there is only local times (plural) as there must exist multiple observers as there necessarily exist multiple measures of Becoming and Being. (Being is the equivalence class of automorphisms of Becoming.) Too much unclear, sorry. I have no idea of what you assume. You still look like if you were defending some truth, which I do not. Bruno On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:17, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, because of the measure problem, MWI must also be probabilistic, otherwise it does not agree with experiment. The universal wave evolves deterministically, but *we* are in the superposed and differentiating branches, so we feel like there is an indeterminacy in the 3p sense, but without collapse, it is only a first person indeterminacy of the same kind of comp (UDA step 3). With comp, we are automatically in the superposed state brought by the infinitely many universal numbers competing to generate our state. Indeterminacy is predicted once we look around below our substitution level. The sharable experiment comes from some first person plural indeterminacy. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 03:30, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. But with QM without collapse, matter does not behave randomly. The SWE is deterministic. We are multiplied, and the randomness comes from the first person perspective. Comp extends this. The SWE itself emerges from the first person perspective of the person supervening on the arithmetical relation defining computations. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is non-reductionist. It relies on the concept of natural selection, which is an holistic concept. That is entirely false. Natural selection is local, not just spatially but temporally as well. Evolution doesn't make decision based on the species as a whole but rather on whether this particular animal right here survives long enough to get its genes into the next generation. And Evolution has no foresight, it doesn't understand one step backward 2 steps forward, it only understands if there is a advantage to the animal right now. Natural selection works on what is happening right here right now. Finding a cure for cancer or understanding exactly how the brain works resist the reductionist approach to this day. Richard Dawkins has said that in today's pop culture admitting to being a reductionist is like admitting that you like to eat babies, but the fact is that every disease science has found a cure for it has done so with a reductionist approach, and you're only going to know that you really do understand how the brain works if you can duplicate it, and that means knowing all the billion little details, and that means reductionism. However holistic is a great buzz word that will impress the rubes and make you a hit at parties. I can give a example of a effect with no cause at all, the creation of virtual particles. One could argue that they are the result of some condition created by the Big Bang. On the contrary, one could argue that the Big Bang itself was caused by the creation of virtual particles that became actual for no reason whatsoever. Quantum Mechanics says that the probability of that happening is mind bendingly small, but if you're dealing with a infinite amount of time you can be certain it will happen. That being said I do admit that when infinity is involved the meaning of probability becomes very fuzzy, so although there are hints I can't claim that we have a firm understanding of why there is something rather than nothing. Causality is just a human concept anyway. Unless ET exists all concepts are human concepts because the universe can't think but humans can. there is either a infinite regress of causes and effects like the layers of a infinite onion with no fundamental layer, or there is a effect without a cause. Neither of those possibilities is emotionally satisfying to some people but one of them must be true. Unless we question causality itself. Which we should. Well, if we don't know what causality means then there is nothing to talk about; it's like those silly debates about if people have free will or not when they have no idea what the term is supposed to mean and so very literally don't know what in hell they're debating about. Science is not the only way to pursue knowledge True, induction also works. Usually. Philosophy is necessary. Philosophy is necessary but philosophers are not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. Thanks Richard. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. But then we're still left without a theory that could explain the behaviour of a single photon without resorting to randomness, correct? I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? I'll leave this one for Bruno, of course. My understanding is that it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the outcomes. This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more reasonable to me than the idea that there is just one Telmo with one personal diary. If there are infinitely many, each one with his own personal diary, the world still looks exactly like it does to this particular instance of me, and we do not have to resort to any randomness magic. It's tempting for me to extend this idea to everyone and not just Telmos, at the risk of sounding a bit new-agey. I don't yet understand how an algorithm could be a random number generator (non-pseudo), but I think Bruno has more to say here. In math, there is many randomness. Diagonal argument can easily prove most real or decimal infinite expansions are random, in the strongest form of randomness. Some simple programs can generate strings passing all the usual test of randomness, like just counting 012345678910111213141516. 758956790021176043275260881 You said to John Clark that you don't believe in physical randomness. Me too. As you say it is easier to explain it by the FPI on some domain, like Everett universal wave or on arithmetic with comp. I am with you and Einstein on this :) All physical events have a determinist cause and reason. I think Einstein said he would prefer to be a plumber if that was not the case. But as logician, I can't exclude completely a (comp) physics with non causal events, as the physics extracted from comp is only in its infancy, to say the least. Even in that case the non physical cause will have an arithmetical reason, and that non cause would emerge from the first person (plural) indeterminacy on the UD* or (sigma1) arithmetic. No need of unnecessary magic. Bruno Telmo. Richard On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Mathematics itself seems rather magical. For instance the sum 1+2+3+4+5.infinity = -1/12 And according to Scott Aaronson's new book when string theorists estimate the mass of a photon they get two components: one being 1/12 and the other being that sum, so the mass is zero, thanks to Ramanujan If that sum is cutoff at some very large number but less than infinity, does anyone know the value of the summation.? Hi Richard, Ok, but in that case physics is deterministic, just hard to compute. How do we then deal with the fact that two photons under the precise same conditions can follow two different paths (except for some hidden variable we don't know about)? I'm not a physicist and way over my head here, so this is not a rhetorical question. On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 12 Apr 2013, at 16:15, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If matter is deterministic, how could it behave in a random way? It couldn't. Are you saying then that matter is random, or that it is neither random nor deterministic? Matter behaves randomly, but probability theory allows us to make predictions about random events. In my view, randomness = magic. The MWI and Comp are the only theories I've seen so far that do not require magic to explain observed randomness. You said this to Stathis! Apology to Stathis and John Clark. I agree with the point. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scientific journals
On Monday, April 15, 2013 12:01:37 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. That's your version of science in a nutshell. No curiosity, no reasoned argument, just name calling and cowardice. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Losing Control
Not true. GR and QM derived experimental results that were not known to science before hand. I suggest that comp has to do that otherwise it will remain a curious metaphysics but not accepted as knowledge. On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Apr 2013, at 19:21, Richard Ruquist wrote: But Bruno, if comp only produces what is already known to science, how do we know that comp is responsible? String theory has this problem We never know such thing. We can only propose a theory, derive facts, and verify them. If the facts follow the theory, we still don't know if the theory is correct or responsible, not that it is true. In fact we can only hope that the theory will be refuted, so that we can progress. Now comp, especially in the weak version I propose, (It exists a level such that ...) is a very common assumption, a priori independent of physics, and it provides some explanation of the origin of the physical reality, based on the numbers laws only, so we can love it for its elegance, but in science we never know if a theory is true. Bruno On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Apr 2013, at 15:13, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno, Could you explain by example how comp could be verified.? This is more or less planned for the FOAR list. In a nutshell, using some image, comp says that the big truth (about consciousness and matter) is in your head. With you = any universal machine. So you can program a universal machine to look inward, and extract its theory of consciousness and matter. To test comp, it remains to compare the matter part the machine found in her head with the empirical facts. This has been done, to some degree, and thanks to QM, it fits rather well up to now. That is does comp predict something that is not also predicted by science? ? Comp is part of science. It is a theory (synonym: belief, hypothesis, guess, idea, etc.). Physical science, seen as TOE, like with physicalism, presupposes a physical reality, but if comp is correct, the physical reality is a stable pattern emerging from coherence conditions in machines' self-reference, and this is reducible to number theory, or to any theory rich enough to emulate a Turing universal machine. What comes to my mind is consciousness. Comp starts from some assumption on consciousness, (like its invariance for digital substitution *at some level*), and then it is later plausibly explained in term of some truth that some machine can know in some sense, yet not prove or justify to other machine. Bruno Richard On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 02:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: No they don't. An epiphenomenon is an emergent effect. The natural world is full of complexity and emergent phenomena. Like arithmetic, from which nature emerge itself, necessarily so (and in a verifiable way) if we assume that we have a level of digital substitution. I think you will not convince Craig, because he assumes from the start mind and matter and some relation/identification between them, in a non computational framework. But you are right, and patient, by showing him that he is not valid when arguing that comp *has to* be wrong. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: The world is in the brain
On 4/15/2013 5:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: There are other reason as well. A Newtonian physics uses action at a distance, arguably a non comp phenomenon. Why would comp not accommodate action at a distance? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
On 09 Apr 2013, at 17:11, Telmo Menezes wrote: The web of trust comes from PhDs from accredited Universities. That is the deal that everyone accepts. If only that was true. Not all academies play the rule. Separation of power leaks so much (since Nixon, more or less), that even academies can be simply corrupted and defend only personal interest. It is not the deal, it is the ideal. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: NDE's Proved Real?
In a message dated 4/14/2013 1:07:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, marc...@ulb.ac.be writes: NDE might helps people in stress situation, of after being wounded. Given the fact that humans seems to fight since a long time, that might convey some evolutionary role. This does not logically entail that Apparently some NDE can at least help some people to realize that science has not yet decided if we are human beings capable of having from time to time some divine experiences, or if we are divine beings capable of having from time to time some terrestrial experiences. That can help to doubt or attenuate certainties in the spiritual field, which are frequent, for diverse reasons. Indeed, Dr. Marchal, perhaps it is merely some sort of stress, hallucination. This is why the AWARE study is import. Because developing telescopic sight, shouldn't occur to the subject who is injured. At least we'll find out of anything unusual gets reported. It might be interesting. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scientific journals
On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark Told you so. Brent Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. --- Anonymous -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 4/15/2013 10:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2013, at 17:39, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo, I can only give you my opinion. Thanks Richard. You are of course referring to the double slit experiment where one photon can follow at least two different paths, and potentially an infinite number of paths. But even diffraction of a single photon will do that: in the simplest case send a photon on to a semi-infinite metallic plane and the photon potentially scatters into an infinite number of paths from the edge of the plane. We only know which path when the photon reaches a detector plane on the far side. The actual deterministic diffraction pattern only emerges when the number of photons sent approaches infinity in plane waves. The actual path of a single photon is random within the constraints of the infinite-photon diffraction pattern. So I say the way to deal with that is to propagate a large number of photons or do an EM wave calculation for the diffraction pattern. But then we're still left without a theory that could explain the behaviour of a single photon without resorting to randomness, correct? I wonder how comp treats such single photon instances. Does it use algorithms that are random number generators? I'll leave this one for Bruno, of course. My understanding is that it's consistent with the MWI and also with what Russel proposes in his book: everything happens but each observer only perceives one of the outcomes. This seems highly unintuitive to a lot of people, but it seems more reasonable to me than the idea that there is just one Telmo with one personal diary. If there are infinitely many, each one with his own personal diary, the world still looks exactly like it does to this particular instance of me, and we do not have to resort to any randomness magic. It's tempting for me to extend this idea to everyone and not just Telmos, at the risk of sounding a bit new-agey. I don't yet understand how an algorithm could be a random number generator (non-pseudo), but I think Bruno has more to say here. In math, there is many randomness. Diagonal argument can easily prove most real or decimal infinite expansions are random, in the strongest form of randomness. Some simple programs can generate strings passing all the usual test of randomness, like just counting 012345678910111213141516. 758956790021176043275260881 You said to John Clark that you don't believe in physical randomness. Me too. As you say it is easier to explain it by the FPI on some domain, like Everett universal wave or on arithmetic with comp. I am with you and Einstein on this :) All physical events have a determinist cause and reason. I think Einstein said he would prefer to be a plumber if that was not the case. But as logician, I can't exclude completely a (comp) physics with non causal events, as the physics extracted from comp is only in its infancy, to say the least. Even in that case the non physical cause will have an arithmetical reason, and that non cause would emerge from the first person (plural) indeterminacy on the UD* or (sigma1) arithmetic. No need of unnecessary magic. I would expect that in comp the same event would have arbitrarily many different causes. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Scientific journals
On Monday, April 15, 2013 3:48:17 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/15/2013 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism. symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-'rulership' of Aquarius. [...] With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun [...] The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce [...] Astrology is extremely rational, You sir are a fool. John K Clark Told you so. I am very pleased to be held in low esteem by minds such as yours. Craig Brent Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. --- Anonymous -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The world is in the brain
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 02:41:19PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: You cannot be more right on this. It has been part of my job to show that if the brain is Turing emulable, then the interior experience is not at all isomorphic to brain activity. It is already done explicitely in step seven (you don't need the more subtle step 8). If you have shown this, then empirically, COMP is falsified. However, you yourself, have stated that all that is shown is that the brain (and physics generally) cannot be ontologically primitive. We're getting close to the latter (on foar) - if we can find a way of expressing the MGA that doesn't rely on an intuition. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
