Re: Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

We did talk about this paper about a year ago - maybe on foar. I agree its interesting, though. On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 10:47:39AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson, > which I think is more interesting than the one on Knightian freedom. >

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 10/4/2013 9:46 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 5 October 2013 12:53, meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2013 7:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote: On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 5 October 2013 12:53, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/4/2013 7:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I > > On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote: >> >> On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone is conscious. >> >> The experimen

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 10/4/2013 7:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote: On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone is conscious. The experiment relates to replacement of neurons which play some

Re: A challenge for Craig

I On Friday, October 4, 2013, meekerdb wrote: > On 10/3/2013 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > You seem to be agreeing with Craig that each neuron alone is conscious. > > The experiment relates to replacement of neurons which play some part > in consciousness. The 1% remaining neurons ar

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 10/4/2013 2:14 PM, LizR wrote: On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: He comes to this because he's *defined* "Knightian uncertainty" as radical unpredictability without randomness. I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if it comes

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:54:34AM -0400, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: > > Very well, Professor Standish, given that, could the Hubble Volume itself, then be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years across, and thus, that old? That sounds like what Wolfram proposes. Is this CA, or all C

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each > pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = "xx" > trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc. > but 99,999% will find th

Re: Aaronson's paper

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 02:15:47AM +1300, LizR wrote: > I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached > page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to > be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that > seems central to w

Re: The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Richard: I grew into denying probability in cases where not - ALL - circumstances are known. Since we know only part of the infinite complexity of the WORLD, we buy in for a mistake if fixing anything like 'probability'. The same goes for "statistical": push the borderlines abit further away and th

Re: Vacuum and Entropy.

Now: why should I 'believe' those "wise" scientists who based their thinking on imaginary explanations of phenomena partly observed by insufficient instrumentation and background knowledge? I esteem their wisdom and in college had to learn 'them' for exams, but later on, a 'freeer' thinking turned

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 5 October 2013 06:53, meekerdb wrote: He comes to this because he's *defined* "Knightian uncertainty" as radical > unpredictability without randomness. > I don't see why it doesn't entail randomness, especially if it comes from quantum fluctuations during the big bang. But even if it doesn't,

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

On 04 Oct 2013, at 18:01, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Professor Marchal, hello. What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best describes quantum reality, the home where virtual photons emerge. I really have no idea. I have only evidences that the winner universal machine, fo

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

On 04 Oct 2013, at 17:48, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It is a very good one, quoted by Everett, if I remember well. I think Liz thought on "Tlon Uqbar Orbid Tertius. The first novel in "Fiction", which contains the Forking Path n

Re: Vacuum and Entropy.

A quantum gas with a meaningful temperature below absolute zero has been reported in the journal NATURE: http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146 On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, sadovnik socratus wrote: > Vacuum and Entropy. ** > > # > > Today everybody

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 10/4/2013 7:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When a consciousness is not manifested, what is it's content? Good question. Difficult. Sometimes ago, I would have said that consciousness exists only in manifested form. That's what I would say. But I am much less sure about that, and such consci

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 10/4/2013 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and should normally emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all computations + the stable first person (plural) points of view. I don't think physical time is even a single co

Re: Aaronson's paper

On 10/4/2013 6:15 AM, LizR wrote: I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that seems central to what he is saying, namely

Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity

Here's another philosophical/computational paper by Scott Aaronson, which I think is more interesting than the one on Knightian freedom. It's also quite long (58pg). Section 4 is most relevant to AI and Turing tests. arXiv:1108.1791v3 [cs.CC] 14 Aug 2011 Why Philosophers Should Care About Comp

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM, LizR wrote: > > From the point of view of Moscow man, say, it appears (retrospectively, > at least) that he had a 50-50 chance of going to either place. > Retrospective probability? In Many worlds and in these duplicating chamber thought experiments probability i

Re: A challenge for Craig

On Friday, October 4, 2013 10:39:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:26:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 02 Oct 2013, at 06:56, Pierz wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, Oct

Vacuum and Entropy.

Vacuum and Entropy. # Today everybody knows that the Universe had a beginning from 'Big Bang'. Alternative question: Can the Universe begin to exist from Absolute Vacuum Zero: T=0K? ==.. We have two opinions about vacuum: 1 The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics w

The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics

Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, 2013. The probability problem in Everettian quantum mechanics persists. British Jour. Philosophy of Science IN PRESS. ABSTRACT. Everettian quantum mechanics (EQM) results in ‘multiple, emergent, branching quasi-classical realities’ (Wallace [2012]). The possible outcomes of

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

Professor Marchal, hello. What about at the Planck width? Would you say that this best describes quantum reality, the home where virtual photons emerge. Thus, down in Planck Land, is the place where CA produces a program, that may cause all other CA's to emerge, unravel, unfold? In essence, a

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

Very well, Professor Standish, given that, could the Hubble Volume itself, then be considered as one CA? A CA that is 13.7 light years across, and thus, that old? Is this CA, or all CA's something that emerges from thermo and fluid dynamics, or does it require (sigh!) a programmer, in the Jurge

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

Oh that's a typo, and I have never read the Many Forking Paths. It was funny how philosophers like Borges (a novelist), David Lewis, and Hugh Everett the 3rd got to the same conclusion. All about the same time. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Oct 3, 2013

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 04 Oct 2013, at 00:56, chris peck wrote: Hi Liz / pgc If I have been abusive to you or Bruno then I apologize without hesitation. If you would show where I have been abusive though I would appreciate that, because at the moment I regard the suggestion as low and mean spirited. I hav

Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology

On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:38, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Does anyone know any phenomena in nature or science that duplicates the behavior of Cellular Automata? I would say about everything natural and classical behave like fractal Cellular automata, (the kind of things not so much unrelated

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 19:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 6:59 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR wrote: >> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man because

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 23:18, LizR wrote: On 4 October 2013 05:59, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 , LizR wrote: >> What question about personal identity is indeterminate? There is a 100% chance that the Helsinki man will turn into the Moscow man because the Helsinki Man saw Moscow, an

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 17:51, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The origin of the indeterminacies is the random use of personal pronouns with no clear referents by Bruno Marchal such that all questions like "what is the probability "I" will do this or that?" bec

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:23, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 2 October 2013 00:46, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2013, at 15:31, Pierz wrote: Maybe. It would be a lot more profound if we definitely *could* reproduce the brain's behaviour. The devil is in the detail as they say. But a challen

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 02:19, LizR wrote: On 3 October 2013 13:15, meekerdb wrote: Interestingly it appears that most coin tosses may be quantum random, arXiv:1212.0953v1 [gr-qc] (snip) I say "most" because I know that magicians train themselves to be able to flip a coin and catch it consis

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 03 Oct 2013, at 01:38, chris peck wrote: Hi Bruno [JC] Because step 3 sucks. [Bruno] Why? You have not yet make a convincing point on this. His point is convincing me. Could you explain it? Bruno regards. > Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 23:18:07 +0200 > Subject: Re: What gives philosoph

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:48, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> philosophically my low-tech experiment works just as well and is just as uninformative as your hi-tech version. > Not at all. In your low tech (using a coin), you get an indeterminacy from coin thro

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 02 Oct 2013, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote: On 10/2/2013 6:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Note also that the expression "computation have qualia" can be misleading. A computation has no qualia, strictly speaki

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 02 Oct 2013, at 20:48, meekerdb wrote: On 10/2/2013 2:04 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:09:03AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 4:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Note also that the expression "computation have qualia" can be misleading. A computation has no qualia,

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 02 Oct 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote: On 10/2/2013 9:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I agree with Brent though on this. Your UDA proceeds on the basis that a computer in a single reality (not an infinite sum of calculations - that comes later) can have a 1p. Yes. It has 1p, it is not a zo

Re: A challenge for Craig

On 02 Oct 2013, at 19:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:26:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Oct 2013, at 06:56, Pierz wrote: On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 12:46:17 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then the reasoning shows (at a meta-level, made possible w

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 02 Oct 2013, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structur

Re: Aaronson's paper

I'm still slogging through Scott Aaronson's paper, and have now reached page 37. It looks as though there are still lots of interesting matters to be discussed, but there is something I already have a problem with that seems central to what he is saying, namely what is the significance of Knightian

Wittgenstein in Wonderland, Einstein under Glass

Something I posted yesterday . If I understand the idea correctly – that is, if there is enough of the idea which is not private to Ludwig Wittgenstein that it can be understood by anyone in general or m

Re: A challenge for Craig

On Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:48:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 10/3/2013 4:36 PM, Pierz wrote: > > >> > The universe doesn't seem to be too fussed about immense and inescapable > redundancy. > > > Of course the universe doesn't care when the immense and inescapable > redundancy is

Re: The canal effect

2013/10/2 Bruno Marchal > > On 02 Oct 2013, at 10:35, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > > > > > 2013/10/1 Bruno Marchal > >> >> On 30 Sep 2013, at 15:56, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >> Not exactly. And that depends on what we call as science. Many called >> sciences are pure rubbish, while some other