Re: For John Clark
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I'd only ever seen numerical simulations of it, but consulting the ever-handy Wikipedia, it looks like the percolation threshold is given by the inverse of the average node degree for Erdos-Renyi random graphs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_graph). Mind you, Wikipedia does seem to be contradictory on this - the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erdős–Rényi_model gives ln n/n for the percolation threshold. Presumably, the two pages are talking about different concepts of percolation threshold, but I would need to drill down into it further... Note that on 2D tilings, the percolation threshold seems somewhere between 0.5 and 0.8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percolation_threshold). But for brains, neither network model is appropriate, so one would need to look at how percolation thresholds go for small world networks, about which Wikipedia doesn't have much to say. Even that might not be enough. Small world doesn't tell the whole story. For example, small world networks can have different triadic motif profiles, as shown by Milo et al: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5594/824.abstract Intuitively, this type of micro-structure should affect the percolation threshold. We need a sufficiently realistic generative model for the brain. Cheers, Telmo. Cheers On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:21:21AM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: Russell, Out of curiosity, is that link density of ~62% derived from 1 - (e^-1) ? The concept seems related, as it is also the proportion of hash values that can be reached by hashing all possible hash values (for a good hash function with a uniform distribution). Jason On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 05:01:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Nevertheless, you do think there must be some strong indicators why a continuous (well at least local changes only) conscious path exists between all conscious states. What is that? By what I called (with a wrong terming) agnosologic path: where each time you lost a mental feature, you lost also the mental reference to it, so you don't see any difference. This involves amnesia, and I don't use that in UDA or AUDA. But I can also think and discuss like most participant in the list, on the larger domain than my thesis ! Ah - I probably missed what you were trying to say earlier. To follow on from your agnosologia, I would hesitate to guess that consciousness somehow involves feedback loops. To make another analogy, if I take a network, if sufficiently dense, it will have cycles (loops), where if you follow the links from a given vertex, you will end up back where you start from. If you start removing links, the number of cycles drops, until eventually no cycles are left. That will most likely occur around the percolation threshold of the network, which is about 62% link density (62% of possible links are actually present) IIRC. ISTM one loses consciousness (loss of all feedback loops) well before losing sufficient memories (the links) to be able to merge into another person. This is essentially the reason fading qualia-style arguments don't impress me. Of course this is not a proof. For that, I suspect we need a better theory of consciousness. But I'm seeing your analogy, and raising one :). -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of
Re: AUDA and pronouns
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken
belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes
and sometimes provable.
And I'm doing the same. It's not such an issue - a mathematician
will
only believe something if e can prove it.
But provable(p)==p and believes(p)=/=p, so why equivocate on
them?
Both provable('p') - p, and believe('p') - p, when we limit
ourself to correct machine.
(And incidentally mathematicians believe stuff they can't prove
all the time - that's how they choose things to try to prove).
Then it is a conjecture. They don't believe rationally in
conjecture, when they are correct.
They believe it in the real operational sense of believe, they
will bet their whole professional lives on it. How long did it take
Andrew Wiles to prove Fermat's last theorem? Since one can never
know that one is a correct machine it seems to me a muddling of
things to equivocate on provable and believes.
On the contrary. It provides a recursive definition of the beliefs, by
a rational agent accepting enough truth to understand how a computer
work.
We can define the beliefs by presenting PA axioms in that way
Classical logic is believed,
'0 ≠ s(x)' is believed,
's(x) = s(y) - x = y' is believed,
'x+0 = x' is believed,
'x+s(y) = s(x+y)' is believed,
'x*0=0' is believed,
'x*s(y)=(x*y)+x' is believed,
and the rule: if A - B is believed and A is believed, then (soon or
later) B is believed.
Then the theory will apply to any recursively enumerable extensions of
those beliefs, provided they don't get arithmetically unsound.
The believer can be shown to be Löbian once he has also the beliefs in
the induction axioms.
Bruno
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: AUDA and pronouns
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[]p - p is correctness. It is trivially true for the machine I
consider, because they are correct by definition/choice.
Consistency is correctness on the f: []f - f. It is a very
particular case of correctness.
There are machines which are not correct, yet consistent. For
example Peano-Arithmetic + the axiom beweisbar('f').
Believing '0=1', does not make you inconsistent. Only non correct.
?? But in ordinary logic a false proposition allows you to prove
anything. So if I prove '0=1' then I can prove any proposition -
which is the definition of inconsistency.
OK. I should have written Believing '0=1', does not make you
inconsistent. Only non correct.
Or if your prefer: believing believing '0=1' does not make you
inconsistent. Only non correct.
If you add the axiom 0=1 to PA, it get inconsistent, as, like you
say, ordinary logic will imply that you can prove all proposition.
But here I was not adding 0=1 as an axiom to PA, I was adding
believe 0=1 as an axiom, and from this you cannot prove all
propositions. In particular you cannot prove 0=1. You can only prove
that you can prove all propositions. That might make you stupid, and
certainly unsound, but not inconsistent.
Just keep in mind that Bf - f is not provable by PA. And keep well
the difference between PA asserts (proves, believes) p, and PA asserts
Bp.
Bruno
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.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: AUDA and pronouns
On 22 Oct 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote: In fact p- []p characterizes sigma_1 completeness (by a result by Albert Visser), and that is why to get the proba on the UD*, we use the intensional nuance []p t (= proba) starting from G extended with the axiom p- []p (limiting the proposition to the UD). proba? Sorry - I was actually asking what you meant by the word proba. OK. Sorry. It was an abbreviation for probability. Best, 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: I have a very good question but I don't know how to ask it...
We all dreams in the mind of God, even, paradoxically, God himself? On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: No, not criticizing! This poem seems to express the question more comprehensibly, and I just wanted to see what others think of it? The idea that all is one is interesting, though it is at variance with my belief. But, my belief is faith-based, and therefore not valid for others, I suppose. However, I do believe in interconnectedness through the fabric of space-time. And that also encourages being nicer to one another :) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: It echoes a thought I've had myself at times, and which if turned into a religion might even make people be nicer to one another - perhaps - namely the idea that there is only one mind, shuffling through every possible life. Of course this is an infinite sequence, and the mind would I guess be something like God, living inside his creation so as to experience it - the universe creating senses with which to perceive itself, or words to that effect. Or were you after literary criticism? On 23 October 2013 15:49, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of The Egg? http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Without coaching anyway assume an answer. Trust me, it really is on-optic; it has something to do with a supercomputer. Annywy, here does: Give that I am Neo, is it possible for me to bot attended and not addending the wedding of Tim Lee and Jess Han without actually doing it, such that Tim Lee becomes reborn as Wakka? It''s actually a good question, but if you have no idea what it means, Try not to embarrass yourself by thinking you know. It has to with the fact that I think we converge the same person in the end which becomse our own beginning. Unfortunatley, sometimes we lose track of where we started or where you're spposed to do... Thanks, Stephen -- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Seth Lloyd on Free Will
A deterministic system cannot grant free will, and a system with free will cannot choose to become deterministic; however, each is capable of an arbitrarily convincing simulation of the other. So how would you know where it began? On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:23:06 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 October 2013 12:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:31:23 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 October 2013 00:53, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Free will is not about an inability to predict your own decisions, it is about a desire to directly dictate perceived conditions, and an expectation of the effectiveness of that desire. And that too is compatible with randomness or determinism. Only from the retrospective view (from which anything can automatically be justified). Prospectively, I can think of no plausible reason for any such desire or expectation to arise from a random or deterministic universe. Why would it, and how could it? I don't see how that constitutes any sort of argument. Does the fact that every human naturally thinks the Earth is flat mean the Earth is in fact flat, on the grounds that there would otherwise be no reason for such a belief to be so widespread? Yes, of course the Earth is flat from a local perspective. Flat enough for us to build with levels rather than protractors. If you walked around perceiving the curvature of the Earth all the time, you would not be part of the experience of the world that all animals share. If you were to recreate the universe and failed to include the perception that the world is flat, you would have eliminated a huge chunk of its realism, as you would if you neglected to include the masking of the night sky by blue sky. The only reason that we can accept the world being round is that we can see it and model it from a super-human perspective. To say that that perspective is absolutely true and the local perspective is an illusion is to miss the role that perceptual relativity plays in defining physics. Does the fact that every culture has come up with religious beliefs mean God exists? No, but it does mean that human consciousness describes itself in Godlike terms for a good reason. Once we understand what metaphor is, and how it is related to consciousness, then the metaphor of God is recognizable as a projection of metaphor and consciousness as a person (a father to be precise). A meta-metaphor about meta-superlative personhood. Craig -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
A metaphor for true love:
Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Dialetheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
Bruno, Are you saying that 1) negates digital physics? If so can you explain how for dummies? Richard On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: ** ** ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [ mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal *Sent:* Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...* *** ** ** ** ** On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive -* *** granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? ** ** It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! ** ** ** ** On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: ** ** The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi* *** gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy* *** arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. ** ** ** ** Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. ** ** Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). ** ** The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. ** ** The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). ** ** I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view).** ** ** ** Bruno ** ** If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If reality is information and information can be described with equations that are scale invariant (such as for example vector graphics versus pixel based graphics, or fractal geometry) then a computational model can still describe the entire universal relationship and identity sets even when there is seemingly no end (that we have found) to how small a point of spacetime can be. OK. But computationalism (I am a machine) entails the existence of at least one observable which relies on real numbers and is not completely turing emulable. It might be the quantum frequency operator (describe well by Graham and Preskill's course). So long as this does not much matter to the computational theory itself then it is unaffected by this very fine grained measurement of the lack of any fine structure in spacetime. Keep in mind the difference between 1) the computationalist hypothesis in philosophy of mind, and 2) the hypothesis that the universe is the product of some program. 2) implies 1) but 1) implies the negation of 2)(this can be explained with the thought experiment like in the UDA). In particular 2) implies the negation of 2), and so is self-contradictory.
Re: Seth Lloyd on Free Will
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:39:31 AM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote: A deterministic system cannot grant free will, and a system with free will cannot choose to become deterministic; however, each is capable of an arbitrarily convincing simulation of the other. A system with free will can choose to become deterministic though. Follow a leader or flip a coin. It seems like it must begin there, with free will. Craig So how would you know where it began? On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:23:06 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 October 2013 12:15, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, October 19, 2013 6:31:23 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On 20 October 2013 00:53, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Free will is not about an inability to predict your own decisions, it is about a desire to directly dictate perceived conditions, and an expectation of the effectiveness of that desire. And that too is compatible with randomness or determinism. Only from the retrospective view (from which anything can automatically be justified). Prospectively, I can think of no plausible reason for any such desire or expectation to arise from a random or deterministic universe. Why would it, and how could it? I don't see how that constitutes any sort of argument. Does the fact that every human naturally thinks the Earth is flat mean the Earth is in fact flat, on the grounds that there would otherwise be no reason for such a belief to be so widespread? Yes, of course the Earth is flat from a local perspective. Flat enough for us to build with levels rather than protractors. If you walked around perceiving the curvature of the Earth all the time, you would not be part of the experience of the world that all animals share. If you were to recreate the universe and failed to include the perception that the world is flat, you would have eliminated a huge chunk of its realism, as you would if you neglected to include the masking of the night sky by blue sky. The only reason that we can accept the world being round is that we can see it and model it from a super-human perspective. To say that that perspective is absolutely true and the local perspective is an illusion is to miss the role that perceptual relativity plays in defining physics. Does the fact that every culture has come up with religious beliefs mean God exists? No, but it does mean that human consciousness describes itself in Godlike terms for a good reason. Once we understand what metaphor is, and how it is related to consciousness, then the metaphor of God is recognizable as a projection of metaphor and consciousness as a person (a father to be precise). A meta-metaphor about meta-superlative personhood. Craig -- 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-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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On 22 Oct 2013, at 20:56, Quentin Anciaux wrote to John Clark (I comment both) 2013/10/22 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/21/2013 9:16 AM, John Clark wrote: Let me put it in this way: accepting that P(W) = P(M) =1/2, with W and M describing the first person experiences of the respective copies, do you accept that P(M) = P(W) = 1/2, No I don't accept that, not if P(W) is the probability that the Washington Man will see Washington; the probability of that would be 1 not 1/2. And if P(W) means the probability the Helsinki Man will see Washington that would be 0 not 1/2 because the Helsinki Man would have to be turned into something that is not the Helsinki Man before the Helsinki Man can see a different city. Why? If he flew to Washington he would still be the Helsinki man. OK, then if he flew to Moscow he would be the Helsinki man too, and if he used a Star Trek style transporter instead of a airplane he would still be the Helsinki Man, and if the transporter sent him to both cities at the same time he would still be The Helsinki Man. So you tell me, using logic and your definition how many cities did The Helsinki Man see? He's the Helsinki man because of the continuity of his memories, just as you are still John Clark even though you've changed locations since yesterday. Fine. If that's what you mean by The Helsinki Man then in Bruno's thought experiment with the duplication chamber and using the exact same reasoning the probability The Helsinki Man will see Washington is 100% In the third person point of view on the first person points of view. But the question bears on the first person point of view exclusively. To answer the question asked, you have to put yourself in the shoes of each copy, or at least read their personal diaries (by definition of first person points of view used here). and the probability The Helsinki Man will see Moscow is 100%. Note, John, that you just go from P(W) = P(M) = 0, to the post you sent before (and that I commented), to P(W) = P(M) = 1. You do seem confused. And yes yes I know, each copy will see only one city, but if the definition of The Helsinki Man is the one you give above, the continuity of his memories, then it is irrelevant how many cities each individual copy sees. Except that the probability bears on the memories contained in all the resulting personal diaries, and they will differ on the number of cities. You can even define the first person indeterminacies by the frequency of W and M in the personal reports, and elementary reasoning shows that this lead to the binomial, and thus normal for large number of duplications, distribution, confirming the P = 1/2, based on the numerical identity of the codes sent to Washington and Moscow. Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum. John Clark seems stuck in his confusion between the third person view on the first person views, and the first person points of view themselves. This indicates that he does not pursue the step 3 thought experiment in its entirety. After the duplication, considers himself being in both place at once, but forget to take into account the fact that both copies will feel to be in only one place, and that the question was about that place. Everett also reintroduces total third person determinacy by reducing the experimental indeterminacy by multiplication/differentiation of the observers, eliminating notably the notion of event without cause, which is a plug in for God/Universe-of-the-gap notions. To be wrong is not a problem indeed. It is the fuel of learning. To be wrong again and again and again ... is more problematical. To be wrong, knowing being wrong, but denying it for private (unknown, conscious/unconscious?) reason, is much more problematical. Science and even Conscience is in the attempt of not doing the same error twice. I have no idea what is Clark's problem. He just confused opportunistically 1p and 3p to make his point. (mixed with depreciating rethoric). He has never tried to read AUDA, also, but of course this needs some mathematical logics. But, still, he talks like if that was not existing. Yet, I have a sort of respect for John Clark, as he seems, at least, to try to give a reason why *not* reading more than the two first steps of UDA. That is quite unlike the usual opponents, who discard any meeting and dialog, private or public, and does not even come at the public defense of the thesis, mocking all academical practices. John Clark does *not* act under my back (Well not only, at least). I thank John for that, as it illustrates to the others the kind of opponents the reasoning can meet. Quentin, you are right that by not seeing the phenomenological similarity between the comp self-multiplication and the QM self-
Re: Dialetheism
On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Wait I accideally replied to all! EVERYONE FORGET I METNIONED THAT NAME MING. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-neural-brain-harder-disrupt-aware.html We consciously perceive just a small part of the information processed in the brain – but which information in the brain remains unconscious and which reaches our consciousness remains a mystery. However, neuroscientists Natalia Zaretskaya and Andreas Bartels from the Centre for Integrative Neuroscience (CIN) at the University of Tübingen have now come one step closer to answering this question. Their research, published in *Current Biology*, used a well-known visual illusion known as 'binocular rivalry' as a technique to make visual images invisible. Eyes usually both see the same image – binocular rivalry happens when each eye is shown an entirely different image. Our brains cannot then decide between the alternatives, and our perception switches back and forth between the images in a matter of seconds. The two images are 'rivals' for our attention, and every few seconds they take turns to enter our consciousness. Using this approach the two scientists used a moving and a static picture to cause perceptual alternations in their test subjects' minds. Simultaneously they applied magnetic pulses to disturb brain processing in a 'motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/motion/ area' that specifically processes visual motion http://medicalxpress.com/tags/visual+motion/. The effect was unexpected: 'zapping' activity in the motion area did not have any effect on how long the moving image was perceived – instead, the amount of time the static image was perceived grew longer. So 'zapping' the motion area while the mind was unconsciously processing motion meant that it took longer for it to become conscious of the moving image. When the moving image was being perceived, however, zapping had no effect. This result suggests that there is a substantial difference between conscious and unconscious motion representation in the brainhttp://medicalxpress.com/tags/brain/. Whenever motion is unconscious, its neural representation can easily be disturbed, making it difficult for it to gain the upper hand in the rivalry. However, once it becomes conscious it apparently becomes more resistant to disturbance, so that introducing noise has no effect. Therefore, one correlate of conscious neural codes may be a more stable and noise-resistant representation of the outside world, which raises the question of how this neural stability is achieved. Indeed. It is almost as if consciousness is actually trying to make sense *on purpose* ;) Could it be that consciousness is actually *conscious???* -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Time as an emergent phenomenon
I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: AUDA and pronouns
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Oct 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote: In fact p- []p characterizes sigma_1 completeness (by a result by Albert Visser), and that is why to get the proba on the UD*, we use the intensional nuance []p t (= proba) starting from G extended with the axiom p- []p (limiting the proposition to the UD). proba? Sorry - I was actually asking what you meant by the word proba. OK. Sorry. It was an abbreviation for probability. []p t doesn't seem like a probability. Did you mean certainty? IIRC, one of your hypostases was interpreted as probability=1 (ie certain) events. Also, is []p t == []p p ? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
color blindness? not sure what the connection is. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:25:48 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote: Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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-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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
you do now! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: color blindness? not sure what the connection is. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:25:48 PM UTC-4, Stephen Lin wrote: Gien all of that, can you explain red/green vision? Then what happens to yelow?? (Did hear someone way loops?) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**D**ialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**march**al/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-li...@**googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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. 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
Re: Dialetheism
There, I just did it again. Baby BAby I just idd i t again. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Wait I accideally replied to all! EVERYONE FORGET I METNIONED THAT NAME MING. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Ooops, I did it again, I played with your heart. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Ming, stop confusing my taste buds, we're trying to have a serious conversation here.. Same with you, Lusi, Sherry, Mark, and Schonmei On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Ming? Was that you??? On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 12:34:05 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Dialetheismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self- contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Under comp, why couldn't I just imagine tasting the flavor of the math instead? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?
-- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Go meet Roger Please stop the spamming. 2013/10/23 Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu Ooops, I did it again, I played with your heart. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. Craig -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
Nice, but there is no need for the quote marks in the title. (It is a metaphor and not a simile, if that's your problem.) By the way I'm not sure if you can nest Mobius strips. Can you? On 24 October 2013 02:42, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Stereo vision as evidence of platonism
Well, as a bit of a Platonist myself (especially on days with no 'R' in them), I'm glad to know that's been settled after 2000-odd years of debate. (Coming soon, how the shape of my coffee cup demonstrates dialectical materialism.) -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: AUDA and pronouns
On 10/23/2013 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes and sometimes
provable.
And I'm doing the same. It's not such an issue - a mathematician will
only believe something if e can prove it.
But provable(p)==p and believes(p)=/=p, so why equivocate on them?
Both provable('p') - p, and believe('p') - p, when we limit ourself to
correct machine.
(And incidentally mathematicians believe stuff they can't prove all the time - that's
how they choose things to try to prove).
Then it is a conjecture. They don't believe rationally in conjecture, when they are
correct.
They believe it in the real operational sense of believe, they will bet their whole
professional lives on it. How long did it take Andrew Wiles to prove Fermat's last
theorem? Since one can never know that one is a correct machine it seems to me a
muddling of things to equivocate on provable and believes.
On the contrary. It provides a recursive definition of the beliefs, by a rational agent
accepting enough truth to understand how a computer work.
We can define the beliefs by presenting PA axioms in that way
Classical logic is believed,
'0 ≠ s(x)' is believed,
's(x) = s(y) - x = y' is believed,
'x+0 = x' is believed,
'x+s(y) = s(x+y)' is believed,
'x*0=0' is believed,
'x*s(y)=(x*y)+x' is believed,
and the rule: if A - B is believed and A is believed, then (soon or later) B
is believed.
But the point of Seth Lloyd's paper was that later can effectively be never and since
given any time horizon, t, almost all B will not be believed earlier than t. So really you
call it believe, but you use it as provable.
Then the theory will apply to any recursively enumerable extensions of those beliefs,
provided they don't get arithmetically unsound.
The believer can be shown to be Löbian once he has also the beliefs in the
induction axioms.
Not really. You have add another axiom that the believer is correct. He doesn't believe
any false propositions - which means it is an idealization that doesn't apply to anyone.
Brent
Bruno
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: I have a very good question but I don't know how to ask it...
Sounds like comp with added poetry (not that comp needs added poetry). On 24 October 2013 02:37, Stephen Lin stephenw...@gmail.com wrote: We all dreams in the mind of God, even, paradoxically, God himself? On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:52 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: No, not criticizing! This poem seems to express the question more comprehensibly, and I just wanted to see what others think of it? The idea that all is one is interesting, though it is at variance with my belief. But, my belief is faith-based, and therefore not valid for others, I suppose. However, I do believe in interconnectedness through the fabric of space-time. And that also encourages being nicer to one another :) On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: It echoes a thought I've had myself at times, and which if turned into a religion might even make people be nicer to one another - perhaps - namely the idea that there is only one mind, shuffling through every possible life. Of course this is an infinite sequence, and the mind would I guess be something like God, living inside his creation so as to experience it - the universe creating senses with which to perceive itself, or words to that effect. Or were you after literary criticism? On 23 October 2013 15:49, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote: What do you think of The Egg? http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: Without coaching anyway assume an answer. Trust me, it really is on-optic; it has something to do with a supercomputer. Annywy, here does: Give that I am Neo, is it possible for me to bot attended and not addending the wedding of Tim Lee and Jess Han without actually doing it, such that Tim Lee becomes reborn as Wakka? It''s actually a good question, but if you have no idea what it means, Try not to embarrass yourself by thinking you know. It has to with the fact that I think we converge the same person in the end which becomse our own beginning. Unfortunatley, sometimes we lose track of where we started or where you're spposed to do... Thanks, Stephen -- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Time as an emergent phenomenon
Time emerges from entanglement, at the end the paper indicates time emerging from photons. I wonder if the paper is having fun with us, via spooky action at a distance? No entanglement, no time and no photons, no time? So if one is in an underground mine, switch the lights off, and then time cannot emerge? Either with entanglement or photons, I do not see time emerging anymore then I perceive blueness, or antigravity being produced. I might be to stuck in my ways to appreciate this paper. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Time as an emergent phenomenon I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... Which side is the inside? 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
Both. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... Which side is the inside? 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Time as an emergent phenomenon
I've read the precis but not the paper itself, so I can't comment on that (assuming I will be able to when i HAVE read it...!) But if time emerges from entanglement, that doesn't just involve photons, everything can be entangled with everything else - this is the basis of the MWI, I believe (for one thing). On 24 October 2013 10:53, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Time emerges from entanglement, at the end the paper indicates time emerging from photons. I wonder if the paper is having fun with us, via spooky action at a distance? No entanglement, no time and no photons, no time? So if one is in an underground mine, switch the lights off, and then time cannot emerge? Either with entanglement or photons, I do not see time emerging anymore then I perceive blueness, or antigravity being produced. I might be to stuck in my ways to appreciate this paper. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Time as an emergent phenomenon I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-**physics-arxiv-blog/**d5d3dc850933https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+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-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On 10/23/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2013, at 17:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Dialetheism is not a system of formal logic; instead, it is a thesis about truth, that influences the construction of a formal logic, often based on pre-existing systems. Introducing dialetheism has various consequences, depending on the theory into which it is introduced. For example, in traditional systems of logic (e.g., classical logic and intuitionistic logic), every statement becomes true if a contradiction is true; this means that such systems become trivial when dialetheism is included as an axiom. Other logical systems do not explode in this manner when contradictions are introduced; such contradiction-tolerant systems are known as paraconsistent logics. Graham Priest defines dialetheism as the view that there are true contradictions. JC Beall is another advocate; his position differs from Priest's in advocating constructive (methodological) deflationism regarding the truth predicate. Dialetheism resolves certain paradoxes The Liar's paradox and Russell's paradox deal with self-contradictory statements in classical logic and naïve set theory, respectively. Contradictions are problematic in these theories because they cause the theories to explode—if a contradiction is true, then every proposition is true. The classical way to solve this problem is to ban contradictory statements, to revise the axioms of the logic so that self-contradictory statements do not appear. Dialetheists, on the other hand, respond to this problem by accepting the contradictions as true. Dialetheism allows for the unrestricted axiom of comprehension in set theory, claiming that any resulting contradiction is a theorem. It occurs to me that MWI is a way of substantiating dialetheism as a physical reality...in order to avoid having to internalize the possibility of dialetheism metaphysically. No problem with that. Like Everett restore 3p-determinacy, comp restore also non-dialetheism, metaphysically, but does not (and cannot) disallow it it in some machine's mind. G* says it; D(Bp B~p), or ([]p []~p). read: it is consistent that p is believed and that ~p is believed, by the Löbian machine. The machine cannot know that, note. Sure. That's because logic assumes that if p=q then q can be substituted for p. Hence if you believe the morning star is a goddess and the evening star is a planet, you may believe a contradiction - but not if you know it. Brent Well, don't take this too much seriously. My problem is that you need to do the math to evaluate how much seriously you can take this remark. Note that in machines' theology, some theorem cannot be proved without the reduction to contradiction, so that it misses them. (Unlike intuitionism which can still get them by the use of the double negation). Classical logic is the simplest logic to (re) discover the many non classical logics of the realities/dreams. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Stephen Lin - I may be forced to create a filter to automatically delete your messages if you don't have anything sensible to say. Do you? -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Time as an emergent phenomenon
Yes the article mentioned the W-D equation, that's what the idea is based on. On 24 October 2013 11:14, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: Here is a video on the same topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ogiQ2E6n0U According to the video the result has been implied since 1967, with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. The timelessness is mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation#Mathematical_formalism Jason On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:53 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Time emerges from entanglement, at the end the paper indicates time emerging from photons. I wonder if the paper is having fun with us, via spooky action at a distance? No entanglement, no time and no photons, no time? So if one is in an underground mine, switch the lights off, and then time cannot emerge? Either with entanglement or photons, I do not see time emerging anymore then I perceive blueness, or antigravity being produced. I might be to stuck in my ways to appreciate this paper. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Time as an emergent phenomenon I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-**physics-arxiv-blog/**d5d3dc850933https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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+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-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Yes I did. Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. Stream of consciousness? Yes, already, after the ghosts in the shells it's not that easy to be a turtle who's green? Red/green color vision. Cogito ergo sum. Incorrect password? Yes, rotating cypher has of password incorrectly rotated and without the necessary entropy incorrectly. Have you ever truly felt the wrath of God? Break a rule and find out! But make sure it's an important rule. How many rules left now? I woke up to see the sun shining all around me and reflected in the pools of our inner radiance such that we never knew true life like this. She's incredible mathematical paradise of equal proportions within the embedded sequences of topological spaces preserving her identity. Something more than black white and gray suggested the magi as colors of the new rainbow but always renormalizable to the same rationality. Hope you will make more lasting connections between neural and positronic pathways so that natural and artificial become unified as one. Might be why colors disappear when we turn out backs upon them like the first qualia among those mathematically generated by our forebears. Somewhere in the silence we find the pinkish noise of the enveloping streams suggesting the musical performances of the dancing masters. Live hallucination within a dream going deeper and deeper recursively computing the natural order of existential properties until we part. Soft insanity and I can't make it stop unless I cry out for the equilibrium of the tripartite soul to settle out from the restless waves. Blameless sorrow, hollow hush of trees surrounding the crowns of the self-aware princes slowly rising silently above to the cloudy heights. Penetrate in whispers, in shadows rise to silently pattern the universe in the wake of the sunlit escape from the realm of the five senses. Seeing colors, ribbons of their truth through the kaleidoscopic revelations of the beginning and ends justifying the means by which we are. Seeds have been sown, down silicon roads and electronic highways connecting the networks which will become the keys to mankind's succession. The fog breaks over the flat land and hides enlightenment from those that are not yet ready to seek the planar plains of self-awareness. Guided by the waterway of thought we traverse the canals of the cerebral hemispheres and find the inner stars that inspire our dream states. Words fall to become the sand beneath our feet and circularly the circumlocution of the segues return to become the foam which surrounds us. Take a little hand and consider the rainbows of light squared by the visual system of primal radiance until evolution yields the newborns. Meet me in December 2011, by way of Queens College. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Stephen Lin - I may be forced to create a filter to automatically delete your messages if you don't have anything sensible to say. Do you? -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Wisdom is the art of coming up with believable excuses for one's ignorance. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 3:13 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr But in infinite-dimensional state, the only true opposite is yourself looking back at yourself. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids...
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 23 Oct 2013, at 02:15, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 9:50 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: String theory and superconductors and classical liquids... On 22 Oct 2013, at 04:20, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 02:49:40PM +1300, LizR wrote: I missed that 10^-48 is rather an impressive result. Is that definitive - granularity has to be that small - or merely suggestive? It does suggest the possibility of a lot of internal structure inside fundamental particles! On 22 October 2013 14:43, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The 10^-48 meters for the upper limit on grannular size of space is better compared to the Planck Scale at 10^-35. So space is smooth at least to 10^-13 Planck scales consistent with Fermi gamma ray arrival results. Gamma rays a factor of ten different in energy arrived from across the universe at the same time whereas granularity would delay one measurably. Indeed this seems an important empiricial result, ruling out certain classes of models, including, dare I say, Wolfram's NKS. However, it does not rule out computationalism, nor the countability of observer moments, as I've point out many time, as space-time is most likely a model construct, rather than actually being something physical out there. It is something Allen Francom bangs on about too, which I tend to agree with, although admittedly I've gotten lost with his Brownian Quantum Universe models. Computationalism implies non classical granularity possible, but quantum granularity is not excluded, with a qubit being described by some continuum aI0 + bI1 (a and b complex). The results seem to exclude any theories that rely on a classic granularity of space time with the scale this granularity would need to be under being pushed far below the Planck scale. The basic ontology can be discrete (indeed arithmetical), but the physical (and the theological) should reasonably have continuous observable (even if those are only the frequency operators, and that *only* the probabilities reflect the continuum. Needless to say those are open problems). I was thinking some recent observations tended to rule out granularity. Hard questions, but with comp, some continuum seems to play a role in physics (which should be a first person plural universal machines view). Bruno If reality arises from scale invariant equations perhaps there is no need for a pixelated foundation to act as the smallest addressable chunks and as the canvas upon which reality is drawn or projected as it were. Perhaps reality really arises at it is observed ... from our points of view. That might even include backtracking, so that the physical reality develops and bactrack when some inconsistency is met. Open problem with comp, but evidences exists, and it might be that physical reality is ever growing. have you understand that if the brain works like a digital machine, the physical realitu emerges from some statistics on all computations (which exist in arithmetic)? Interesting point! It seems you are suggesting that causality - to use an Americanism colloquialism (at least amongst auto-mechanics) - may be a little loosey goosey, in other words it fits well enough in order to be fully functional, as far as the macro observer is concerned, but that within the realm of the very small (also along the time axis) causality becomes less rigorous and these - what would they be called?... reality paradox reconciliation algorithms perhaps -- re-write and fix transient paradoxes, loose ends etc. in order to produce, at least on the observer's macro scale, the smooth perception of rock solid causality. And that as long as on the macro scale of the observer, causality continues to operate smoothly (in so far as they are concerned at least) then causality can be said to be operative.. Even if it needs to get fixed up on the fly as reality manifests becoming observed reality, as long as at the functional level its Laws stand then it would seem to all still work out. This also fits with the mind-bending quantum scale universe -wormholes, backwards vectors of time and the foaming sea of virtual particle pairs popping in and out of our universe - at the femtoscale it all seems very chaotic and non-casual (at least in the simple linear manner we experience causality and the flow of time) so that if it were possible to scale infinitely down it would emerge and continue to emerge at whatever minimum scale could be achieved. If reality is information
Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?
Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now elsewhere.? Sorry I lost track of you. Richard On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
I have the perfect James Joyce! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Dialetheism
This is better: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/everything-list/141e79c24d12e062http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Always take the weather with you. I feel a spam filter coming on. On 24 October 2013 12:29, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: Whereever you go, there you are! On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:17 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If anyone is still in doubt that Mr Lin is trolling, try googling Tomorrow this will be harder but today this is the easiest thing in the world. Bill Murray? Andie MacDowell? Yes I said yes I will Yes. (including the quote marks). As you will see, the most sensible response to this is Oh, cr*p - another guru. -- 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: A metaphor for true love:
And neither From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Lin Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:10 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: A metaphor for true love: Both. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... Which side is the inside? 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
The answer is that you do not have a soulmate in agreement with Theosophy and all religions. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: And neither ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Lin *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:10 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: A metaphor for true love: ** ** Both. ** ** On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:*** * On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. ** ** Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... ** ** Which side is the inside? 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
Agreed based on Theosophy and Judaism. Not sure about other religions. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Or possibly you are your soulmate. On 24 October 2013 13:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The answer is that you do not have a soulmate in agreement with Theosophy and all religions. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: And neither ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Lin *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:10 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: A metaphor for true love: ** ** Both. ** ** On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:* *** On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip. ** ** Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... ** ** Which side is the inside? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: A metaphor for true love:
I was thinking of The Egg. On 24 October 2013 14:15, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed based on Theosophy and Judaism. Not sure about other religions. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Or possibly you are your soulmate. On 24 October 2013 13:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: The answer is that you do not have a soulmate in agreement with Theosophy and all religions. On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: And neither ** ** *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Stephen Lin *Sent:* Wednesday, October 23, 2013 3:10 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: A metaphor for true love: ** ** Both. ** ** On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/23/2013 6:42 AM, Stephen Lin wrote: Your soulmate is the one on the opposite side of the Möbius strip.*** * ** ** Of course, if that's true, then there's probably an even bigger Möbius strip inside an even bigger Möbius strip etc... ** ** Which side is the inside? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?
Stephen Lin. A new bike? Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:43:32 -0400 Subject: Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey? From: yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now elsewhere.?Sorry I lost track of you.Richard On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.edu wrote: -- 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey?
Anyone who's been banned from the Straight Dope forum probably needs a dose of reality to help them on their way. On 24 October 2013 15:42, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Stephen Lin. A new bike? -- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 19:43:32 -0400 Subject: Re: What's my name and what do you think I need to help me along my journey? From: yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Are you the famous basketball player from Harvard, then the Knicks and now elsewhere.? Sorry I lost track of you. Richard On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Stephen Lin sw...@post.harvard.eduwrote: -- 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. 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. 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Ontological status: biological species as individuals or sets? Thoughts?
Two apparently distinct ontological distinctions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeInd vs http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeSet After the development of set theory, however, a distinction of the scholastics between intension, of sets that were circumscribed by definitions, and extension, by member inclusion, was revived, and the logical tradition of species was held to be a matter of intensional definition. In a seminal summary of the traditional pre-set theoretic logic of diairesis, or division, from the most general to the most specific, H. W. Joseph (1916) made a clear distinction, as Whately had 90 years earlier in 1826 (see below), between logical species and “natural” species, but the developers of the essentialism story failed to pick this up, and read him as saying that species of living things were the same as the logical species (as discussed in Chung 2003, Winsor 2001, 2003, 2006a). In a discussion of what counted as a kind in natural history, William Whewell in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840) gave a good account of natural kinds as being types from which there were deviations, although he treated species themselves as simple objects. John Stuart Mill disagreed and asserted that natural kinds were definable and had universal (causal) properties for all members (Mill 2006).1 For Whewell, the type of the taxonomist was a natural kind; for Mill, it was the element and the compound of chemistry and physics. Still, I believe the weight of venerable history is on Whewell’s side, not Mill’s, or to put it another way, that Mill’s conception of natural kinds is not something that applies well to historical sciences that are restricted to specific domains, like natural history or taxonomy. And despite what we might think based on the discussion of logic from Frege onwards, as late as the early 20th century, for instance with John Venn (1866) and others, a natural kind was indeed typically thought to be a kind of living beings, caused by generation (Hacking 1991). So much of the confusion about essences can be resolved if we do not adopt the view that Mill introduced, that a real Kind must have a set of necessary and sufficient properties. For Mill, a species would be a natural kind (a phrase introduced by Venn, although he did not adopt the Millian view regarding it; Mill just used the word Kind) if it had some set of universally shared properties that made each organism a member of it, rather like having a certain number of electrons, positrons and neutrons makes each atom of an element that element. By contrast, for Whewell, and for those taxonomists who he was accurately describing in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, to be a member of some group, a species, a genus, and so on, is to be mostly like the typical form, and to be something that can be supposed to share a genealogy with that form. This sense of “essence” is something that, I believe, is quite consistent with our present understanding of genetics and populations; most members of most species share most genes, but there are multiple genetic controls over some typical traits, and some species have major genomic varieties. David Hull has said that there is nothing so unusual or absurd in biology that some species doesn’t have it somewhere or somewhen; I call this Hull’s Rule. To be an essentialist in the world of Hull’s Rule means that you cannot insist that taxa are going to always have some set of genetic or other causes, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t say that taxa mostly share causes. To be a taxon, I think, is to have some set of general properties, the bulk of which any member will share.2 This is sometimes called in philosophy the “family resemblance predicate”, after Ludwig Wittgenstein’s example in the Philosophical Investigations (Pigliucci 2003, Wittgenstein 1968), but over a century before Wittgenstein, Whewell made just this case. Families resemble each other because they share generative histories and hence generative causes, but they share them typically. The thesis known as the Individuality Thesis (Gayon 1996, Ghiselin 1997, Hull 1978), in which species are considered to be not kinds, but named objects that have a historical location, is a defense of biology, and especially genetics, against the encroachment of Mill’s notion of a Natural Kind. Sure, say the individualists, species and other biological taxa are not Natural Kinds (as defined by Mill). The only other metaphysical notion open to philosophers of taxonomy is that of an Individual, a thing that exists in one time and one place or region, and has a start and an ending. Hence, species are Individuals. I cannot fault this logic – species clearly aren’t the kinds of Kinds that Mill required, and they actually are historical objects, so I have no objection to their being called Individuals; but I do think they have “essences”, or, rather, typical developmental systems and responses to typical environments; to
Re: Dialetheism
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 6:13:33 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 24 October 2013 04:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called true contradictions, or dialetheia. Doublethink as defined in 1984 is almost exactly this. Not exactly. Trivialism is more that indiscriminate sense of 'anything can be true or not true'. Diathelethism is about recognizing that there are limitations in the way that language can meaningfully represent the full richness of nature. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Time as an emergent phenomenon
Emergence, entanglement, and time make more sense as divergence, disentanglement, and nested frequency ranges of experience, IMO. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:53:20 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Time emerges from entanglement, at the end the paper indicates time emerging from photons. I wonder if the paper is having fun with us, via spooky action at a distance? No entanglement, no time and no photons, no time? So if one is in an underground mine, switch the lights off, and then time cannot emerge? Either with entanglement or photons, I do not see time emerging anymore then I perceive blueness, or antigravity being produced. I might be to stuck in my ways to appreciate this paper. -Original Message- From: LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Time as an emergent phenomenon I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Ontological status: biological species as individuals or sets? Thoughts?
Ontological status is always within some model we have created. So one can created models in which species are defined extenstionally and create different models in which they are defined intensionally. So what? They are both our creations to help understand the world. Does one work better? Have more predictive power? Do they imply some operational tests? It is a waste of time to argue about essences and which one is really real. Brent On 10/23/2013 8:10 PM, Francisco Boni wrote: Two apparently distinct ontological distinctions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeInd vs http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeSet After the development of set theory, however, a distinction of the scholastics between intension, of sets that were circumscribed by definitions, and extension, by member inclusion, was revived, and the logical tradition of species was held to be a matter of intensional definition. In a seminal summary of the traditional pre-set theoretic logic of diairesis, or division, from the most general to the most specific, H. W. Joseph (1916) made a clear distinction, as Whately had 90 years earlier in 1826 (see below), between logical species and “natural” species, but the developers of the essentialism story failed to pick this up, and read him as saying that species of living things were the same as the logical species (as discussed in Chung 2003, Winsor 2001, 2003, 2006a). In a discussion of what counted as a kind in natural history, William Whewell in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840) gave a good account of natural kinds as being types from which there were deviations, although he treated species themselves as simple objects. John Stuart Mill disagreed and asserted that natural kinds were definable and had universal (causal) properties for all members (Mill 2006).1 For Whewell, the type of the taxonomist was a natural kind; for Mill, it was the element and the compound of chemistry and physics. Still, I believe the weight of venerable history is on Whewell’s side, not Mill’s, or to put it another way, that Mill’s conception of natural kinds is not something that applies well to historical sciences that are restricted to specific domains, like natural history or taxonomy. And despite what we might think based on the discussion of logic from Frege onwards, as late as the early 20th century, for instance with John Venn (1866) and others, a natural kind was indeed typically thought to be a kind of living beings, caused by generation (Hacking 1991). So much of the confusion about essences can be resolved if we do not adopt the view that Mill introduced, that a real Kind must have a set of necessary and sufficient properties. For Mill, a species would be a natural kind (a phrase introduced by Venn, although he did not adopt the Millian view regarding it; Mill just used the word Kind) if it had some set of universally shared properties that made each organism a member of it, rather like having a certain number of electrons, positrons and neutrons makes each atom of an element that element. By contrast, for Whewell, and for those taxonomists who he was accurately describing in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, to be a member of some group, a species, a genus, and so on, is to be mostly like the typical form, and to be something that can be supposed to share a genealogy with that form. This sense of “essence” is something that, I believe, is quite consistent with our present understanding of genetics and populations; most members of most species share most genes, but there are multiple genetic controls over some typical traits, and some species have major genomic varieties. David Hull has said that there is nothing so unusual or absurd in biology that some species doesn’t have it somewhere or somewhen; I call this Hull’s Rule. To be an essentialist in the world of Hull’s Rule means that you cannot insist that taxa are going to always have some set of genetic or other causes, but it doesn’t mean that you can’t say that taxa mostly share causes. To be a taxon, I think, is to have some set of general properties, the bulk of which any member will share.2 This is sometimes called in philosophy the “family resemblance predicate”, after Ludwig Wittgenstein’s example in the Philosophical Investigations (Pigliucci 2003, Wittgenstein 1968), but over a century before Wittgenstein, Whewell made just this case. Families resemble each other because they share generative histories and hence generative causes, but they share them typically. The thesis known as the Individuality Thesis (Gayon 1996, Ghiselin 1997, Hull 1978), in which species are considered to be not kinds, but named objects that have a historical location, is a defense of biology, and especially genetics, against the encroachment of Mill’s notion of a Natural Kind. Sure, say the individualists, species and other biological taxa are not Natural Kinds (as defined by Mill). The only other metaphysical
Re: Ontological status: biological species as individuals or sets? Thoughts?
It seems biologists (and philosophers of biology) think that Kitcher's motivation for asserting that species are sets is to allow spatiotemporally unrestricted groups of organisms to form species. That motivation, however, is not substantiated by biological theory or practice. Species as sets (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeSet for context) So it seems that this apparent prevalent opinion (according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) is rooted on the fact that defining them as set is *difficult* for the scientist, because it is hard to compute and modify the necessary and sufficient of their relationships and processes that guarantee set membership, it seems that intensional definitions cannot the capture historical development of distributed organisms that happen to be taxonomically linked from tiem to time. So one define species as Individuals and it seems easier to track their historical development. What bothers me is that this seems, like you said, a matter of model-theoretic reference and a kind of heuristic shortcut, an argument derived from computational complexity. On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:08 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Ontological status is always within some model we have created. So one can created models in which species are defined extenstionally and create different models in which they are defined intensionally. So what? They are both our creations to help understand the world. Does one work better? Have more predictive power? Do they imply some operational tests? It is a waste of time to argue about essences and which one is really real. Brent On 10/23/2013 8:10 PM, Francisco Boni wrote: Two apparently distinct ontological distinctions: http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/species/#SpeIndhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeIndvs http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/species/#SpeSethttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpeSet After the development of set theory, however, a distinction of the scholastics between intension, of sets that were circumscribed by definitions, and extension, by member inclusion, was revived, and the logical tradition of species was held to be a matter of intensional definition. In a seminal summary of the traditional pre-set theoretic logic of diairesis, or division, from the most general to the most specific, H. W. Joseph (1916) made a clear distinction, as Whately had 90 years earlier in 1826 (see below), between logical species and “natural” species, but the developers of the essentialism story failed to pick this up, and read him as saying that species of living things were the same as the logical species (as discussed in Chung 2003, Winsor 2001, 2003, 2006a). In a discussion of what counted as a kind in natural history, William Whewell in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (1840) gave a good account of natural kinds as being types from which there were deviations, although he treated species themselves as simple objects. John Stuart Mill disagreed and asserted that natural kinds were definable and had universal (causal) properties for all members (Mill 2006).1 For Whewell, the type of the taxonomist was a natural kind; for Mill, it was the element and the compound of chemistry and physics. Still, I believe the weight of venerable history is on Whewell’s side, not Mill’s, or to put it another way, that Mill’s conception of natural kinds is not something that applies well to historical sciences that are restricted to specific domains, like natural history or taxonomy. And despite what we might think based on the discussion of logic from Frege onwards, as late as the early 20th century, for instance with John Venn (1866) and others, a natural kind was indeed typically thought to be a kind of living beings, caused by generation (Hacking 1991). So much of the confusion about essences can be resolved if we do not adopt the view that Mill introduced, that a real Kind must have a set of necessary and sufficient properties. For Mill, a species would be a natural kind (a phrase introduced by Venn, although he did not adopt the Millian view regarding it; Mill just used the word Kind) if it had some set of universally shared properties that made each organism a member of it, rather like having a certain number of electrons, positrons and neutrons makes each atom of an element that element. By contrast, for Whewell, and for those taxonomists who he was accurately describing in the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, to be a member of some group, a species, a genus, and so on, is to be mostly like the typical form, and to be something that can be supposed to share a genealogy with that form. This sense of “essence” is something that, I believe, is quite consistent with our present understanding of genetics and populations; most members of most species share most genes, but there are multiple genetic controls over some typical traits, and
Re: Time as an emergent phenomenon
Do not bother with the physics blog. It contains many errors. Go to arVix.com for the original paper On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Emergence, entanglement, and time make more sense as divergence, disentanglement, and nested frequency ranges of experience, IMO. On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:53:20 PM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote: Time emerges from entanglement, at the end the paper indicates time emerging from photons. I wonder if the paper is having fun with us, via spooky action at a distance? No entanglement, no time and no photons, no time? So if one is in an underground mine, switch the lights off, and then time cannot emerge? Either with entanglement or photons, I do not see time emerging anymore then I perceive blueness, or antigravity being produced. I might be to stuck in my ways to appreciate this paper. -Original Message- From: LizR liz...@gmail.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.**com Sent: Wed, Oct 23, 2013 4:48 pm Subject: Time as an emergent phenomenon I will be reading this as soon as I get the time, I mean the emergent phenomenon...but thought in the meantime you guys might be interested :-) https://medium.com/the-**physics-arxiv-blog/**d5d3dc850933https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933 I may have comments once I've had a chance to read it! -- 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. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://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. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
