Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Terren, Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical realities being computed. There is no Platonia You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in my theory. Comp needs only the arithmetical Platonia, that is, the idea that 17 is prime independently of you, me, or the (physical) universe. Without it, you can't even define what is a computation. There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our existence. Of course, if that is obvious ... Just pull your head out of your books and look around for goodness sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present moment... That is true for all conscious moments, at any time. No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation of reality is different. There is absolute certain evidence for real, actual reality. You confuse your own consciousness with reality. Something has to be real because we exist, OK. and what we exist in is reality. Perhaps, but that cannot be used to define or explain reality. Or it becomes circular. Whatever that is is the real, actual reality. Anyone who doesn't think reality actually exists is brain dead Reality exists by definition. But this does not entail that we know what reality is. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, We cannot keep adding 1 forever to get an infinity. The universe where addition is possible is only 13.7 billion years old. So you assume the usual physical universe? Your comp space (which I have still no clue at all of it consists) is born 13,7 billion years ago? Not quite old enough to get to infinity! This applies all the types of infinity you mention. Comp does not need actual infinities, but it still needs the potential infinity of all finite things (integers, or something). But finitist physicalism is indeed a way out of comp. But then your theory is non-computationalist. Do you say no to the doctor. You have already answer no, and later yes, so I am not sure. Which is it? The universe (extended quantum vacuum) So you assume quantum mechanics? has always existed but there was no clock time so there is no measure of the duration of its existence so it has not existed forever nor is it infinitely old. These are human concepts which do not apply. Time was not 'flowing' prior to the big bang. So you assume the big bang theory? I was trying to keep things simple but it is certainly possible to have big bounces. I posted a possible theory on that and entropy and gravitational reversal a couple of days ago in detail. Did you see that? I certainly don't rule out a bouncing universe. The computational universe is created by an actualization event in the generalized quantum vacuum. Perhaps a bounce, perhaps something else. Why would we need that? To define computation, you need at least the little arithmetical platonia, but then you have already a computational space (as arithmetic *is* a computational space, and is bigger than it). A good analogy is a perfectly still ocean of water. It is originally formless but forms can arise within it. The nature of the water is what determines what forms can arise within that ocean. Likewise OE (the generalized quantum vacuum) was originally formless but its intrinsic nature determines what information forms can actualize and arise and exist within it. The quantum vacuum does that. No need to generalize it. Now, you theory looks like just QM. In the original formless ocean nothing happens so there can be no observations therefore it is impossible to even confirm its existence. However once things start happening it becomes observable and one can measure it and confirm its existence. Things must be observable to properly be considered real and actual... So your original formless ocean is not real? 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 19:47, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stephen, PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization' deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on how to directly experience reality as it actually is such as: 1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness within a present moment through which clock time flows and events happen, is the direct experience of the continuing extension of the radial P-time dimension of our 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe. Our fundamental personal experience is our direct experience of the fundamental cosmological process. 2. It is possible to directly experience that everything is its information only. With understanding it becomes quite clear and directly observable that for anything to be observed and experienced it simply must consist of information. If it did not consist of information it would not be observable. What we mistake for material things in a physical universe are simply associations of different kinds of pure information. For example what we normally think of as material stone is actually an association of colors, feelings of texture, resistance to motion, temperature etc. all of which are actually just different types of information. So it is very very clear that everything is its information only, and that this can be directly experienced. In fact we all directly experience this all the time already, we just don't realize that we do. Things have no 'self-substances'. They are all pure information whose only 'substance' is OE. This is a modern statement of the ancient Vedic insight that 'all forms are empty'. 3. In my treatment of 'Realization' I also suggest that IF anyone needs a God then the only rational definition is the universe itself That is Aristotelian theology. because then there is no doubt as to God's existence, The UDA put some doubt an the ontological existence of the physical universe (but not on the physical appearances, or on its epistemological existence). and his attributes then become a matter of scientific inquiry. So Stephen, as you can see, my book is hardly the 'New Age' nonsense your knee jerk reaction imagined... It seems to me to be like an Aristotelian finitist theology. No problem, but your reality has to be non Turing emulable, to avoid the consequence of comp. In fact it needs to be not only non Turing emulable, but also non FPI recoverable (FPI = first person indeterminacy, see UDA step 3 for the detail). I am just trying to make sense of what you say. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in my theory to include everything which could become possible. Just an advise: - when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like obvious, of course, etc. - when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like well accepted. Note also that if you make a little generalization to include all the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology is unclear. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 21:27, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi, Someone wrote, not sure if it was Terren or Bruno: ... from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and will follow the path with the greater measure. This looks like some form of a self-selection!? OK. Like in the WM-duplication. It essence, any observer having a 1p means that it will always exist in the center of maximum likelihood for its existence. It is continued by the most probable computations going through its local current state. current is defined with the Dx = xx method, like all indexicals in the comp theory. Am I missing something here? I don't think so. Bruno On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2014, at 17:53, Terren Suydam wrote: Hi Bruno, On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote: Hi Bruno, Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to follow you here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of these days but unfortunately I barely have enough time these days to read this list. OK. Good book are Mendelson, Boolos and Jeffrey (and Burgess), etc. Unfortunately they asks for a lot ow work. Logic is the less known branch of math. The beginning *seems* easy, but is not (unlike computability theiory). Thanks. However one thing still nags me. I don't find it hard to imagine that given enough computational power, we could simulate a universe with alternative physics, that leads within the simulation to intelligent, conscious life forms, eventually. The simulated agent will be conscious in the 3-1 sense, but we will have to manipulate them infinitely to fail them. Indeed they can read and think like us, do the UD-Argument, and find the comp- physics, and compare it with their artificial physics, and their choice will be that either they are indeed in a normal simulation, or that comp is false. But we will have ourself an infinite task to fail them. If not they will soon or later find the discrepancies. I don't see why... see below. OK So Glak appears in our simulation. And if we can simulate it, well, it's already in the UD*, as well as the infinite computations going through Glak's state. Bur from their own 1-1 points of view, they are in the UD*, and will follow the path with the greater measure. They will not stay in the simulation. That will happen only in our 3-1 view (or 1-3-1 views). The only way I can resolve this with your reply is that I fear you have to say conscious beings cannot exist in alternative physics simulations, but I'd love to be wrong here. They can, from our points of view, but they will find themselves in the most common computations in the UD* which pass through their states. Those people stays in the simulation, only from our points of view, and this asks infinite word from our part if we want them to stay failed by our simulation. Their situation is similar with the stochastically rare witness of a quantum suicide surviver. He survived with probability 1, from their own view, but with probability near 0 for their witness (in iterated quantum suicides). If we are able to simulate a universe with alternate physics I can make sense of that. that gives rise to Glak (and there may be an infinity of different such universes), This means that your simulation of the alternate physics emulates Glak at the right level, or below. But Glak, from his real perspective belongs to *all* computations in the UD* going through his state. That is the real physics! And you cannot simulate it, a priori, as it is given by an infinite sum on all computations. then that simulation exists in the UD*. That one, yes, but also all this others. And Glak's physics is determined, below its own level, by all the simulations, not just the one you do. And of course, the UD* also contains an infinity of continuations simulating that alternative physics, and of course Glak. By the first person consciousness invariance, Glak, from his perspective, is confronted with the real physics below its subst level. It is the same for all machines, unless someone fail them in normal worlds (like us here). So, if the law of alternate physics are different from the laws of the comp-physics, Glak will see that. He might conclude that comp is false, or that he belongs to a normal reality simulating an alternate physics. So it's not clear to me that the measure of that alternative physics would be so small as to make it obvious that the alternative physics would be a white rabbit world. In this case, it is not a white rabbit world. Like in a video game, you can decide to avoid white rabbits, and to have reasonable alternate physical laws. So Glak can be conscious in the alternative physics, but unless
Re: A Theory of Consciousness
On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:27, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2014 7:17 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Friday, January 10, 2014 8:17:13 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: On 1/10/2014 10:49 AM, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:25:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: As you've explained it above your theory makes a rock just as conscious as a brain. I'm sure you must have a more subtle theory than that, so I'll ask you the same thing I asked Bruno, if I make a robot what do I have to do make it conscious or not conscious? Brent Did you receive any interesting answers? Hm, should I take that as a negative answer, or merely as a skipped question? I didn't get any answer from Mr. Owen. Bruno's answer is that the robot has to be Lobian, i.e. can do proofs by transfinite induction. Normal induction is enough. You can even limit induction on the decidable (sigma_0) formula, but then you have to add the exponential axioms: x^0 = 1 x^s(y) = x *(x^y) Those exponential axioms are not provable from addition and multiplication without induction on at least all semi-decidable (RE, sigma_1) formula. I have adequate background in neuroscience but I'm mostly ignorant of AI math, robotics work, and philosophy of mind, so excuse my rampant speculation. This is what I'd try in design of a robotic brain to switch on and off consciousness and test for its presence: First, I'd give the robot brain modules to interpret its sensory inputs in an associative manner analogous to human sensory associative regions. All these sensory inputs would feed into the decision-making module (DMM). One of the first steps taken by the DMM is determining how important each sensory signal is for its current objectives. It decides to pay attention to a subset of those signals. So is it conscious of those signals? How does it decide? 1: As described in the next two sentences of the original paragraph, no. 2: The choice of function used to select the subset is unimportant to the experiment, but if we were aiming for biomimicry then each sensory module would report a degree of stimulation, and attention function would block all signals but the most stimulated 1 to 7. Second, I'd put a switch on another input to make it part of the attention subset or not: What other input would you put a switch on? What inputs are there besides sensory? I think you've assumed conscious = self aware. Is one conscious when one is lost in thought? 1: The switch would go on the signals described in the second half of the sentence that you hastily cut in half. :D 2: Inputs besides sensory associations are important to a functioning robot but not, I predict, to a robot designed only to test for consciousness. 3: I chose to address the specific matter of qualia rather than all of what people mean by conscious, as described in the I predict this because... sentence of the original paragraph. :D 4: I suspect that the human experience of being lost in thought differs between specific cases. Most times for me that I'd call lost in thought I can still operate (drive, walk, eat) on auto- pilot which undoubtedly requires my senses to be engaged, but afterwards the only things I can recall experiencing are the thoughts I was lost in. Introspective evidence and memory being as bad as they are, that shouldn't be taken as a necessarily correct description. But if it is a correct description, then by my definitions in the original paragraph, I'd say that I was conscious. But if what you mean by conscious includes awareness of surroundings, then no, I was not conscious under that definition. Yes, it seems there are different levels and kinds of consciousness: perception of the external world, perception of one's body, modeling one's place in the external world, being aware of one's thoughts (although I think this is over rated), feelings of empathy,... the attention's choice of signals would also an input to the DMM, and I could turn on or off whether that attentional choice was itself let pass through to the next processing stages. I would predict that, with the switch turned off, the robot would be not conscious (i.e. it would have no experience of qualia), but that with the switch turned on, the robot would be conscious (i.e. it would experience qualia corresponding to the signals it is paying attention to). I predict this because it seems to me that the experience of qualia can be described as being simultaneously aware of a sensory datum and (recursively) aware of being aware of it. If the robot AI was sufficiently advanced that we could program it to talk about its experiences, the test of my prediction would be that, with the switch off, the robot would talk about what it sees and hears, and that with the switch on, the robot would also talk about fact that it knew it was seeing and hearing
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 22:27, LizR wrote: On 14 January 2014 08:07, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Jan 2014, at 14:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, No contradiction. As I clearly stated, but which apparently didn't register, the computations take place in Present Moment P-time which is NON-dimensional. Sorry, but I don't understand. To discuss on this, I need to know what you assume, and what you derive. Edgar thinks that people not understanding his theory is their fault. He hasn't worked out that the simple fact if he can't communicate it properly, that is his problem. He probably never will. He seems to suffer from an absence of confrontation with others. To be honest I think we're wasting our time discussing it further. He has not, will not and almost certainly cannot provide any formal assumptions or derivations. Or even informal one. He might learn, if his goal is to learn. But that's not to much apparent. 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. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 13 Jan 2014, at 23:26, meekerdb wrote: On 1/13/2014 11:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in my theory to include everything which could become possible. So is that just the things that can be made out of the particles that appear? Everything nomologically possible? Or everything mathematically possible, i.e. all consistent axiomatic systems. Or all worlds that have consistent descriptions, i.e. aren't self- contradictory? Possible is ambiguous. That is why modal logic exists. But some philosophers, like Quine, was extremely opposed to modal logic. he believed that possible p = necessary = p = verum(p). And, ... I agree with him, except that provability is a 100% quinean mathematical notion, and yet it defines a (pretty) bunch of modal logics (G and G*, and the unavoidable intensional variants). So Quine anti-modal stance can be said refuted by incompleteness. Some point that he made remains interesting an d even correct for too much rich Löbian machine. For example you can extend formally the G and G* logic in their quantified extension (which I note qG and qG*), but this makes precise sense only for arithmetical-like theories. A Löbian being like ZF does not admit those quantified extensions, and the technical reason for that are precise form of Quine attacks against modal logic. This provides an argument against set theoretical realism, actually, and is the reason why I don't really believe we can use set theory in an ontology of a TOE. It is already too much big. of course Tegmark naive stance on math (his MUH) is even logically stronger and basically does not make sense at all. Tegmark is in good company, as *all* attempt to formalize *all* math, done last century, have failed up to now. They have all be shown inconsistent. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, or highly non computationalist). because it clearly states that the computations of its computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real processes of nature, whatever they are. terms like necessay, actually real processes, nature must be defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of computation, you should (re)defined that term too. Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing nothing. I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as non sense many times on this list. I assume only that 17 is prime is independent of me and you. *All* scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a big discovery. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for whatsoever. It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the assumption itself isn't. I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific method. I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed phenomena. It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear inconsistent. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. So you assume: 0. non-existence cannot exist. That is too fuzzy for me. The non existence of milk in my fridge seems to be a persistent fact. Also, we have almost invent logic to avoid expression like existence exist. What is existence? existence of what? I think you could replace 1. with something exists. In which case I can agree. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. Consistent applies to theories or machines, or person, not to reality. Reality should be the intended model (in the logician sense) of your theory. You should not invoke the reality in your theory. This makes you very near inconsistency. This is really a meta-axiom, you are jet betting on rationalism. If that is the case, I can agree. Not sure what you mean by logically complete. If it means that reality satisfies all true propositions, then it is trivial. for example the arithmetical truth is defined by the set of all true arithmetical propositions. It can be seen as a theory, but not an axiomatizable one. I avoid to use theory in that sense, as it leads often to confusion. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, We can know that a reasoning is valid, but we cannot know that a statement is true, in science. but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. So reality is a program. That is digital physics, and it makes no sense. Read the UDA to grasp this. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. OK. That is a consequence of computationalism, and with evolving defined in arithmetic. How do you defined evolving? Without physical reality you cannot take any physical term for granted. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. That is a God-of-the-gap. You must avoid term like real, especially in axioms. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. In which sense. Does 17 exists? The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. That is either a form of solipsism, or an everything type of TOE. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. ? Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. You seem to rely on abnormal psychic power. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Hmm... at least this explain why you ignore my posts of yesterday, which does not exist. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. You are using a lot of words like if their meaning were obvious. You lack confrontation with others, but you don't seem to have the necessary minimal amount of doubting your own ideas to do that. You only advertise an opinion, and adopt an insulting tone when people ask questions. This will not help you, (unless you want to create a sect or something, in which case unclarity is most welcome). 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:42, LizR wrote: On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. This sounds like St Anselm's ontological argument put into a nutshell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument You are quite quick here. God existence is proved by Gödel by defining God by the owner of all positive properties, and Gödel formalized that in S5. (I believe it falls down because existence isn't a property that something may or may not have OK. although I'm willing to be corrected on that.) That was correct. 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. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non- existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: The world is rational. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. Formal rights comprise a real science. Materialism is false. Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. Concepts have an objective existence. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not. All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10 becomes Weak materialism is false, for example. Bruno Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds like Godel's 10th. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgard, You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what you are assuming at the start. So what are those minimal assumptions you took as true at the start which led to your other deductions? Thanks, Jason On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in considerable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've used is the single neologism 'ontological energy' which I've defined clearly. I can't help it if reality is a difficult subject. What frustrates me is not the disagreements which are to be expected but disagreements based on misunderstanding of what I've stated quite clearly and people thinking I've said the exact opposite. That is most certainly not a
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net Liz, That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness to criticize... The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning... your present time idea is just silly and plain false, when you say computation in fact it means kdsnlkfsfnsdklnfdslkn but not computation, etc, etc, etc... You're a joke (a bad one). Quentin Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as to what reality must be or is not. :-) Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:39:11 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book). I made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register... Yes, I know, you're surrounded by idiots. Never mind, one day everyone will tremble before your mighty intellect. In the meantime, you can always practice your maniacal laughter... -- 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. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT infinite. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the quantum vacuum. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. The set is very restricted to those actually possible in the Standard Model... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:29:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in my theory to include everything which could become possible. Just an advise: - when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like obvious, of course, etc. - when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like well accepted. Note also that if you make a little generalization to include all the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology is unclear. 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: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, or highly non computationalist). because it clearly states that the computations of its computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real processes of nature, whatever they are. terms like necessay, actually real processes, nature must be defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of computation, you should (re)defined that term too. Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing nothing. I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as non sense many times on this list. I assume only that 17 is prime is independent of me and you. *All* scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a big discovery. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for whatsoever. It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the assumption itself isn't. I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific method. I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed phenomena. It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear inconsistent. 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: Tegmark's New Book
By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book. Terren On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, or highly non computationalist). because it clearly states that the computations of its computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real processes of nature, whatever they are. terms like necessay, actually real processes, nature must be defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of computation, you should (re)defined that term too. Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing nothing. I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as non sense many times on this list. I assume only that 17 is prime is independent of me and you. *All* scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a big discovery. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for whatsoever. It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the assumption itself isn't. I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific method. I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed phenomena. It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear inconsistent. 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. -- 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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Thanks Terren, However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date. I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has been extensively revised in the book and in my posts here. So don't expect me to defend things that are several years out of date and have been extensively rethought out that you find on that site. If you want to understand my current theories either read the book or read my posts here. The stuff on the site is pretty much irrelevant at this point On the other hand if you want to know what I do for a living and why I'm not always available to post here then take a look at my business site at http://EdgarLOwen.com . Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:26:07 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book. Terren On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, or highly non computationalist). because it clearly states that the computations of its computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real processes of nature, whatever they are. terms like necessay, actually real processes, nature must be defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of computation, you should (re)defined that term too. Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing nothing. I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as non sense many times on this list. I assume only that 17 is prime is independent of me and you. *All* scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a big discovery. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for whatsoever. It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the assumption itself isn't. I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific method. I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized.
Why our fine tuning and not some other?
All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' The second fundamental question is, 'Why does what actually exists exist instead of something else?' Why is our universe as it is instead of being fundamentally different? Our universe is as it is because of what I call 'the Extended Fine Tuning'. This includes the standard fine tuning of physics plus everything else that is necessary to our universe that cannot be derived from something else. The Extended Fine Tuning is what makes our universe what it actually is. The extensions to the standard fine tuning (of which there isn't yet any consensus in physics but which basically consists of the irreducible constants of nature) necessary to explain our universe include things such as the basic laws of logic, the notion of an actual present reality that supports computationally evolving information, and whatever else is irreducibly necessary to explain our universe. So the 2nd fundamental question reduces to 'why is our extended fine tuning the fine tuning that actually exists?' There is actually a rather simple answer to this but to understand it one must be able to escape the constraints of our English syntactical structures, not an easy task for most The logic of our linguistic syntax evolved to describe what I call 'The Logic of Things', that is the basic logical constructs that seem to govern our apparent daily interactions with our apparent material environments. And our language does this quite well and quite flexibly. However the syntactical constructs of this logic of things simply do not apply when we try to extend them to the universe as a whole. When this is understood we can proceed with our argument. Now there is only one actual present state of the universe. It is absolute in the sense that whatever it is it is exactly as it is and there is no other actual possibility for what it could be because the actual fact of its existence conclusively falsifies all other possibilities. Once this is understood we must conclude that the actual current state of the universe also conclusively falsifies all other PASTS than the actual past which it evolved out of all the way back to the big bang and fine tuning which also could not have been any different than they actually were. We can always IMAGINE other possible fine tunings, but given the actual current state of the universe these other theoretical possibilities were not really possible at all! This seems to contradict the logic of syntax in which we can reasonably speak of alternate possibilities for daily events. It is reasonable to do so because in the case of daily life we can actually reconstruct different initial conditions for event networks, So the effects of some event can be reasonably considered to have been different if the initial conditions are changed because we can construct and experience an actual scenario in which they are. Thus for daily events we can reasonably speak of alternate initial states. However even here we must be extremely careful in our understanding and application of syntactical logic. Because we can never change an actual event sequence that has actually occurred. What we are doing is always constructing a new one and comparing that to the original rather than actually changing the original which is now unalterable and thus could not have been other than it actually was. Now when we try to apply the logic of things to the original fine tuning we see there can be no possibility whatsoever of actually changing it, and we see that given the current state of the universe in the present moment the original fine tuning is unalterable, and thus it could not have been any different than it actually was even in the most minute detail. In fact that is also true of the entire past which given the current actual present is unalterable and could not have been different in the finest detail. In this sense the actual present completely determines the past that completely determined it in every minute detail down to every quantum event. Thus the entire logical computational structure of past and present is completely determined and unalterable in every minute detail. Not a single iota of it could have been different that it actually was to evolve into the actual present that actually and absolutely exists right now. (Of course the future, and only the future is still subject to the constrained randomness of quantum events because it has never existed and thus is not deterministic.) Thus the actual existence of the present as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible pasts back to and including the original extended fine tuning. There is no way we can go back and change the initial conditions, therefore the standard logic of things as embodied in syntactical logic simply
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Not at all. The list of all possible things in a real world is NOT infinite. In what real world? In all real worlds? To define not finite, you need second order logic. To assume *one* finite reality is close to a blaspheme (grin) in the everything list. Some people told me that the step seven is enough for the UDA result (physics = branch of elementary number theory), as they consider that a little finite reality, the way out of comp's consequence) at step 7, is enough absurdo for them. Personally I don't know, that's why there is a step 8. The possibilities are restricted by the intrinsic nature of the quantum vacuum. Can you define quantum vacuum without assuming elementary number theory? It seems to me that you take reality for granted, by ostensive local and personal pointing. Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made public. On the contrary, I argue that nature has a simple (conceptually) *reason* to exist from the average universal numbers point of view. For example, you can't get an infinite number of different TYPES of particles out of the quantum vacuum. In which theory? As long as quantum gravitation is unclear, I would be cautious on such statements. I might be interested seeing a proof of this, in some theory, but even in that case, I would not conclude anything, unless the theory if extracted from comp, in which case I would still only make public comp implies a finite number of type of particles. Also are anyons particles? Then I doubt your statements right now, as I can write a quantum computer program generating infinitely many sort of particles. Of course I will need a powerful magnet! The set is very restricted to those actually possible in the Standard Model... So you assume the Standard Model. With comp, that's a sort of treachery. (This is not obvious at all, but should be understood easily from the UD-Argument). You might appreciate the first seven step of UDA, as they prove this: Either the physical reality is small, or physics is an arithmetical self-referential modality. But step 8 eliminates the left option. I think, although when we talk on reality, we cannot avoid some use of Occam razor, which can always be annihilated by strong reification and ontological commitment. (That's why there are fundamentalists, creationists and people like that. Nothing can change their mind). Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:29:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Jan 2014, at 20:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote: William, No, it's not the reification fallacy, unless you apply the same definition to all theories, none of which are real. Of course theories aren't reality. In any case the quantum vacuum, out of which real particles can appear, is a well accepted concept. I just generalize it a little in my theory to include everything which could become possible. Just an advise: - when working on the fundamentals, avoid terms like obvious, of course, etc. - when working in the interdisciplinary area, avoid terms like well accepted. Note also that if you make a little generalization to include all the possible, your assumed reality is no more finite, and this contradicts some of your other posts. It is unclear, as your ontology is unclear. 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. 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: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically possible mathematical universe Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory of Everything we might find that classical physics is logically self contradictory. if you believe in some hidden-variable theory, ANY hidden-variable theory, then you know that if things are realistic AND local then Bell's inequality can NEVER be violated; and that would be true in every corner of the multiverse provided that basic logic and arithmetic is as true there as here. But experiment has shown unequivocally that Bell's inequality IS violated. So you tell me, what conclusions can a logical person can draw from that? It tells us that either we must use a nonlocal hidden variables interpretation like Bohmian mechanics Yes, things might be nonlocal. or that hidden variables are wrong. Yes, things might not be realistic. And things might not be local or realistic. Did you understand that in the sentence above that you quoted, I was saying that there is nothing in principle preventing you from determining an exact quantum state for a system You can know the exact quantum state for a system, that is to say you can know the exact wave function BUT that deals in nothing observable like position or momentum; you must square that complex function for that and even then it only gives you a probability not a exactitude. And it's even worse than that because it is a complex function so two very different functions ( F(x)=2 and F(x) = -2 for a trivial example) can produce the same number when squared, and thus the same probability. You said it yourself, the rules of the Game of Life are NOT reversible, that means there is more than one way for something to get into a given state. And the present entropy of a system is defined by Boltzman as the logarithm of the number of ways the system could have gotten into the state it's in now, therefore every application of one of the fundamental rules of physics in the Game of Life universe can only increase entropy. You are failing to specify whether you mean state to refer to microstate or macrostate and thus speaking ambiguously. Oh for heaven's sake, one of the great beauties of the Game of Life is that the meaning of state is simple and crystal clear; although in that game I don't know the dividing line between microstates and macrostates so I just call them states. even with reversible laws there is more than one way to get into a given macrostate No. If there are 2 different states of the universe that could have produced things as they are now then there is no way to decide between them and history is unknowable (just as it is in the Game of Life) and the laws of physics are not reversible. The entropy is defined not in terms of some vague notion of the number of ways the system could have gotten into its present microstate, You mean its present macrostate. And I see nothing vague about it. but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in at this moment given that we only know the macrostate We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for example, even contain microstates; in fact the present thinking (a minority disagrees) is that probably they don't and a Black Hole can be completely described by just 3 numbers, its mass, spin, and electric charge. A Black Hole contains enormous entropy because there are a gargantuan number of ways it could have been formed, but if you know those 3 numbers then you know all there is to know about a particular Black Hole. And in the real world only 2 numbers are important because the electric charge is always zero. For example, suppose we consider a very small 2x2 board with only 4 cells [...] What are the laws of physics in this new game? A 2x2 board is MUCH too small for the traditional rules of the Game of Life to be applicable. And if the macrostate is 0 black:4 white there's only one possible microstate (same for 4 black:0 white), so this is the lowest possible entropy I don't know about this new game of yours because I don't know what the rules are but in the Game of Life a solid block of nothing but active cells would be in the lowest possible entropy state because the fewest previous states could have produced it. Actually I should have said the lowest impossible entropy state because NO previous state could have produced it, zero. A solid block of nothing but dead cells would have the highest entropy because more previous states than any other could have produced it, and entropy is the logarithm of the number of those states. If it starts out in a macrostate of maximum entropy [...] Then nothing the laws of physics do to it can increase it's entropy regardless of what those laws
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: 1. The world is rational. 2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). 3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). 4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. 5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. 6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. 7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). 8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. 9. Formal rights comprise a real science. 10. Materialism is false. Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett. 1. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. 2. Concepts have an objective existence. 3. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. 4. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not. All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10 becomes Weak materialism is false, for example. Bruno Bruno, What is the distinction between materialism and weak materialism? I tried to search on Google but found no clear answer. Thanks. Jason Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds like Godel's 10th. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgard, You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but not what you are assuming at the start. So what are those minimal assumptions you took as true at the start which led to your other deductions? Thanks, Jason On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, I've already presented a good part of my theory repeatedly in considerable detail giving good logical arguments. The only 'jargon' I've used is the single neologism 'ontological energy'
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 15:17, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... She was not really wrong. She alluded to the equations that Newton provided. She was restricting Newton to the more formal part of his discovery. For a logician, this is still informal, but at least it is mathematical, and the correspondence with nature are enough clear to make it testable and refutable (and refuted, despite a long period of wonderful explanatory successes). For a logician, formal means that you give the alphabet, the grammar, the axioms and the deductive rules, so that if someone pretend to have a proof, we can check mechanically if the proof is valid. Note that logicians reason informally, like physicists and mathematicians. They just work on the subject of formal systems, which are essentially machines, or generalization of machines. But in the fundamental, it is very useful to make the ontology formal or at least precise enough, even if reasoning on it more informally after. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory cannot be fundamental (unless you explicitly make it dualist, or highly non computationalist). because it clearly states that the computations of its computational reality are precisely what is actually necessary to compute the real processes of nature, whatever they are. terms like necessay, actually real processes, nature must be defined. Anad as you do NOT use the satandard mathematical notion of computation, you should (re)defined that term too. Bruno's on the other hand makes the wild and unsubstantiated assumption that all possible math is 'out there' in reality somehow even if it's doing nothing. I do not that assumption. tegmark does it, but I have criticize it as non sense many times on this list. I assume only that 17 is prime is independent of me and you. *All* scientist assumes this. Even you assume this when mentioning for example the quantum vacuum. If you can define it without assuming arithmetical realism, then publish a paper, because that would be a big discovery. A very improbable assumption there is no empirical evidence for whatsoever. It is even inconsistent. But I do not assume it. Doesn't matter in the least if the logical consequences of that initial assumption are tight and valid (a formalized theory) if the assumption itself isn't. I just hope you guys understand what I'm saying is a basis of scientific method. I doubt that this is the case. We still don't know you basic assumptions. You don't have a theory, even an informal one. Doesn't matter so much if a theory is formalized. What matters is its explanatory power and consistency with actually observed phenomena. It must make sense before. Non sensical theory have easily a lot of explanatory power, but it eventually explains to much and appear inconsistent. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Jason, There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists. It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists assume their must be multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all. Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you.. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang really far away that we cannot see? Or for that matter another universe altogether, with different laws? I see only assertions from you, but no reasons, arguments, justifications, etc. See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real and actual can be infinite We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it. There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from existing? Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big bangs, what does it get wrong? I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains reality as it is observed. If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many. There is not only one computation being performed in OE. There are uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those that are actually being computed, Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it before our eyes. and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'? I don't consider these wild what ifs, these are legitimate questions, which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists. Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the current logical structures of their information environments. They exist and function within their information environments to the extent that sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external reality in its simulation of it. So if every being only has access to their local environments, what justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)? Biological organisms do function effectively in their information environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings, meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal simulation of it. I agree. The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi. Descartes cast serious doubt on this and he hasn't been refuted in the hundreds of years since making his ideas public. We can know that our thought is real, and from there maybe guess that some thinker is real, but beyond that the foundation becomes very shaky and you won't find any proof that what you think is real in your perceptions correspond to reality, unless you go so far as to say perceptions are the only reality. But then you will fall into solipsism and immaterialism. Jason If our functioning works according to some set of rules then those rules are reality, if our functioning doesn't work then the rules we functioned by are sci fi, or worse, delusion. Truth is internal consistency of our simulation across maximum scope. If there is some inconsistency then we
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the quantum level. Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb. The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs. Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties washed out by interactions with other particles The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is certainly at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside a huge chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an astronomical number of other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth 209 is 1.9 * 10^19 years. Why? It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good at predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know the outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy initial conditions. OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is still false, Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not symmetrical. To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical, Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical. and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions. Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that idea I wonder? :-) There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't actually exist. You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a whole. It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on Why our Fine Tuning for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole. When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY exists. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:05:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are you being purposefully dense? I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, You wrote below, No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. We're pretty sure there's one possible world - since we're in it. So either there's just one possible world (this one). Or there is more than one possible world. So which is it? You're the one contradicting yourself here. I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. I even put the words POSSIBLE and ACTUAL in caps to make it easy to understand. Pay attention to your own logic. Stating there is only one actual world is compatible with that being the only possible world, or one world actualized out of many possible - hence my question. I now take that you think there are more possible worlds than the actual one we experience. Is that how you allow for quantum randomness: one possible world is realized from the random ensemble that QM predicts? Of course that doesn't completely falsify pink rabbits or any other kind of alternate realty but there is no evidence for those things. Now you are criticizing my theory because it doesn't explain things for which there is no evidence whatsoever? Get real! Where did I criticize your theory (except the relativity part)? I just asked questions. I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do... But when there are multiple possible worlds but only one actual world, then a theory of everything needs to explain why only the one is actual. Maybe that's beyond your theory, which is OK; not every theory has to be a theory of everything. Brent Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. So there is only one possible world. That would seem to imply the world is determinstic. How do you account for quantum randomness? Are you assuming hidden variables or hyperdeterminism? There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality, and all of those simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly based in the actual logic of reality at least in their essentials. Because these are real world views of real biological organisms. They have to be accurate in their essentials for the organisms to exist and function. Yes that's all very well. We and other beings model the world in our minds. And (we hope) those models are accurate. But that does not logically entail that there cannot be other worlds with different physics and different beings making mental models of it. Are you just asserting it as a contingent fact, or do you have some argument that only this world with its physics is possible? I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in many possible worlds with alternative physics, etc. when I've consistently argued just the opposite. So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible world. You've just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it. That doesn't logically entail that no other real worlds are possible. Brent Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Terren, No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is not in accordance with the
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non- existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: The world is rational. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. Formal rights comprise a real science. Materialism is false. Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. Concepts have an objective existence. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not. All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10 becomes Weak materialism is false, for example. Bruno Bruno, What is the distinction between materialism and weak materialism? I tried to search on Google but found no clear answer. Thanks. Weak materialism is the belief in primitive matter, or the belief that matter must be assumed, and is not a derivable emerging notion. Both dualist and material-monist are weak materialist. I would prefer to call that materialism simply. But I am forced to add weak because the term materialism in philosophy of mind has a different meaning. It means belief in *only* matter, the rest being emergent. It is opposed to dualism, which is weak materialism and weak mentalism. Materialism, in philosophy of mind is a material or physical monism. To sum up: weak materialism = belief in primitive matter. weak idealism = belief in primitive ideas materialism = belief in only matter idealism = belief in only ideas.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness. Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what its state is and how it is changing. So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a consequence of your theory if I'm not mistaken). What does it take to know things? You never answered my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot. You evaded it by saying conscious wasn't well defined. And I agree that there are levels and kinds of consciousness. But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot that had that kind of consciousness. What would it take for a robot know things? Does the Mars Rover know things? anything? 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: Tegmark's New Book
Jason, Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. High School? By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically complete because the next step is always computable because it's always being computed. Human math is not logically complete because humans can formulate well formed statements in math without first computing them from axioms, and ONLY THEN try to compute them from the axioms. Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try to reach them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state from the current state which it can always do. Thus reality math is logically complete. Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated, without changes to it's axioms to bring it in line with reality math. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: 1. The world is rational. 2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). 3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). 4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. 5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. 6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. 7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). 8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. 9. Formal rights comprise a real science. 10. Materialism is false. 11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. 12. Concepts have an objective existence. 13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. 14. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not. Your point 2 sounds like Godel's first point, and your fifth one sounds like Godel's 10th. Jason Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:55:38 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: Edgard, You've described the conclusions you've come to in theory, but
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Dear Bruno, I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an idea of a mind. Even if such a mind is degenerate in that it cannot be ever complete, it still have finite subsets that are indistinguishable from finite minds. The eternal running of the UD is such a eternal process. Replace the Parmenides' Being with Heraclitus' Becoming and Plato is correct. We cannot forget that numbers, like any other representation can be self-defining and thus the mind in the numbers is the mind that contains the numbers, thus it is only neutral when both it and its infinite physical implementations vanish into the Void. Only the Void is neutral. On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 17:31, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 06:47, Jason Resch wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: 1. The world is rational. 2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). 3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). 4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. 5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. 6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. 7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). 8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. 9. Formal rights comprise a real science. 10. Materialism is false. Unfortunately, Gödel still believed in the weak materialism, and so was skeptical and hesitating on Church thesis and computationalism. He missed the consequences,as Einstein (and himself) missed Everett. 1. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. 2. Concepts have an objective existence. 3. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. 4. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not. All points are consistent with comp. But comp makes stronger statement: 10 becomes Weak materialism is false, for example. Bruno Bruno, What is the distinction between
Re: Tegmark's New Book
Liz, Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited. That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious. As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a mass-energy content in one cell dilating it. That automatically produces a curvature in the rubber sheet around that mass-energy consistent with the effects of space curvature in GR. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:52:24 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 14 January 2014 16:49, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts of particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws that govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the fundamental computations that determine most of the structure of the universe OK, but I would imagine most conservations laws don't require much computation - aren't they more akin to storing (i.e. conserving) data? How and where is the code stored? There is no 'where' in a non-dimensional computational space. How it is stored I intimated in an earlier response of an hour or so ago. It's stored as combinations of code and data in the actual process of evolving computationally. I don't understand what you mean by the code and data are stored in the process of evolving computationally How do the computations decide what data they will interact with? The computations include the data they compute in one information structure as explained above. Where does that data come from? Is there any interaction between adjacent computations? (Are there such things as adjacent computations? If there isn't, how does locality emerge?) What grid cells? Aren't you familiar with the standard rubber sheet model of GR? The rubber sheet has grid cells drawn on it. The grid cells drawn in embedding diagrams are there to show the metrical properties of space-time, while the computations you're talking about are, I believe, what *generates* space-time. I don't (as yet) see an obvious connection between the two. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Liz, See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this question... Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:53:23 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've programmed a number of them myself. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Liz, That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept... No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a simulated world, and then it would be equivalent to a character living in a video game. So there wouldn't be someone living outside the game, strapped to a couch with wires and tubes, in this particular case. Do you think it's impossible to create an AI, even in principle? On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the game? If so he has to actually be living outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a couch with wires and tubes) and thus subject to the actual laws of reality. If someone is just a character in a video game then he is not a real and actual being and totally irrelevant. I can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously... Lots of people take the idea of artificial intelligence seriously. -- 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: Tegmark's New Book
Bruno, 'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of reality itself, not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual things have individual localized existences, but existence (reality) itself is everywhere because it defines the logical space of reality by its existence. The Axiom of Existence means there was never a nothingness out of which somethingness (the universe) was created. Milk is created by female mammals in case you had some doubt? :-) Next question: Reality IS a computational MACHINE in the general sense of machine. Thus of course consistency applies to it. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:30:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 04:38, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. So you assume: 0. non-existence cannot exist. That is too fuzzy for me. The non existence of milk in my fridge seems to be a persistent fact. Also, we have almost invent logic to avoid expression like existence exist. What is existence? existence of what? I think you could replace 1. with something exists. In which case I can agree. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. Consistent applies to theories or machines, or person, not to reality. Reality should be the intended model (in the logician sense) of your theory. You should not invoke the reality in your theory. This makes you very near inconsistency. This is really a meta-axiom, you are jet betting on rationalism. If that is the case, I can agree. Not sure what you mean by logically complete. If it means that reality satisfies all true propositions, then it is trivial. for example the arithmetical truth is defined by the set of all true arithmetical propositions. It can be seen as a theory, but not an axiomatizable one. I avoid to use theory in that sense, as it leads often to confusion. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, We can know that a reasoning is valid, but we cannot know that a statement is true, in science. but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. So reality is a program. That is digital physics, and it makes no sense. Read the UDA to grasp this. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. OK. That is a consequence of computationalism, and with evolving defined in arithmetic. How do you defined evolving? Without physical reality you cannot take any physical term for granted. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. That is a God-of-the-gap. You must avoid term like real, especially in axioms. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. In which sense. Does 17 exists? The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. That is either a form of solipsism, or an everything type of TOE. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. ? Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. You seem to rely on abnormal psychic power. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Hmm... at least this explain why you ignore my posts of yesterday, which does not exist. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. You are using a lot of words like if their meaning were obvious. You lack confrontation with others, but you don't seem to have the necessary minimal amount of doubting your own ideas to do that. You only advertise an opinion, and adopt an insulting tone when people ask questions. This will not help you, (unless you want to create a sect or
Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness
Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousnesshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqDP34a-epI A very good presentation with lot of overlap on my views. He proposes similar ideas about a sensory-motive primitive and the nature of the world as experience rather than “objective”. What is not factored in is the relation between local and remote experiences and how that relation actually defines the appearance of that relation. Instead of seeing agents as isolated mechanisms, I think they should be seen as more like breaches in the fabric of insensitivity. It is a little misleading to say (near the end) that a spoon is no more public than a headache. In my view what makes a spoon different from a headache is precisely that the metal is more public than the private experience of a headache. If we make the mistake of assuming an Absolutely public perspective*, then yes, the spoon is not in it, because the spoon is different things depending on how small, large, fast, or slow you are. For the same reason, however, nothing can be said to be in such a perspective. There is no experience of the world which does not originate through the relativity of experience itself. Of course the spoon is more public than a headache, in our experience. To think otherwise as a literal truth would be psychotic or solipsistic. In the Absolute sense, sure, the spoon is a sensory phenomena and nothing else, it is not purely public (nothing is), but locally, is certainly is ‘more’ public. Something that he mentioned in the presentation had to do with linear algebra and using a matrix of columns which add up to be one. To really jump off into a new level of understanding consciousness, I would think of the totality of experience as something like a matrix of columns which add up, not to 1, but to “=1″. Adding up to 1 is a good enough starting point, as it allows us to think of agents as holes which feel separate on one side and united on the other. Thinking of it as “=1″ instead makes it into a portable unity that does something. Each hole recapitulates the totality as well as its own relation to that recapitulation: ‘just like’ unity. From there, the door is open to universal metaphor and local contrasts of degree and kind. *mathematics invites to do this, because it inverts the naming function of language. Instead of describing a phenomenon in our experience through a common sense of language, math enumerates relationships between theories about experience. The difference is that language can either project itself publicly or integrate public-facing experiences privately, but math is a language which can only face itself. Through math, reflections of experience are fragmented and re-assembled into an ideal rationality – the ideal rationality which reflects the very ideal of rationality that it embodies. -- 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: Tegmark's New Book
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Thanks Terren, However I should point out that the stuff on this site is way out of date. I added nothing to it during the several years I was writing my book, and almost everything there in the way of the topics germane to this group has been extensively revised in the book and in my posts here. So don't expect me to defend things that are several years out of date and have been extensively rethought out that you find on that site. If you want to understand my current theories either read the book or read my posts here. The stuff on the site is pretty much irrelevant at this point On the other hand if you want to know what I do for a living and why I'm not always available to post here then take a look at my business site at http://EdgarLOwen.com . Why didn't you post that site at the start? Your theory would have been clear to the list that. You sell antiques. P-Time, one world, self-evidence as truth because it's there obviously from the past...hmm, figures. Hope your search is fruitful, though you may want to consider the formality issues some have raised concerning theoremhood, because this might not just mislead possible readers, but yourself as well. Everybody is enamored by their own personal thoughts. Especially today. To mistake some performance of confidence of personal views for science is like selling blueprints for castles, without knowing they could be made of sand, to stay in antique context. But that's what's great about 3rd person independently verifiable perspectives: pushing ourselves to spell it all out, on every level, so that everybody has the means to verify. This, taken seriously, erodes status, ideological schools of thought and their tyranny, and all our other crutches that sell us the idea that we don't have to think. Heroes, Gurus, Gods, Scientists, job titles and teachers included. To thwart any elitism nonsense: I don't care too much about what some public perceives to be formal status or prestige. There are plumbers, homeless people, and bus drivers more scientific, open, rigorous, and clear than many ivy league idiots hiding in their ivory towers. Because you use your judgement so carelessly however (Why Bruno is so obviously wrong...blah, blah to Liz just now, for example), you indicate your current attitude clearly. I ask of you not to hog the floor of the list for reasons like spamming patronizing statements on people's work you haven't read. PGC Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:26:07 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: By the way, those looking for perhaps a little more substance for Edgar's theories might enjoy his public blog at http://edgarlowen.info/ edgar.shtml, there is some material there that presumably also appears in his book. Terren On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Bruno, Thanks for clarifying this for the group. Please let Liz know that she was wrong in stating that physics was on a formal basis long ago... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:01:51 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jan 2014, at 00:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, Sigh Now we have several people complaining because I haven't offered a 'formal theory'. However not a single one of the complainers has themselves offered a formal theory even though they are continually offering theories of their own, none of which are formalized. Is that fair? The only person on this group who has a formal theory that I'm aware of is Bruno. No one else? You don't have one of your own but you are criticizing me because I don't have one? What you guys don't seem to understand is that whether a theory accurately describes reality or not is a much more important criterion than whether that theory is formalized or not. Physics described reality quite accurately for years before it reached its current degree of formalization and that's why it was accepted. Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work informally. Doesn't really matter whether you have a formal theory or not if there is no connection to reality now does there? Bruno's theory is apparently quite tightly formalized The main reasoning is not formal (UDA), yet rigorous. formalizing in logic, just mean interviewing some machine, usually in case where the machine is plausibly sound (like PA, ZF). but I see none of the required actual consistency with reality to indicate it actually applies to reality at all. Bruno's theory may itself be logically consistent, but I see no consistency with actual reality. Nobody can see or prove consistency of a monist TOE (which include the maker of the theory). The question should be do you see an inconsistency? Mine on the other hand is entirely consistent with actual reality Then you cannot belong as object of talk in your theory, and your theory
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jason, There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists. That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one physical universe. It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time thinking about it. Fine tuning, eternal inflation, no collapse theories, string theory, arithmetical realism, to name a few. Also, I could throw the same argument back at you: until you give me some evidence this is the only possible universe that can exist, why should I waste my time with the conclusions you draw from that? As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists assume their must be multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all. Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you.. What are your arguments? All I see is I see no evidence for X so I won't waste my time with X and instead will decide to believe X is false. This is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, there is substantial evidence for many of the above theories I mentioned, all of which have multiple universes as a consequence. Jason On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. You believe there is only one physical universe, right? What is your justification for this? How do you know there wasn't another big bang really far away that we cannot see? Or for that matter another universe altogether, with different laws? I see only assertions from you, but no reasons, arguments, justifications, etc. See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real and actual can be infinite We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it. There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from existing? Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big bangs, what does it get wrong? I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains reality as it is observed. If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many. There is not only one computation being performed in OE. There are uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those that are actually being computed, Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it before our eyes. and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'? I don't consider these wild what ifs, these are legitimate questions, which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists. Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the current logical structures of their information environments. They exist and function within their information environments to the extent that sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external reality in its simulation of it. So if every being only has access to their local environments, what justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)? Biological organisms do function effectively in their information environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings, meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal simulation of it. I agree. The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi. Descartes cast serious
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one? And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but it's logically possible. Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is adolescent fantasy. It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information that can be processed. Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What are wavefunctions?
On 1/14/2014 8:33 AM, John Clark wrote: but rather as the number of possible microstates the system might be in at this moment given that we only know the macrostate We don't even know for a fact that some macroscopic objects, like Black Holes for example, even contain microstates; in fact the present thinking (a minority disagrees) is that probably they don't and a Black Hole can be completely described by just 3 numbers, its mass, spin, and electric charge. A Black Hole contains enormous entropy because there are a gargantuan number of ways it could have been formed, but if you know those 3 numbers then you know all there is to know about a particular Black Hole. And in the real world only 2 numbers are important because the electric charge is always zero. For example, suppose we consider a very small 2x2 board with only 4 cells [...] What are the laws of physics in this new game? A 2x2 board is MUCH too small for the traditional rules of the Game of Life to be applicable. And if the macrostate is 0 black:4 white there's only one possible microstate (same for 4 black:0 white), so this is the lowest possible entropy I don't know about this new game of yours because I don't know what the rules are but in the Game of Life a solid block of nothing but active cells would be in the lowest possible entropy state because the fewest previous states could have produced it. Actually I should have said the lowest impossible entropy state because NO previous state could have produced it, zero. A solid block of nothing but dead cells would have the highest entropy because more previous states than any other could have produced it, and entropy is the logarithm of the number of those states. You seem to have a non-standard view of entropy in statistical mechanics. It is NOT the log of the number of ways a macro-state could form. That would be ambiguous in any case (do different order of events count as different ways?...different paths to the events?). The entropy is the log of the number of micro-states consistent with the macro-state. A black hole has entropy because it has a temperature, which implies that it has micro-states. And the relationship between energy and temperature implies that the number of micro-states is the event horizon area measured in Planck units. To say it only has mass, charge, and angular momentum is just to give a classical macro-state description, like saying gas in a vessel just has pressure, temperature, and volume. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made public. So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you are embarrassed to admit it? :-) 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that idea I wonder? :-) There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't actually exist. You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a whole. No, I'm not. I'm asking about quantum mechanics. Are you denying that there are different possible outcomes in measuring the spin a particle along the x-axis after it has been measured along the y-axis? We only observe one outcome. So how does your theory model the apparent randomness? Brent It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on Why our Fine Tuning for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole. When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY exists. Edgar -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness. Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what its state is and how it is changing. So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal. Brent So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a consequence of your theory if I'm not mistaken). What does it take to know things? You never answered my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot. You evaded it by saying conscious wasn't well defined. And I agree that there are levels and kinds of consciousness. But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot that had that kind of consciousness. What would it take for a robot know things? Does the Mars Rover know things? anything? 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:46:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one? And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but it's logically possible. Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is adolescent fantasy. It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information that can be processed. Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even commented on it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III of my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that idea I wonder? :-) There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't actually exist. You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a whole. No, I'm not. I'm asking about quantum mechanics. Are you denying that there are different possible outcomes in measuring the spin a particle along the x-axis after it has been measured along the y-axis? We only observe one outcome. So how does your theory model the apparent randomness? Brent It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on Why our Fine Tuning for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole. When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY exists. Edgar -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Its looks like you still haven't gotten around to reading the simulation argument (despite my having posted it multiple times). If you assert X, and someone says, wait a moment doesn't Y imply not X, you can't just pretend Y isn't there and keep asserting X. Jason -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness. Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what its state is and how it is changing. So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal. Brent So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a consequence of your theory if I'm not mistaken). What does it take to know things? You never answered my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot. You evaded it by saying conscious wasn't well defined. And I agree that there are levels and kinds of consciousness. But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot that had that kind of consciousness. What would it take for a robot know things? Does the Mars Rover know things? anything? 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-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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 January 2014 16:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, The elements of the set are the information encoding the current state of the universe and how it is evolving - whatever that may be. What that may be needs to be further clarified. So let me get this right. You have a theory which must be true because (a) you can't imagine that any alternative could be correct, and (b) you can't get to grips with any of the objections that have been raised (I don't count I've already explained that or It's all in my book or You're all idiots as getting to grips. Anyone with an actual theory would be happy to go over the details as often as necessary). And on top of that you don't, yourself, know any of the details of how your theory works. Maybe idea or vague hunch would be a better term? -- 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 January 2014 16:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... I generally consider that *dualism* has too many basic concepts (as Stephen will tell you :) And anyone who understands their own ideas should be able to tell us what is a basic concept and what is a derived concept. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Edgar, 1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious? 2. Do you believe replacing your neurons one-by-one with synthetic (non-biological but fully functional) neurons would result in you losing consciousness? 3. Do you believe if these synthetic neurons communicated wirelessly with a computer to decide whether or not to fire you would still be conscious? 4. Do you believe if the computer contained the mapping of all the synthetic neurons inside a file on its disk (rather than it being stored as a structure inside your skull) that the computer decisions would still be the same? 5. Do you think the calculations performed entirely in this computer program would be any less conscious than when it was communicating wirelessly to the synthetic neurons outside the computer? Do you think this entirely self-contained program on the computer would be conscious in the same way you are with a biological brain? If not at what step do you answer no? Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question Why don't you just plainly say what the above means: I believe you are dumb because you asked that question. Jason Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness. Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what its state is and how it is changing. So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal. Brent So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a consequence of your theory if I'm not mistaken). What does it take to know things? You never answered my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot. You evaded it by saying conscious wasn't well defined. And I agree that there are levels and kinds of consciousness. But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot that had that kind of consciousness. What would it take for a robot know things? Does the Mars Rover know things? anything? 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-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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
Re: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
You don't consider Newton's Law of Gravitation to be a formal theory? How
much more formal can you get than defining space and time and mass and
force then relating them all with
[image: F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\]
?
I'm guessing you mean something different by a formal theory to what I
would understand by that phrase.
When I ask Edgar for a formal theory I'd be delighted to get something like
Newton's law of gravitation rather than a load of hand waving verbiage.
--
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: Tegmark's New Book
On 15 January 2014 08:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity on that kind of argument, at least when made public. So in private you are convinced, but as a professor of logic you are embarrassed to admit it? :-) We all have out guilty pleasures! -- 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: Why our fine tuning and not some other?
On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist. -- 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 are wavefunctions?
On 15 January 2014 05:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: We know better than to think classical physics represents an exact description of our universe, but it certainly describes a logically possible mathematical universe Maybe but we don't know that with certainty, if we ever find a Theory of Everything we might find that classical physics is logically self contradictory. We already know that it may contain singularities, which could be considered at least physically problematical if not downright logically inconsistent (especially by people who don't think anything real can be infinite). Of course GR fails on that basis too. -- 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 are wavefunctions?
On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the quantum level. Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb. The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs. Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties washed out by interactions with other particles The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is certainly at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside a huge chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an astronomical number of other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth 209 is 1.9 * 10^19 years. Why? Because that's how long it takes for the relevant particles to get over the potential barrier. But this is irrelevant. Atomic nuclei are (probably) already on the wrong side of the entropy fence in any case. They're bound states which can only occur under certain special cirumstances, namely when the universe expands and cools enough to allow them to form. And atomic nuclei haven't been used to violate Bell's inequality as far as I know. It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good at predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know the outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy initial conditions. OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is still false, Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not symmetrical. Except below the level of coarse graining at which entropy operates, that is correct. And I never claimed otherwise. As I keep saying, I'm only claiming this is relevant in special circumstances like EPR experiments. To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical, Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical. ...is just words. Stop nitpicking. If the laws of physics are time symmetrical, that has a potential influence on EPR experiments. and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions. Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical. Stop playing with words. The time symmetry of fundamental physics is there, so it's perfectly valid to say time is symmetrical below the level of coarse graining needed to derive the 2nd law, and asymmetrical above it. (That's virtually a simple restatement of Boltzmann's H-theorem for dummies.) The point is that symmetrical time may become apparent in EPR setups. You haven't yet given even a suggestion of a reason why it wouldn't, just a load of hand waving about stuff that is IRRELEVANT to EPR experiments, which are carefully prepared to avoid all the influences you've mentioned. Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that time symmetry of physics could account for the special situation which has to be created to obtain EPR results? -- 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 are wavefunctions?
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant loopholes to argue about, so let's try again. Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that the time symmetry of fundamental physics could account for the results obtained in EPR experiments? On 15 January 2014 10:01, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:11, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Retro-causality (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the quantum level. Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as desired, you could connect it up to an H-bomb. The dividing line appears to be roughly where decoherence occurs. Basically anything above a single quantum entity engaged in a carefully controlled interaction is liable to get its time symmetric properties washed out by interactions with other particles The nucleus of an atom is tiny even by atomic standards so it is certainly at the quantum level, and in its natural state of existing inside a huge chunk of irregular gyrating matter this tiny thing is constantly subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from an astronomical number of other clumsy atoms; and yet the half life of Bismuth 209 is 1.9 * 10^19 years. Why? Because that's how long it takes for the relevant particles to get over the potential barrier. But this is irrelevant. Atomic nuclei are (probably) already on the wrong side of the entropy fence in any case. They're bound states which can only occur under certain special cirumstances, namely when the universe expands and cools enough to allow them to form. And atomic nuclei haven't been used to violate Bell's inequality as far as I know. It's just a fact, if time were symmetrical then you'd be just as good at predicting the future as you are at remembering the past, so you'd know the outcome of an experiment before you performed it just as well as you remember setting up the apparatus. But this is not the way things are because the second law exists. And the second law exists because of low entropy initial conditions. And I don't know why there were low entropy initial conditions. OK. So the above statement of yours about predicting the future is still false, Yes it's false, I don't think this will come as a great news flash but the truth is we're not as good at predicting the future as we are at remembering the past. And the reason we're not is that time is not symmetrical. Except below the level of coarse graining at which entropy operates, that is correct. And I never claimed otherwise. As I keep saying, I'm only claiming this is relevant in special circumstances like EPR experiments. To recap briefly -- the laws of physics are time symmetrical, Yes, the fundamental laws of physics, the ones we know anyway, seem to be time symmetrical. But that doesn't mean that time is symmetrical. ...is just words. Stop nitpicking. If the laws of physics are time symmetrical, that has a potential influence on EPR experiments. and most particle interactions are constrained by boundary conditions. Yes, and that is why time is NOT symmetrical. Stop playing with words. The time symmetry of fundamental physics is there, so it's perfectly valid to say time is symmetrical below the level of coarse graining needed to derive the 2nd law, and asymmetrical above it. (That's virtually a simple restatement of Boltzmann's H-theorem for dummies.) The point is that symmetrical time may become apparent in EPR setups. You haven't yet given even a suggestion of a reason why it wouldn't, just a load of hand waving about stuff that is IRRELEVANT to EPR experiments, which are carefully prepared to avoid all the influences you've mentioned. Now how about discussing what I've actually claimed, that time symmetry of physics could account for the special situation which has to be created to obtain EPR results? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this question... Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling emoticon here) OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model the part of your brain that stores them. So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be earth-Edgar. Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a virtual world, and if so, how? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Yes, just sci-fi like heavier than air flying machines, robots and rockets to the Moon. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this question... Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling emoticon here) OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model the part of your brain that stores them. So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be earth-Edgar. Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a virtual world, and if so, how? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 09:20, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even commented on it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III of my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone... That's because so far you haven't come out with anything convincing on the stuff we *have *registered. To paraphrase someone, It is conceivable there is something to what you are saying, but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste any more of my time thinking about 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 09:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question It was based on your assertion that Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. A character in a video game has more intelligence and awareness of its surroundings than a thermostat. So if it's a dumb question, it's based on your dumb claim. Also you are a thoroughly rude and unpleasant person (and going by comments like the above, a rather stupid one). -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1... Teehee. Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal. This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss discussions with some real meat in them. -- 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: Tegmark and consciousness
Brent: thanks for submitting Colin Hales' words! I lost track of him lately in the West-Australian deserts (from where he seemed to move to become focussed on being accepted for scientific title(s) by establishment-scientist potentates - what I never believed of him indeed). I loved (and tried to digest to some extent) his earlier 'words' - making them fundamental to my developing agnosticism. Brent, to your short closing remark: I do not equate 'being conscious' with the domain-adjective of consciousness - it may be a certain aspect showing within the domain, pertinent to 'those lumps of matter' you mention. I aso value structure more than just material functioning. And I wish I had such (your?) alternative hypotheses... not only my agnosticism about it. I agree with most of Colin's un-numbered points on the figment he called science of consciousness. What I would have added is a date of yesterday (and to support it - as I usually do - compare that level to earlier (millennia?) similar concoctions) . And - would have parethesized the territory named 'science' in them all. Well: what *- IS -* the *LAW OF NATURE *as widely believed? It is the majority of results of observed (poorly understood?) phenomena within the portion of Everything we so far got access to - and that, too, in our mind's adjustment at its actual level (inventory). (Wording mostly based on Colin's earlier writings) It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. Thank you, Colins (and Brent) John Mikes On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombie mechanically performing complex behaviors. Insisting that such an explanation must exist instead of entertaining other models of reality strikes me as a form of mysticism. Well we know that one lump of matter is conscious and we think some others that are structually similar are and that some others are not. A plausible hypothesis is that the consciousness is a consequence of the structure. Alternative hypotheses would have to explain this coincidence. 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: Tegmark and consciousness
On 15 January 2014 11:09, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: It depends on the boundaries *WE CHOSE. *Consider different boundaries and the LAW will change immediately, even within our unchanged ignorance of the totality. I think I follow this but I'm not sure. Could you explain further, or give an example.? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:35:09 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Edgar, 1. Do you believe an atom-for-atom replacement of you would be conscious? 2. Do you believe replacing your neurons one-by-one with synthetic (non-biological but fully functional) neurons would result in you losing consciousness? 3. Do you believe if these synthetic neurons communicated wirelessly with a computer to decide whether or not to fire you would still be conscious? 4. Do you believe if the computer contained the mapping of all the synthetic neurons inside a file on its disk (rather than it being stored as a structure inside your skull) that the computer decisions would still be the same? 5. Do you think the calculations performed entirely in this computer program would be any less conscious than when it was communicating wirelessly to the synthetic neurons outside the computer? Do you think this entirely self-contained program on the computer would be conscious in the same way you are with a biological brain? If not at what step do you answer no? Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question Why don't you just plainly say what the above means: I believe you are dumb because you asked that question. Jason Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness. Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what its state is and how it is changing. So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - contrary to your previous dismissal. Brent So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures. Edgar On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Brent, For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. They are completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with reality in your zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually having this discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things? Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a consequence of your theory if I'm not mistaken). What does it take to know things? You never answered my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot. You evaded it by saying conscious wasn't well defined. And I agree that there are levels and kinds of consciousness. But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot that had that kind of consciousness. What would it take for a robot know things? Does the Mars Rover know things? anything? 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
Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?
Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Liz, If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be able to discover cues that give the simulation away. Since we can determine the curvature of the space we live in without seeing it from the outside (angles of triangles) we should be able to determine the nature of any simulation we lived in as well. Because there is NO evidence whatsoever that we do live in a simulation, AND the fact that it's an enormously non-parsimonious theory that adds an entire new level of reality inhabited by super beings with completely unlikely technologies on top of a universe which is already plenty complex, it is incredibly unlikely that we do live in a simulation, and absent any evidence at all for it I at least think it's a waste of time to give much thought to it no matter how 'cool' it might seem to sci fi fans. Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this question... Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling emoticon here) OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model the part of your brain that stores them. So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be earth-Edgar. Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a virtual world, and if so, how? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Liz, Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in the 19th century! I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Yes, just sci-fi like heavier than air flying machines, robots and rockets to the Moon. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be able to discover cues that give the simulation away. Should be able to... So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the creators of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any cues? You appear to be claiming that in principle, it would always be possible. How, exactly? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Liz, It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first place. Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that God created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY the same theory as the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without the modern twist Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:47:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given human level intelligence, and human level capability to explore reality, the simulated being should be able to discover cues that give the simulation away. Should be able to... So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the creators of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any cues? You appear to be claiming that in principle, it would always be possible. How, exactly? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or - of course - getting their heads around intelligent criticism. And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into the nature of the universe... On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in the 19th century! I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Yes, just sci-fi like heavier than air flying machines, robots and rockets to the Moon. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Liz, Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't... Lighten up and smile! :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent? You are starting to remind me of those people who come to the door to persuade me to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable of spotting the intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or drawing a parallel, or - of course - getting their heads around intelligent criticism. And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into the nature of the universe... On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote: Liz, Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually live in the 19th century! I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets to the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll discover some other things that are real as well - but not simulated human beings :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: John, The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely. Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper subject of science... Yes, just sci-fi like heavier than air flying machines, robots and rockets to the Moon. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? I would like to have a few words with whoever programmed him. His artifical nature is given away by his literal mindedness, his repetition of canned responses, and his inability to understand how a theory can be supported or undermined by a thought experiment. I guess programming an autodidactic monomaniacal sociopath is easier than a real person, but even so it's a pretty impressive achievement. And setting it loose on the Everything list ... someone is laughing up their sleeve somewhere! Doug Hofstadter, I'm looking at 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
So, all is explained. No wonder he doesn't get special relativity, with its free-falling elevators and trains travelling at half the speed of light! I can almost picture his response... Albert, There are no 'relativistic trains' that can travel near light speed. When there are let me know, and I'll check what the time on the guard's watch is. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not scientific romances, no matter how fashionable they are thought to be amongst followers of Mr Wells, Mrs Shelley and Mr Verne. EDGAR-9000 -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 14:59, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't... Lighten up and smile! Actually I'm trying to restrain myself from ROFL at the moment, being at work and all. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons having the same input/ouput functions would not realize an aritificial, conscious being? You've already said there is no special soul-stuff, it's just computational processes. 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
LIz, Good one! Thanks for the chuckles! Best, Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:01:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 14:51, freqflyer07281972 thismind...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? I would like to have a few words with whoever programmed him. His artifical nature is given away by his literal mindedness, his repetition of canned responses, and his inability to understand how a theory can be supported or undermined by a thought experiment. I guess programming an autodidactic monomaniacal sociopath is easier than a real person, but even so it's a pretty impressive achievement. And setting it loose on the Everything list ... someone is laughing up their sleeve somewhere! Doug Hofstadter, I'm looking at 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, I didn't say that... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:11:37 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 1/14/2014 5:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. But then why do you suppose that replacing the biological neurons with artificial neurons having the same input/ouput functions would not realize an aritificial, conscious being? You've already said there is no special soul-stuff, it's just computational processes. 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Freq, But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. You? Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
*SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to contact me at edgaro...@att.net. And you said i didn't read things... On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. You? Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who could be? On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: *SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to contact me at edgaro...@att.net. And you said i didn't read things... On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. You? Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 15:29, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: P.S. for Liz: TAKE NOTE! While you might be out of the running to be Edgar's companion, perhaps you might know some non-feminist women who could be? Probably not in my neck of the woods (New Zealand) -- us Kiwi birds tend to be a bit too out there for the likes of the sort of person I imagine Edgar to be. But when I went to Google's home page recently I think I saw something about Russian women looking for partners... or was it Thai... ??? I am starting to feel just a teensy bit sorry for Edgar now Although his use of the phrase non-feminist is a little worrying for anyone tempted to respond. Or maybe he just can't spell doormat. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
On 15 January 2014 15:16, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: LIz, Good one! Thanks for the chuckles! Thanks! It's the least I can do considering the hours of amusement you've provided. -- 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.
Fwd: The Singularity Institute Blog
A long, rambling but often interesting discussion among guys at MIRI about how to make an AI that is superintelligent but not dangerous (FAI=Friendly AI). Here's an amusing excerpt that starts at the bottom of page 30: *Jacob*: Can't you ask it questions about what is believes will be true about the state of the world in 20 years? *Eliezer*: Sure. You could be like, what color will the sky be in 20 years? It would be like, “blue”, or it’ll say “In 20 years there won't be a sky, the earth will have been consumed by nanomachines,”and you're like, “why?”and the AI is like “Well, you know, you do that sort of thing.”“Why?”And then there’s a 20 page thing. *Dario*: But once it says the earth is going to be consumed by nanomachines, and you're asking about the AI's set of plans, presumably, you reject this plan immediately and preferably change the design of your AI. *Eliezer*: The AI is like, “No, humans are going to do it.”Or the AI is like, “well obviously, I'll be involved in the causal pathway but I’m not planning to do it.” *Dario*: But this is a plan you don't want to execute. *Eliezer*: /All/the plans seem to end up with the earth being consumed by nano-machines. *Luke*: The problem is that we're trying to outsmart a superintelligence and make sure that it's not tricking us somehow subtly with their own language. *Dario*: But while we're just asking questions we always have the ability to just shut it off. *Eliezer*: Right, but first you ask it “What happens if I shut you off”and it says “The earth gets consumed by nanobots in 19 years.” I wonder if Bruno Marchal's theory might have something interesting to say about this problem - like proving that there is no way to ensure friendliness. Brent Original Message Machine Intelligence Research Institute » Blog The Singularity Institute Blog http://intelligence.org -- MIRI strategy conversation with Steinhardt, Karnofsky, and Amodei http://intelligence.org/2014/01/13/miri-strategy-conversation-with-steinhardt-karnofsky-and-amodei/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=miri-strategy-conversation-with-steinhardt-karnofsky-and-amodei Posted: 13 Jan 2014 11:22 PM PST On October 27th, 2013, MIRI met with three additional members of the effective altruism community to discuss MIRI’s organizational strategy. The participants were: * Eliezer Yudkowsky http://yudkowsky.net/ (research fellow at MIRI) * Luke Muehlhauser http://lukeprog.com/ (executive director at MIRI) * Holden Karnofsky (co-CEO at GiveWell http://www.givewell.org/) * Jacob Steinhardt http://cs.stanford.edu/%7Ejsteinhardt/ (grad student in computer science at Stanford) * Dario Amodei http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/Dario_Amodei/ (post-doc in biophysics at Stanford) We recorded and transcribed much of the conversation, and then edited and paraphrased the transcript for clarity, conciseness, and to protect the privacy of some content. The resulting edited transcript is available in full here http://intelligence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/10-27-2013-conversation-about-MIRI-strategy.doc. Our conversation located some disagreements between the participants; these disagreements are summarized below. This summary is not meant to present arguments with all their force, but rather to serve as a guide to the reader for locating more information about these disagreements. For each point, a page number has been provided for the approximate start of that topic of discussion in the transcript, along with a phrase that can be searched for in the text. In all cases, the participants would likely have quite a bit more to say on the topic if engaged in a discussion on that specific point. Page 7, starting at “the difficulty is with context changes”: * Jacob: Statistical approaches can be very robust and need not rely on strong assumptions, and logical approaches are unlikely to scale up to human-level AI. * Eliezer: FAI will have to rely on lawful probabilistic reasoning combined with a transparent utility function, rather than our observing that previously executed behaviors seemed ‘nice’ and trying to apply statistical guarantees directly to that series of surface observations. Page 10, starting at “a nice concrete example” * Eliezer: Consider an AI that optimizes for the number of smiling faces rather than for human happiness, and thus tiles the universe with smiling faces. This example illustrates a class of failure modes that are worrying. * Jacob Dario: This class of failure modes seems implausible to us. Page 14, starting at “I think that as people want”: * Jacob: There isn’t a big difference between learning utility functions from a parameterized family vs. arbitrary utility functions. * Eliezer: Unless ‘parameterized’ is Turing complete it would be extremely hard to write
Re: Why our fine tuning and not some other?
So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence? Why? In any case, Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist is really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from it. While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume them axiomatically, so I see a critical difference between: (1) Intrinsically non-existent things cannot exist and (2) The abstraction non-existence cannot exist. because there seems to be excellent reasons (e.g. Russell's paradox and heterologicality) to believe abstractions need not be instantiations of the property they describe. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist. -- 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: Why our fine tuning and not some other?
You won't get a sensible answer. Edgar is just playing with words. He might as well have said We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here. On 15 January 2014 18:20, Gabriel Bodeen gabebod...@gmail.com wrote: So you're assuming that nothing must mean non-existence? Why? In any case, Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist is really more of a slogan than an axiom, as we can't make deductions from it. While I'm quite sympathetic to Platonic-style ideas, I don't assume them axiomatically, so I see a critical difference between: (1) Intrinsically non-existent things cannot exist and (2) The abstraction non-existence cannot exist. because there seems to be excellent reasons (e.g. Russell's paradox and heterologicality) to believe abstractions need not be instantiations of the property they describe. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:25:48 PM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Liz, That is the explanation Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:44:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 15 January 2014 04:40, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: All, My Existence Axiom 'Existence exists because non-existence cannot exist', answers the first fundamental question, namely, 'Why does something rather than nothing exist?' Next you need to explain why nothing can't exist. -- 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: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the 21st century deserves to be shot. So it's fortunate for Edgar that his ego, if not his theory, appears to be bullet-proof. On 15 January 2014 15:26, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote: *SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to contact me at edgaro...@att.net. And you said i didn't read things... On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. You? Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner. On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: OK. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Freq, Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. Send me a few links referencing that being possible please :-) Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by one. When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your question. You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be Edgar http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/ first-synthetic-neuron-created/ http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/ researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex- artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests This is too easy... Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? -- 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?
On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote: I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving. On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote: I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved. OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that physics is a branch of arithmetic. Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as perceptions? Could the perceptions, however they may be define, include some means to distinguish one entity from another within those perceptions. A crude physics theory might be equivalent to some method for an observer to make predictions of the content of its perceptions, assuming some form of memory is possible... What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR, or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp. I do not think that comp can be empirically refuted in the experimental sense of hard science! It addresses questions that are deeper than physics. Yes, it addresses theological questions, like the technological reincarnation, and the arithmetical reincarnation. It is much larger than physics. But the point is that physics is entirely part of that theology, making theology indirectly testable, and the physics, is entirely testable. That's the whole point: comp makes theology into an hard science, thanks to its relation with computer science and mathematical logic. Of course the physics intuitively extracted in UDA is not tractable, but then the translation of UDA in arithmetic, using the classical theory of knowledge (that we recover with the idea of Theaetetus in arithmetic) gives the propositional physics, which up to now is shown to be a quantum logic. We can test it to see if it gives a quantum computer in the physical neighborhood of the machine. The math are just hard, but the question is precisely formulated in purely arithmetical terms. 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: Tegmark's New Book
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:42, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jason, Sorting out which are irreducible (axioms) and which derivable is an ongoing process. Yes, i understand what an axiom is. Remember Euclid in Jr. High School? By logically complete, I mean that in the same sense as Godel does in his Incompleteness Theorem. Reality computations are logically complete because the next step is always computable because it's always being computed. Human math is not logically complete because humans can formulate well formed statements in math without first computing them from axioms, and ONLY THEN try to compute them from the axioms. Reality doesn't formulate statements (reality states) and then try to reach them (that's teleology), it simple computes the next state from the current state which it can always do. Thus reality math is logically complete. Human math isn't, as Godel demonstrated, That is wrong. Gödel proves that for all effective theories, or all consistent machines. reality math is not defined. If it is just math, Gödel's theorem does not apply, because math is not a formal theory, but human math is also not formal or effective. without changes to it's axioms to bring it in line with reality math. All consistent axiomatic theories obeys to Gödel's theorem. You can add as many axioms you want, the theory obtained will obey to Gödel's incompleteness. Arithmetic is called essentially undecidable. It means that arithmetical theories and *all* their effective extensions obeys to the theorem. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:47:32 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jason, A good question, that's why I've already listed a number of the most basic axioms and concepts of the theory. Okay, thanks. Could you clarify which are axioms (assumptions) and which are the ones derived from those axioms? 1. Existence must exist because non-existence cannot exist. 2. Reality is a logically consistent and logically complete structure. 3. The theory must be consistent with and attempt to explain all the actual equations of science insofar as they are known and valid, but NOT the interpretations of those equations. It must be consistent with the actual science (the equations) but not with the interpretations of the science, which in my view is often completely wrong. 4. Reality is an evolving computational structure which continually computes the current state of the universe. 5. This reality consists only of evolving information rather than a physical, material world. 6. These computations produce a real universe state with real effects because they run in reality itself, in the logical space and presence of existence, what I call ontological energy. 7. What actually exists is all that can or could exist. The existence of reality as it actually is conclusively falsifies all other possible realities. Thus the past is the only possible past that could have existed because it is the only one that does exist. Thus the original extended fine tuning is the only one that is possible because it is the only one that is actual. 8. Reality exists only in a present moment. Reality must be present to be real. It's presence manifests as the present moment in which we all exist. etc. etc. etc. There are hundreds of other basic concepts... Which come from which you can judge... If they are all axioms, then none of them should come from any other, as then it wouldn't be an assumption but a deduction. For example, in the first one you say existence must exist because non- existence cannot exist. It would seem then that non-existence cannot exist is an axiom, and from that it follows that existence must exist. Regarding the second point, I understand what you mean by logically consistent but what do you mean by logically complete? The whole last part of my book, Part VII, is a concise summary of the basic axioms and concepts of the whole theory. It's as close to a formal presentation of the theory as I have. This reminded me of the 14 points Godel wrote that defined his philosophy. His were: The world is rational. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. Formal rights comprise a real science. Materialism is false. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. Concepts have an objective
