Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 2 March 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>>  There is an observable difference in the body with AHS: the subject says
>> that it doesn't feel like his hand.
>
>
> They don't have to say anything. They can keep their symptoms to themselves
> if they want.

So can a blind person pretending to be able to see. The point is there
is a *functional* difference because the behaviour is different. If
there is no behavioural difference whatsoever then there is no
disorder.

>> This happens because the neural circuits between the hand and the language
>> centres are disrupted. If they were not disrupted the language centres would
>> get normal input and the subject would say everything was normal.
>
>
> It doesn't matter why it happens, it matters that it cannot happen under
> functionalism in the first place. By definition, consciousness is deflated
> to the sum of a set of functions. The quality of inclusion or exclusion from
> that set is simply a matter of fact, not a separate consideration. A program
> can't decide that part of itself has a quality of not being itself. That has
> no meaning to the function of the program. If the code works, then it is
> part of the program, period. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work, but
> there is no language under functionalism to make that dysfunction related to
> what amounts to the loss of soul.

You can write a program that considers the right hand self and the
left hand non-self, with the consequence that the right hand will be
favoured if both hands are at risk of being lost, or whatever else you
want to make "non-self" mean.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 20:28, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

> >>Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
> the idea that there is an base.
>
> An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
> potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
> origin or any primal causation.
>

IMHO you need some sort of logical explanation. Otherwise retrocausality is
like eternal inflation - you can use it to explain where the universe comes
from, but you still need to explain the origin of the laws of physics that
allow it to happen. (This is why I find Max Tegmark's mathematical universe
stuff appealing.)

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 9:22 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 7:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
>> On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:
>>>
 On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:
> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>
> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
> That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
 Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of 
 distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The 
 Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes 
 From".
>>> That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.
>> I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor
>> - though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument 
>> like the UDA.
>>
>> Brent
>>
> I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's 
> original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from 
> numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would 
> an example of Hofstadters "strange loop".
>
> IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the 
> base of everything at times in the past too?

>>Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject
the idea that there is an base.

An interesting view. Recently I have been toying with retro-causality as a
potential mechanism for self-manifestation without any need of ultimate
origin or any primal causation.
Chris

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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 20:13, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/1/2014 10:59 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
>  *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ]
> *On Behalf Of *LizR
>
>
>
> Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:
>
>
>
> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html
>
>
>
> I grok that
>
> One of the best words ever invented* - IMO -thank you Heinlein.
>
>
> I think it was suggested by the poems of Piet Hein.
>
> *Piet Hein* (16 December 1905 - 17 April 1996) was a 
> Danishscientist, mathematician, 
> inventor, designer, author, and poet, often
> writing under the Old Norse pseudonym "*Kumbel*" meaning 
> "tombstone".
> His short poems, known as *gruks * or
> grooks (Danish: *gruk*), first started to appear in the daily newspaper 
> "*Politiken
> *" shortly after the Nazi
> occupation  in April
> 1940 under the pseudonym "*Kumbel 
> Kumbell*".[1]
>
> The poems contained anti-nazi meanings which could only be grasped
> intuitively by the Danish
>
In other words, "grokked" - what a brilliant explanation. It's so beautiful
that it must be true :-)

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 11:14 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

On 3/1/2014 10:59 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

 

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html

 

I grok that

One of the best words ever invented* - IMO -thank you Heinlein.


I think it was suggested by the poems of Piet Hein.

Piet Hein (16 December 1905 - 17 April 1996) was a Danish
  scientist, mathematician,
inventor, designer, author, and poet, often writing under the Old Norse
pseudonym "Kumbel" meaning "tombstone
 ". His short poems, known as gruks
  or grooks (Danish: gruk), first
started to appear in the daily newspaper "Politiken
 " shortly after the Nazi occupation
  in April 1940 under
the pseudonym "Kumbel Kumbell".[1]
 

The poems contained anti-nazi meanings which could only be grasped
intuitively by the Danish.

Interesting; always thought it originated from that book. So then is grok
steganography?

Chris

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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 20:02, meekerdb  wrote:

>  I have a friend who's daughter was leaving home in California to attend
> a university on the east coast.  On her last day, she and her daughter took
> a walk on the beach to talk and enjoy the sunset together.  It was a
> beautiful display of reds and yellows.
>
> Daughter: I'm going to miss this.
> Mother: Well you can go to the beach there too.
> Daughter: No, I mean the sunsets.
> Mother: Why can't you enjoy sunsets back east?
> Daughter: The sun sets in the west.
>
> She thought about canceling her college.
>
>
To some extent, just how bad this is depends on what she was studying. As
Sherlock Holmes fictionally observed, it made no difference to his
profession whether the Earth orbited the Sun or the Moon, and he tried not
to learn such "irrelevant" facts. (And the novel that won the Man Booker
prize recently was based on astrology, and the highest grossing movie
franchise to date was based on children who can do magic...)

...but despite all that, I agree. Maybe this young woman was going to study
something in which even a knowledge of elementary astronomy is unnecessary,
but I'm with C.P.Snow on this one, there are some basics that everyone
should know about (even people who don't aspire to study at university).

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 10:59 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *LizR


Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html

I grok that

One of the best words ever invented* -- IMO --thank you Heinlein.



I think it was suggested by the poems of Piet Hein.

*Piet Hein* (16 December 1905 -- 17 April 1996) was a Danish 
 scientist, mathematician, inventor, designer, 
author, and poet, often writing under the Old Norse pseudonym "*Kumbel*" meaning 
"tombstone ". His short poems, known as /gruks 
/ or grooks (Danish: /gruk/), first started to appear 
in the daily newspaper "/Politiken /" shortly 
after the Nazi occupation  in April 
1940 under the pseudonym "*Kumbel Kumbell*".^[1] 



^The poems contained anti-nazi meanings which could only be grasped intuitively 
by the Danish.

^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.

Digital Neurology

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 1 March 2014 01:40, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> If you start with the assumption that the physics relevant to brain
>> function is not computable then computationalism is false: it would be
>> impossible to make a machine that behaves like a human, either zombie
>> or conscious.
>
>
> I agree with you, the physics *relevant* to brain function has to be
> computable, for comp to be true. But the point is that below the
> substitution level, the physical details are not relevant. Then by the
FPI,
> they must be undetermined, and this on an infinite non computable domain,
> and so, our "computable brain" must rely on a non computable physics, or a
> non necessarily computable physics, with some non computable aspect. This
is
> what comp predicts, and of course this is confirmed by QM. Again,
> eventually, QM might to much computable for comp to be true. That is what
> remain to be seen.
>
>
>> What I mean by functionalism is that the way the brain processes
>> information, its I/O behaviour, is what generates mind. This implies
>> multiple realisability of mental states, insofar as the same
>> information processing could be done by another machine. If the
>> machine is a digital computer then functionalism reduces to
>> computationalism. If the brain utilises non-computable physics then
>> you won't be able to reproduce its function (and the mind thus
>> generated) with a digital computer, so computationalism is false.
>> However, that does not necessarily mean that functionalism is false,
>> since you may be able to implement the appropriate brain function
>> through some other means. For example, if it turns out that a digital
>> implementation of the brain fails because real numbers and not
>> approximations are necessary, it may still be possible to implement a
>> brain using analogue devices.
>
>
> OK, but that functionalism seems to me trivially true. How could such
> functionalism be refuted, if you can invoke arbitrary functions?
> (Also, "functionalism" is used for a stringer (less general) version of
> computationalism, by Putnam, so this use of functionalism is non standard
> and can be confusing.
> Last remark, I am not sure that the notion of information processing can
> make sense in a non digital framework. In both quantum and classical
> information theory, information is digital (words like bits and qubits
come
> from there).

I think functionalism is true, but it's not obviously true, at least to
most people. It could be that the observable behaviour of the brain is
reproduced perfectly but the resulting creature has no consciousness or a
different conscious. That would be the case if consciousness were
substrate-dependent. It could also be that the behaviour cannot be
reproduced by a computer because the substitution level requires
non-computable physics (true randomness, real numbers, non-computable
functions), but it could be reproduced by a non-computational device. So
there are these possibilities with brain replacement:

(a) the behaviour is not reproduced and neither is the consciousness;
(b) The behaviour is reproduced but the consciousness is not reproduced;
(c) The behaviour is reproduced and so is the consciousness;
(d) The behaviour is not reproduced but the consciousness is

>> What can be proved is that if consciousness is due to the brain then
>> replicating brain function in some other substrate will also replicate
>> its consciousness.
>
>
> OK. What I meant is that we cannot prove that consciousness is due to the
> brain.

Yes, a dualist, for example, could consistently deny fuctionalism, but
someone who believes that consciousness is due to the brain could not.


--
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 19:57, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

> Okay that one stretched my brain like a balloon as it waved trough my
> neural net. What if one admits the possibility retro-causality? Physicist
> as eminent as Wheeler & Feynman have speculated on it and Huw Price has
> suggested that it could explain quantum entanglement.
>
> Maybe there is no base... and reality itself emerges out of some process of
> retro-causality ... okay maybe this is a little far out The serpent eats
> its tail.
>
>
Personally I think you have to have a base. That wouldn't prohibit
retrocausal explanations, of course, because the base would have to be
outside space-time.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

I have a friend who's daughter was leaving home in California to attend a university on 
the east coast.  On her last day, she and her daughter took a walk on the beach to talk 
and enjoy the sunset together.  It was a beautiful display of reds and yellows.


Daughter: I'm going to miss this.
Mother: Well you can go to the beach there too.
Daughter: No, I mean the sunsets.
Mother: Why can't you enjoy sunsets back east?
Daughter: The sun sets in the west.

She thought about canceling her college.

Brent

On 3/1/2014 10:47 PM, LizR wrote:

Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html



On 2 March 2014 19:45, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:

On 2 March 2014 19:35, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:


Robert Heinlein, with whom he shared a house for a while, made a bar 
bet with
him that he couldn't create a religion after Hubbard had remarked that 
was the
way to get *really* rich.

Ah, thank you, I have to rely on 30 year old memories of what I was told by 
various
SF writers, often when we were all rather drunk.


--
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

 

Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

 

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html

 

I grok that

One of the best words ever invented* - IMO -thank you Heinlein.

Chris

 

*from Stranger in a Strange Land

 

On 2 March 2014 19:45, LizR  wrote:

On 2 March 2014 19:35, meekerdb  wrote:



Robert Heinlein, with whom he shared a house for a while, made a bar bet
with him that he couldn't create a religion after Hubbard had remarked that
was the way to get *really* rich.

 

Ah, thank you, I have to rely on 30 year old memories of what I was told by
various SF writers, often when we were all rather drunk.

 

 

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:44 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 






Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information – encoded on 
what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some cling 
to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very real. However 
when you get right down to it all we have is measured values of things and 
meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience 
of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that we 
can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we measure it.

I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit each 
day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train of 
thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how in a 
sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every possible 
outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had 
never read before.

Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea of 
comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an emergent 
phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of parallelism and 
vastness of scale of the information system in which it is self-emergent.

 

Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every 
information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a 
substrate medium upon which to encode itself; 

 

If you agree that 1+1=2, then you can prove that universal numlbers exists, and 
those will defined the relative implementations of computational histories.

 

We have top start from some theory, in all case. And the TOE that we can 
derived from comp are just the minimal part common to basically all scientific 
theories.

 

Then we can explain even why we cannot explain where our beliefs in the number 
comes from. The theory of Lakoff presumes implicitly numbers, and much more.

 

 

 





information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on 
some substrate system. I would like to avoid the infinite regression of 
stopping at the point of describing systems as existing upon other and 
requiring other substrate systems that themselves require substrates themselves 
described as information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally.

 

 

We can start from:

 

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

 

We don't need more. Just definitions.

 

What about sets {0,1…n}? Isn’t the conceptual entity of the set necessary in 
order to map orders of operation for example grouping operations of lower 
precedence to ensure they are performed first for example; or for ordering 
enumerable or at least identifiable entities into groups that have some set of 
characteristics.

Also are you arguing that the ≠ &  =  comparators suffice? What about “<”? A 
lot of algorithms (sorting for example) are implemented in terms of the “<” 
comparator, that would seem very difficult to do without. 

 

 

 

 





It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a very 
simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple binary 
state machine could suffice, given enough bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?

 

Elementary arithmetic is enough. But the two axioms Kxy=x + Sxyz = xz(yz) too.

 

I am unfamiliar with this axiom.





 

At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to where 
we first started…. How did that arise or come to be? If for example we say that 
math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and the various set 
operations? 

 

Math is not reducible to a theory. machine's math is already not reducible to a 
theory. Nor are machine's knowledge.

 

Computationalism refutes reductionism of most conception we can have on numbers 
and machine.

 

 

 





What of enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can you reduce the {} 
null set?

What does it arise from?

 

In this case you can reduce it to number theory.

 

Your point seems to be that we must start from something non trivial, and you 
are right on this. My point is that if we believe that the brain is a sort of 
machine, then arithmetic is not just enough, but more is non sensical or 
redundant at the basic level.

 

Given enough parallelism and depth of recursion; given a vast enough networked 
system, it is amazing what emerges. I agree in principal that all that is 
really required is some very basic computationally self-catalyzing system and 
the rest emerges.

 

 

Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which eve

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

Speaking of which, Heinlein would have loved this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140302.html



On 2 March 2014 19:45, LizR  wrote:

> On 2 March 2014 19:35, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> Robert Heinlein, with whom he shared a house for a while, made a bar bet
>> with him that he couldn't create a religion after Hubbard had remarked that
>> was the way to get *really* rich.
>>
>> Ah, thank you, I have to rely on 30 year old memories of what I was told
> by various SF writers, often when we were all rather drunk.
>
>

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 19:35, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> Robert Heinlein, with whom he shared a house for a while, made a bar bet
> with him that he couldn't create a religion after Hubbard had remarked that
> was the way to get *really* rich.
>
> Ah, thank you, I have to rely on 30 year old memories of what I was told
by various SF writers, often when we were all rather drunk.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 10:12 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 March 2014 18:19, mailto:ghib...@gmail.com>> wrote:


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:05:55 AM UTC, spudb...@aol.com 

wrote:

Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of
politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, 
even by true
believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American, and
European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a 
bit of a
discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion accusation 
as I
their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this 
particularaccusation.
Pax Vobiscum.

you don't seem to take it that seriously. But is this about climate science 
only? I
only ask because there's this nefarious but very effective lobby outfit 
that traces
its roots back into the days of tobacco harm denial. They use very reliable
psychological devices to create that sense of doubt. They really played 
hardball
toobeing willing to totally trash the reputation of science it secured 
their
goals. Destroy individuals. Drive them to nervous breakdowns. Harass media 
outlets.,


This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based organisations. They created 
institutes specifically to push some agenda. We've had tobacco, big oil, and of course 
the anti-evolution lot, all with their own "think tanks" and "institutes". Personally I 
reckon they got the idea from L Ron Hubbard, who once got into a conversation with 
fellow science fiction writers


Robert Heinlein, with whom he shared a house for a while, made a bar bet with him that he 
couldn't create a religion after Hubbard had remarked that was the way to get *really* rich.


Brent

- I forget who, say James Blish and John W Campbell Jr, for the sake of argument - and 
they all proposed crazy ideas about how one could create a science based religion. "We 
could have little devices that let people measure their state of spiritual health!" they 
chortled, imagining this was just one of those games SF writers love to indulge in - 
little realising that Hubbard was making mental notes of everything they said.


--
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: Philosophy experiments

[LizR]

I agree. I found that the way the tests were proposed (there are loads of
them, and I tried quite a few) tended to catch you out by making you
respond as you would, say, at a party - not thinking it through deeply when
you're asked something like "If someone went around murdering children,
should society hold them morally responsible?" - and then it sneakily
assumes you have a view on free will and suchlike that I certainly don't
have.

But I'm 95% sure Jeremy Stangroom is the brother of my friend Chris, who
was murdered many years ago, so I have a lot of time for his website even
though I've never mentioned the connection to him. (I know that's a bit
crazy, but I'm not sure I can be held accountable...)



On 2 March 2014 17:49, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 3/1/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/frankfurt/Default.aspx
>>
>
> Yeah, I've seen it before and I think it is misguided because it doesn't
> distinguish ethical responsibility and moral responsibility.  Whether Becky
> is morally responsible is, in my terms, a psychological question.  But she
> is ethically responsible, i.e. society should punish/restrict her.  It's
> the common confounding of these two concepts that muddles our laws and
> sentencing.
>
> 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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 18:19,  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:05:55 AM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of
>> politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by
>> true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American,
>> and European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a
>> bit of a discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion
>> accusation as I their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this
>> particularaccusation. Pax Vobiscum.
>>
>
> you don't seem to take it that seriously. But is this about climate
> science only? I only ask because there's this nefarious but very effective
> lobby outfit that traces its roots back into the days of tobacco harm
> denial. They use very reliable psychological devices to create that sense
> of doubt. They really played hardball toobeing willing to totally trash
> the reputation of science it secured their goals. Destroy individuals.
> Drive them to nervous breakdowns. Harass media outlets.,
>

This is kind of a touchstone for these disinformation based organisations.
They created institutes specifically to push some agenda. We've had
tobacco, big oil, and of course the anti-evolution lot, all with their own
"think tanks" and "institutes". Personally I reckon they got the idea from
L Ron Hubbard, who once got into a conversation with fellow science fiction
writers - I forget who, say James Blish and John W Campbell Jr, for the
sake of argument - and they all proposed crazy ideas about how one could
create a science based religion. "We could have little devices that let
people measure their state of spiritual health!" they chortled, imagining
this was just one of those games SF writers love to indulge in - little
realising that Hubbard was making mental notes of everything they said.

-- 
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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:56:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, but what is this "functionalism" that is supposedly 
> disproved by AHS?
>
>
Functionalism, as I see it, is the philosophy that consciousness is purely 
a byproduct of specific functions, either physical or mathematical 
generally.  Bruno originally defined computationalism for me as synonymous 
with digital functionalism. This means that there is no extra stuff that 
makes consciousness conscious, it is just the working of the mechanism 
itself which feels conscious.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:48:42 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:31:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:54:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 28 February 2014 01:05, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:13:22 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: 
>> >> 
>> >> On 26 February 2014 23:58, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
>> >> > 
>> >> >> "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to 
>> describe 
>> >> >> cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing 
>> involuntary 
>> >> >> movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the affected 
>> hand 
>> >> >> from 
>> >> >> an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's 
>> unaffected 
>> >> >> hand. 
>> >> >> In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened 
>> >> >> considerably, 
>> >> >> and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the 
>> context 
>> >> >> of 
>> >> >> feelings of estrangement from or personification of the affected 
>> limb 
>> >> >> or its 
>> >> >> movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been 
>> reported, 
>> >> >> involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus callosum 
>> >> >> plus 
>> >> >> dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/subcortical 
>> >> >> areas. A 
>> >> >> patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular aetiology is 
>> >> >> reported 
>> >> >> and the findings are discussed in the light of a conceptualisation 
>> of 
>> >> >> posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less 
>> >> >> associated 
>> >> >> with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and 
>> >> >> callosal-frontal counterparts." - 
>> >> >> http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to 
>> >> > contradict 
>> >> > functionalism. If functionalism identifies consciousness with 
>> function, 
>> >> > then 
>> >> > it would seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen as 
>> >> > estranged 
>> >> > from the personal awareness, is it is really no different from a 
>> zombie 
>> >> > in 
>> >> > which the substitution level is set at the body level. There is no 
>> >> > damage to 
>> >> > the arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet, its is 
>> felt 
>> >> > to 
>> >> > be outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to be 
>> your 
>> >> > sensations. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would expect 
>> to 
>> >> > encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any 
>> inorganic 
>> >> > substitute. At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too 
>> would 
>> >> > the 
>> >> > brain become non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system 
>> would 
>> >> > fail 
>> >> > to be incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain could 
>> still 
>> >> > learn to use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own 
>> >> > articulation and familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is a one 
>> way 
>> >> > street and the prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal 
>> awareness 
>> >> > and 
>> >> > merge with it. 
>> >> 
>> >> This example shows that if there is a lesion in the neural circuitry 
>> >> it affects consciousness. If you fix the lesion such that the 
>> >> circuitry works properly but the consciousness is affected (keeping 
>> >> the environmental input constant) then that implies that consciousness 
>> >> is generated by something other than the brain. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Paying attention to the circuitry is a red herring. What I'm bringing 
>> up is 
>> > how dissociation of functions identified with the self does not make 
>> sense 
>> > for the functionalist view of consciousness. How do you give a program 
>> > 'alien subroutine syndrome'? Why does the program make a distinction 
>> between 
>> > the pure function of the subroutine and some feeling of belonging that 
>> is 
>> > generated by something other than the progr
>>
>>
>> I'm sure there is some difference, but it doesn't affect the 
>> functionality of the hand. Under functionalism, since we can observe no 
>> difference between the function of the body with or without AHS, we should 
>> assume no such thing as AHS. If consciousness is like AHS, and the hand is 
>> like the brain or body, then we should not be able to see a difference 
>> between a conscious brain and simulation of brain activity that is 
>> unconscious.
>>
>
>  There is an observable difference in the body with AHS: the subject says 
> that it doesn't feel like his hand. 
>

They don't have to say anything. They can keep their symptoms to themselves 
if they want.
 

> This happens because the neural circuits between the hand and the language 
> centres are disrupted. 

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:42:13 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:57:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2014 15:22, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

> On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we 
>> need a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien?
>>
>> Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you 
> that it's your hand?
>

 Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference 
 does it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand.

>>>
>>> It's important for an animal to be able to distinguish self from 
>>> non-self, as can be seen if two animals are locked in combat - one that 
>>> can't tell its own limb from its opponent's is just as likely to bite 
>>> itself as its prey. Repeat that often enough and you have a strong 
>>> evolutionary pressure to distinguish self from non-self. I would imagine 
>>> alien hand syndrome is a breakdown of this system.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but I don't see that functionalism provides a basis to distinguish 
>> self from non-self other than function. As long as the functionality of the 
>> hand is there, and other people cannot tell any difference in what the hand 
>> can do, there should be no basis for any particular distress. We could make 
>> up a different evolutionary story too - that being physically close to your 
>> family or social group is important to survival and reproduction, so that 
>> there is a strong evolutionary pressure to suppress the difference between 
>> self and not-self. If it were the case that AHS were a breakdown in a 
>> global system like that, I would expect that victims might identify their 
>> family as strangers, etc. 
>>
>> The particulars aren't the important thing though. I use AHS to add to 
>> blindsight and synesthesia as examples where the function-feeling 
>> equivalence which functionalism depends on appears to be violated.
>>
>
> You have too simplistic a view of what "function" means in the context of 
> an intelligent being. 
>

I think that you have too naive a view of what function means.
 

> That is actually your whole problem: you look at machine, imagine that you 
> can see how it works, then look at a human, can't figure out how it works, 
> so conclude there must be something non-machine like in the human.
>

It has nothing to do with not being able to figure out how humans work.Nothing 
to do with human consciousness or biology at all. I'm *always* only 
talking about the bare metal basics of awareness itself. Sensation. 
Detection. Signal. You take them for granted, but I don't. If you take them 
for granted, then it is no great surprise that you can imagine 
consciousness coming from function.
 

> Yet the very examples you use demonstrate that even mysterious-seeming 
> behaviours such as those displayed in ALH are generated by neural circuitry 
> which can be easily disrupted.
>

It doesn't matter where they are generated, all that matters is whether 
possession of one's own function can be defined as a computable object 
under functionalism. I think that it is a clear double standard to say that 
the 'mine-ness' of a hand can of course be detected, but the 'mine-ness' of 
a human experience would require zombies to justify. You're looking at the 
wrong thing. I don't care about the details of any particular machine or 
organism, I care about the properties of awareness being incompatible in 
every way to the properties of function unless awareness comes first.

Craig
 

>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 7:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.

Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The
Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes
From".

That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.

I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor
- though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
like the UDA.

Brent


I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters "strange loop".

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the base of
everything at times in the past too?


Yes, except I conceive of a virtuous circle of explanation...and reject the idea that 
there is an base.


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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:05:55 AM UTC, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of 
> politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by 
> true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American, 
> and European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a 
> bit of a discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion 
> accusation as I their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this 
> particularaccusation. Pax Vobiscum.
>
 
you don't seem to take it that seriously. But is this about climate science 
only? I only ask because there's this nefarious but very effective lobby 
outfit that traces its roots back into the days of tobacco harm denial. 
They use very reliable psychological devices to create that sense of doubt. 
They really played hardball toobeing willing to totally trash the 
reputation of science it secured their goals. Destroy individuals. Drive 
them to nervous breakdowns. Harass media outlets.,  
 
That's nothing of it either. What they did was create these networks of 
think tanks, lobbies, libertarian fronts, that all basically referenced and 
agreed and which were all basically run by the same people. That work on 
people, in the masses, very effectively because over time hearing the same 
ideas fropm different directions, fires up our final background conceptual 
framework. This is the one that evolution puts beyond our conscious reach. 
We can access, and even shape it, but only indirectly by creating recurrent 
commitments or rituals - or exercize. Also things like incantations  - 
repeating with emphasis - will begin to access that framework. 
 
It's a really important framework, this is where it gets decided what 
background reality is., What social respectability is. What is illegitimate 
and what is legitimate. 
 
 
It can be, and is, and has been, shaped, that background framework of ours, 
most of us anyway, , by this malicious sort of activist strategy
 
I think the reason we respond this way, is either  because it kind of makes 
sense an individual needs to be in a process of deciding what is  intrinsic 
to reality that we need not consciousluy register it
 
I mean look, just for the reality of scum like that screwing everyone over, 
there chances of a rational society wide decision making process. I mean 
what a way to say you don't care about anything. Just them being there 
makes me get behind the climate science and the scientists. Double other 
sciences
-Original Message-
From: LizR >
To: everything-list >
Sent: 01-Mar-2014 21:13:39 +
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 On 2 March 2014 14:01, Chris de Morsella >wrote:
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of 
> *spudb...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>
> *Subject:* Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>  
>
> You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the 
> dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to 
> go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its 
> imminent. 
>
>  
>
> Who are these “leaders” you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret 
> illuminati council of thirteen… who are these sinister “leaders” who 
> believe global warming is imminent?
>
>
> The Elders of Zion?
>
> By the way, here is some scientific evidence, in case you're interested.
>
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
>  
> [image: Inline images 1]
>
>  -- 
> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 6:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On 
Behalf Of *meekerdb

*Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:



On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:

Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number 
regardless of
whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed 
whether
anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the 
big bang -
maths has been used to work out what happened in the early universe, 
with
observable consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving going on to 
deny
this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a suggestion of 
one) to
indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that 
the
world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is questionable.

Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non 
mechanically
countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the theology, etc.


>>Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka "numbers".  I think you're slipping 
into mysticism, Bruno.


Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with potential ordering & 
grouping) that takes numeric input and produces numeric output? I find it hard to 
conceive of math without also contemporaneously envisioning enumerable entities.




I think I could conceive of some math without enumerable entities; for example parts of 
topology and real analysis don't seem to depend on counting.  But I was just expressing 
incredulity with Bruno's post.  He says we only need believe that "17 is prime" to use 
arithmetic realism.  Then he says there are no countable things in his theory!??


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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 

 

>>Should I correct my statements to make them ideologically acceptable to
progressive minds, everywhere? Will I get a cookie if I do? 

No, you won't get a cookie, but not making an ass of yourself is its own
reward.

>>Question: How much a percentage of the U.S. gross annual income, should
the U.S. tithe to the United Nations, as they see fit? It's an idea that's
being circulated around by your pal GS, for a number of years. 

Are random angry man quotes a regular part of your style? Where in left
field did this come from? How much of your mind do you waste on this kind of
anger?

>>Do we have enough time to replace the dirty power sources with solar, and
will solar work well enough to produce the wattage necessary, or do you feel
we should drastically cut back on consumption of electricity, to save the
Earth?

If we do not have enough time society will collapse; it has before. It Is
not a matter of what you feel or what I feel; both you and I happen to live
on a rock orbiting a star. The rock we live on has limits. It is the limits
of our physical reality that are going to dictate to us - whether we like it
or not; whether we "agree" or "disagree". regardless. the reality of
physical limits is already kicking in right now. For example if you follow
the capital expenditure  (Capex) trends of the fossil fuel extraction
sectors, as I do and have been doing for years you will notice two trends.
Trend one the amount of fossil energy extracted per unit of capital is
rapidly decreasing; the oil & gas & coal sectors are sucking down larger and
larger portions of the total global Capex. and recently it looks like the
oil sector is slowing expenditures. 

If you want to disbelieve in the reality of physical limits on our small
blue green dot then there is not much I can do to help you.

Chris

-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: 01-Mar-2014 20:01:11 +
Subject: RE: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the
dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to
go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its
imminent. 

 

Who are these "leaders" you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret
illuminati council of thirteen. who are these sinister "leaders" who believe
global warming is imminent?

Do you realize how off the wall you sound?

 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

On 1 March 2014 04:59,  wrote:

It does. You cannot fake electricity. You cannot fake electric current. If
you are depending on solar power for 20% of your electricity supply, and the
rest for coal, because coal is reliable on a 7 x 24 basis, you can only rely
on solar for a slim fraction of electricity. You haven't solved the problem
in a technical manner, all one is doing is employing solar for a fraction of
total electricity consumption, to make ones self "feel" better. This is not
engineering, it is ideology- a faith movement to make one "feel" better,
without providing clean power to power one's civilization. How long must we
wait for miracle power sources, if the shadow of Climate Change is
overwhelming us all? It is politics and not health, and not engineering that
is driving this issue, right?

 

I don't see what you're saying here. Indeed, you appear to be contradicting
yourself. If solar provides 20% of your power, it provides 20% of your
power. There is nothing faith based about that, assuming it's a fact (e.g.
about 70% of New Zealand's power is provided by hydro, on average - that's
not faith, or a miracle, or a conspiracy, it's just a fact).

 

If solar can provide X% of your power, on average, then that means only
100-X% has to rely on fossil fuels. Hence you can reduce your fossil fuel
usage by that amount, and provide that much more of a distance between
civilisation and any future effects of pollution, climate change, and
resource depletion.

 

Sorry, what don't you understand here?

 

-- 
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 subsc

Re: Philosophy experiments

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/frankfurt/Default.aspx


Yeah, I've seen it before and I think it is misguided because it doesn't distinguish 
ethical responsibility and moral responsibility.  Whether Becky is morally responsible is, 
in my terms, a psychological question.  But she is ethically responsible, i.e. society 
should punish/restrict her.  It's the common confounding of these two concepts that 
muddles our laws and sentencing.


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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:36:24 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 2 March 2014 16:05, > wrote:
>
>> Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of 
>> politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by 
>> true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American, 
>> and European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a 
>> bit of a discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion 
>> accusation as I their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this 
>> particularaccusation. Pax Vobiscum.
>
>
> Personally, I was under the impression that China's emissions were 
> currently the biggest threat to the environment. The only reason to make 
> more of a fuss about the UK or EU would be because that's something in our 
> power to change (well, yours at least - I'm not sure NZ gets much say).
>
> Politicians' behaviour is easily explained if one looks as the history of 
> the fall of previous civilisations. The ruling classes have always tried to 
> pretend that everything is fine, and have even thrown huge parties to prove 
> that there isn't a famine (or whatever the looming threat is).
>
> The Elders of Zion were just the logical follow up to the Illuminati. 
> Obviously neither of these groups is who is REALLY running the world, as 
> David Icke will tell you...
>
 
The thing about Power, especially used abusively, is that we dare not even 
speak its name.  

-- 
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 UDA step 3

[LizR]

"Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense realism?"

On 2 March 2014 16:35,  wrote:

>
> heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an eccentric
> street market where traders call out their wares
>
> "GETCHYOUR P-TIME  2 for 1 logico-computational really real structure
> today only"
>
> "Assuming comp only, that's right comp only. Theology but done like
> science. Madam you are ugly but I will be sober in the morning. You there,
> you reek of not-comp, get lost. Ah sir, did you like the dreams? Same
> again?"
>
> "GETCHOR P-TIME..,."
>
>>
>>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 01:03:39PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:
> >
> >>On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:
> >>>"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
> >>>
> >>>Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact.
> >>>That is, it is a fact that 1+1=2.
> >>
> >>Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of
> >>distinct objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The
> >>Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes
> >>From".
> >
> >That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.
> 
> I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor
> - though it may be inconsistent with other parts of your argument
> like the UDA.
> 
> Brent
> 

I don't see that it negates COMP either. And in response to Chris's
original observation, why couldn't minds and phenomena emerge from
numbers, and simultaneously, numbers emerge from the mind. Such would
an example of Hofstadters "strange loop".

IIRC, you (Brent) have suggested virtuous (or vicious) cycles at the base of
everything at times in the past too?

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 16:05,  wrote:

> Yes Liz, I take the threat seriously, but am puzzled by the behavior of
> politicians, in anticipation of the historic calamity. The actions, even by
> true believers in AGW, does not compute. Secondly, why is North American,
> and European CO2, threaten the globe, but Chinese CO2 does not? This is a
> bit of a discrepancy. Lastly, I read mea culpa to the Eldars of Zion
> accusation as I their local leader, thus, I must recuse myself from this
> particularaccusation. Pax Vobiscum.


Personally, I was under the impression that China's emissions were
currently the biggest threat to the environment. The only reason to make
more of a fuss about the UK or EU would be because that's something in our
power to change (well, yours at least - I'm not sure NZ gets much say).

Politicians' behaviour is easily explained if one looks as the history of
the fall of previous civilisations. The ruling classes have always tried to
pretend that everything is fine, and have even thrown huge parties to prove
that there isn't a famine (or whatever the looming threat is).

The Elders of Zion were just the logical follow up to the Illuminati.
Obviously neither of these groups is who is REALLY running the world, as
David Icke will tell 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: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its 
> logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible 
> thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie 
> discussion on this group.
>
> First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces 
> clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that 
> does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it 
> doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change 
> randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem 
> random, it's quantum level events.
>
> If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already 
> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by 
> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no 
> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature 
> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>
> But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only 
> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>
> Edgar
>
 
 
heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an eccentric 
street market where traders call out their wares 
 
"GETCHYOUR P-TIME  2 for 1 logico-computational really real structure today 
only"
 
"Assuming comp only, that's right comp only. Theology but done like 
science. Madam you are ugly but I will be sober in the morning. You there, 
you reek of not-comp, get lost. Ah sir, did you like the dreams? Same 
again?"
 
"GETCHOR P-TIME..,."

>
>
> If you read carefully it assumes a single real present moment self that 
> has the experience of being in one room or the other.
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:49:03 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>> I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", 
>> starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate:
>>
>> "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really 
>> wasn't specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future 
>> technology allows you to be cloned while you're sleeping, and that your two 
>> copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1 (Figure 8.3). When they wake 
>> up, they'll both feel that the room number they read is completely 
>> unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible for you to 
>> upload your mind to a computer, then what I'm saying here will feel totally 
>> obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be as easy as 
>> making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning experiment from 
>> Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in 
>> almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written 
>> looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. In other words, 
>> causal physics will produce the illusion of randomness from your subjective 
>> viewpoint in any circumstance where you're being cloned. The fundamental 
>> reason that quantum mechanics appears random even though the wave function 
>> evolves deterministically is that the Schrodinger equation can evolve a 
>> wavefunction with a single you into one with clones of you in parallel 
>> universes. So how does it feel when you get cloned? It feels random! And 
>> every time something fundamentally random appears to happen to you, which 
>> couldn't have been predicted even in principle, it's a sign that you've 
>> been cloned."
>>
>> 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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

-- 
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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 1:31 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:





On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:

Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number regardless
of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed
whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the
big bang - maths has been used to work out what happened in the early
universe, with observable consequences now). There's a lot of hand waving
going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument (or even a
suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that
the world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is
questionable.

 

Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non
mechanically countable things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the
theology, etc.


>>Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka "numbers".  I think
you're slipping into mysticism, Bruno.

 

Brent ~ are you saying that arithmetic is the operation (with potential
ordering & grouping) that takes numeric input and produces numeric output? I
find it hard to conceive of math without also contemporaneously envisioning
enumerable entities. 

Chris



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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:14 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

On 2 March 2014 14:01, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com


Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the
dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to
go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its
imminent. 

 

Who are these "leaders" you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret
illuminati council of thirteen. who are these sinister "leaders" who believe
global warming is imminent?

 

>>The Elders of Zion?

 

Lol.. Quite possibly.

 

>>By the way, here is some scientific evidence, in case you're interested.

 

Unfortunately, when has something like scientific evidence ever stood in the
way of an ideologues opinion?

Chris

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

 

 Inline images 1
 

 

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 14:01, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *spudboy...@aol.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>
>
> You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the
> dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to
> go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its
> imminent.
>
>
>
> Who are these "leaders" you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret
> illuminati council of thirteen... who are these sinister "leaders" who
> believe global warming is imminent?
>

The Elders of Zion?

By the way, here is some scientific evidence, in case you're interested.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

[image: Inline images 1]

-- 
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: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

[LizR]

I feel there's a category error here somewhere...

I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of "Brave New World" ?

-- 
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: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

[Chris de Morsella]

 

>From The Dalai Lama
 's Ski Trip:
The Slate article is a pretty funny read this is its final passage; which I
think brings a certain perspective to everything so seems appropriate for
this list.

Chris

 

"Please."

She spoke with complete seriousness. "What is the meaning of life?"

In my entire week with the Dalai Lama, every conceivable question had been
asked-except this one. People had been afraid to ask the one-the really
big-question. There was a brief, stunned silence at the table.

The Dalai Lama answered immediately. "The meaning of life is happiness." He
raised his finger, leaning forward, focusing on her as if she were the only
person in the world. "Hard question is not, 'What is meaning of life?' That
is easy question to answer! No, hard question is what make happiness. Money?
Big house? Accomplishment? Friends? Or ." He paused. "Compassion and good
heart? This is question all human beings must try to answer: What make true
happiness?" He gave this last question a peculiar emphasis and then fell
silent, gazing at her with a smile.

"Thank you," she said, "thank you." She got up and finished stacking the
dirty dishes and cups, and took them away.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/culturebox/2014/02/dalai_lama_at_a_santa_
fe_ski_resort_tells_waitress_the_meaning_of_life.single.html

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:30 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

 

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:

 

> It produces 4X the energy it needs just from the solar PV on the roofs of its 
> buildings…. Isn’t it amazing what you can accomplish with such dilute sources 
> of energy. I include the link because the pictures are pretty cool, and 
> illustrate what a solar city could look like. 

http://inhabitat.com/sonnenschiff-solar-city-produces-4x-the-energy-it-needs/

 What can I say 


What I can say is that governments can get people to build anything no matter 
how ridiculous if the bribe to do so is big enough. Germany has the highest 
electricity prices in Europe, partially because they're shutting down their 
nuclear plants but mostly because 50% of the average consumer's electric bill 
goes into subsidizing solar energy.  So far the German consumer has been forced 
to subsidize the solar cell industry to the tune of 100 billion euros (128 
billion dollars). So what did they get out of those 128 billions dollars worth 
of solar cells? They reduced the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere enough that by 
the end of this century they will have delayed global warming by about 23 
hours.  

Clearly you have it in for feed-in tariffs; I dislike the fact that we 
Americans subsidize wars for oil. I don’t know where you are getting your 
figures; according to the Wiki on German feed-in tariffs 
  the figure is: 
€0.0056 per kWh (3% of household electricity costs) – which is it 3% or 50%; 
Wikipedia or John Clark?

Again from the same wiki entry" the [2012] total level of subsidy for all 
subsidized sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, biowaste fermentation, 
hydro, etc. was €2.4 billion. How do you get this $250 billion dollar figure 
for solar PV. The entire feed-in tariff subsidy for ALL sources in 2012 is less 
than 1% of the figure you quote; which indicates that there may be some 
problems with the figure you are using.

The clean renewable power offset achieved by this feed-in tariff program is 
estimated to have resulted in 87 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide by 2012; 
the difference of burning 40 million tons of coal. Your derision does not 
lessen this achievement.

Chris

 



Even the Germans are starting to get fed up with this nonsense and say they 
will pull the plug on solar subsidies by 2018. If so then, unless there are 
major technological breakthroughs, you can expect the solar industry to crash 
in 2018.   

By 2018 the global per unit price for solar PV will have fallen by a factor of 
4 – it will have become the low cost leader for electric power generation; yet 
John Clark is confident it will collapse. You are free of course to be 
confident on whatever you choose to be confident in, but in order to be 
convincing you need to more than announce your confidence.

Over the past 35 years of trend lines, On average, solar power improves 14% per 
year in terms of energy production per dollar invested. In 2013 solar PV unit 
cost was on  average around $0.74 per Watt of capacity. By 2018 using this long 
established cost trendline for solar PV it is possible to project that it will 
likely fall to somewhere around $0.37 per Watt of capacity by 2018.

You expect the global solar PV sector to collapse in 2018 when it will be able 
to sell its product for $0.37 / Watt of capacity or $370 per kilowatt. An 
energy source that just requires a south facing insolated surface to be mounted 
on – inside a module unit; an energy source that does not require the on-going 
purchase of increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Is this the reason you are 
confident that it will die? That it will be bar none the low cost electric 
energy source; that it will require no fuel and will not emit (beyond the 
embedded carbon footprint in its manufacturing & distribution chain) CO2; that 
it will help lighten the load on national grids, which across the world operate 
on the margin of collapse.

John you seem like a smart guy, but on this subject you are not thinking 
clearly – IMO.

Chris

  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.

-- 
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...@g

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, but what you are saying here is just that it is impossible to 
unambiguously OBSERVE that the proper ages are the same. I agree. But it is 
possible to unambiguously DEDUCE and CALCULATE that they MUST be the same, 
which is all my theory says.

If we can use calculation and deduction with respect to an invariant notion 
of proper ages that we CANNOT unambiguously observe, why can't we use 
calculation and deduction with proper age simultaneity as well?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 5:51:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you one simple question.
>
> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
> exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
> must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?
>
> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
> exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
> actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>
>
>
> It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T 
> have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics 
> is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR "ACTUAL" TRUTH ABOUT 
> SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an "actual" truth that they are the 
> same age or an "actual" truth that they are different ages. These things 
> are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of 
> which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the "same y 
> coordinates" in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions 
> of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on 
> different worldlines have the "same t coordinate" in any given inertial 
> coordinate system, nothing more.
>
>  
>
>
> What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
> have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
> exact same actual ages when they meet?
>
>
> Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they "do not have 
> the same actual ages", I simply say there is no objective truth about which 
> ages are "actually" simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an 
> arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things 
> work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip, 
> the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which 
> twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so 
> the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower 
> after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out 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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:38 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the
dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to
go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its
imminent. 

 

Who are these "leaders" you seem so worked up about? Is it the secret
illuminati council of thirteen. who are these sinister "leaders" who believe
global warming is imminent?

Do you realize how off the wall you sound?

 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

On 1 March 2014 04:59,  wrote:

It does. You cannot fake electricity. You cannot fake electric current. If
you are depending on solar power for 20% of your electricity supply, and the
rest for coal, because coal is reliable on a 7 x 24 basis, you can only rely
on solar for a slim fraction of electricity. You haven't solved the problem
in a technical manner, all one is doing is employing solar for a fraction of
total electricity consumption, to make ones self "feel" better. This is not
engineering, it is ideology- a faith movement to make one "feel" better,
without providing clean power to power one's civilization. How long must we
wait for miracle power sources, if the shadow of Climate Change is
overwhelming us all? It is politics and not health, and not engineering that
is driving this issue, right?

 

I don't see what you're saying here. Indeed, you appear to be contradicting
yourself. If solar provides 20% of your power, it provides 20% of your
power. There is nothing faith based about that, assuming it's a fact (e.g.
about 70% of New Zealand's power is provided by hydro, on average - that's
not faith, or a miracle, or a conspiracy, it's just a fact).

 

If solar can provide X% of your power, on average, then that means only
100-X% has to rely on fossil fuels. Hence you can reduce your fossil fuel
usage by that amount, and provide that much more of a distance between
civilisation and any future effects of pollution, climate change, and
resource depletion.

 

Sorry, what don't you understand here?

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: The solar example of a town in Germany

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 

 

John, because those in power say that Global Warming is imminent, and the 
solution is to switch to wind and solar, and shut off the dirty electrical 
sources. The problem is these sources cannot yet do it. But the progressives 
demand this anyway. It should not rationally matter what energy source we use, 
as long as it works, but we now have ideology in play.

 

News flash – global warming IS imminent – it does not matter whether you 
believe so or not, blinded by your ideology. The data speaks for itself.

 

-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 1, 2014 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

Spudboy and Liz: 

I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?' when I detected the original 
title about Germany going for it. Still a closed mind to assign the rest to 
coal (fossil). All that with Liz's example of NZ (hydro). No Windfarms? no 
Geotherm? 

In our capitalistic ways profit is the biggest driving force. No gov't "bribe" 
can override it. 

Today the fossils are supported (polluting allowances, tax-structures, mining 
support, help for distribution grids, etc. and no definite adequate treatise 
for the cost of solar. 

(Especially on a 7/24 basis). 

One side-remark: I failed to realize in descriptions of hybrid-vehicles the 
amount of OIL etc. necessary to produce the electricity for battery recharging 
plotted against the saving in gasoline-based fuel...Could we 'read' beyond our 
nose?

JM

 

 

 

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM,  wrote:

Chris, if this is all true and available today, or very, soon, Japan, which 
experienced the core meltdown at Fukushima, has not pursued a crash program of 
PV farms.?all over to replace nuclear. I read energy stuff all the time, as you 
must, and have seen a PV farm at sea, proposal. But I don't see this as more 
than the normal R&D. I hope you are correct. There's a radiation leak, in the 
American Southwest, at the plutonium waste storage facility. 



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 

Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

 

  _  

From: "spudboy...@aol.com" 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

 

>>Can you do the same with London in the UK? 

Yes

 

>>Can you produce 4 times more than it consumes Tokyo? 

Yes

 

>>Can you do this at night, and can you do this during times of rain and 
>>snowstorms? 

Electric energy can be stored. Utility scale electric energy storage is 
advancing very rapidly. So, yes.

 

 

The article wasn't clear. A coal plant or a uranium plant can do quite a bit of 
this also, and transmit the excess electricity to other towns and cities, on a 
7 x 24 basis. If, for any reason, we cannot do this with solar, then..? Also, 
what is the cost per kilowatt. I have heard that solar has made great progress 
in the last several years with with efficiency and cost-price. 

 

The cost per kilowatt -- for complete installed systems -- is starting to get 
close to parity with the cost for electricity from coal. In ten years from now 
solar will be far less expensive than coal electricity.



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 4:07 am
Subject: RE: The solar example of a town in Germany

It produces 4X the energy it needs just from the solar PV on the roofs of its 
buildings…. Isn’t it amazing what you can accomplish with such dilute sources 
of energy. I include the link because the pictures are pretty cool, and 
illustrate what a solar city could look like.

 

http://inhabitat.com/sonnenschiff-solar-city-produces-4x-the-energy-it-needs/

 

What can I say – I have an architecture kick, especially when it is sustainable 
and low footprint. 

Chris

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To

Re: For John Clark

[LizR]

I like the frog and bird metaphors, though! At least I prefer the idea of
the bird looking down on the mathematical landscape than worrying about
"the eye of god".

In the beginning was the Bird, to quote "The Unpleasant Profession of
Jonathan Hoag".

-- 
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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[LizR]

Excuse my ignorance, but what is this "functionalism" that is supposedly
disproved by AHS?

-- 
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.

Philosophy experiments

[LizR]

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/frankfurt/Default.aspx

-- 
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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:18 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 

Occupy was a Soros funded org liz. It started with a Canadian mag call Add
Busters, and is Soros owned. It was, what the dems called an astro-turf
organization, created to react to the losses in the 2010 elections, due to
us Tea Baggers. It was the idea that the "real masses were out in the
streets against the capitalists, but the protestors walked past Soros's
Manhattan townhouse. It was both creepy and phony. As for the second
amendment simply look to the ugliness that is happening in the Ukraine right
now. The ruling class is frightened of armed yokels for some reason.   

 

I call BS on what you just said. Clearly you are a Teabagger.. with an Ayn
Rand rattled brain. Your entire movement is a Koch brothers operation; a
case of throwing stones in a glass house.

 

 

Not that I'm advocating violence, of course, but they might be more amenable
to changing their ways if, say, some protestors occupied Wall Street...

Oh wait, they already did! How did it go?

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 28 February 2014 07:11,  wrote:


Why trust any of these billionaires?? Why trust the Koch's if you don't
trust Soros (like me)? Let us call the US system what it is-a plutocracy.
Run from the law firms on K-street in Washington, DC. Technically, its a
corporatism form of government. Because somebody likes NOVA is no reason to
embrace the Ruling Class, axiomatically. 

Well, you have kept "the right to bear arms" in your constitutin
specifically so you can do something about having oppressive rulers.

Not that I'm advocating violence, of course, but they might be more amenable
to changing their ways if, say, some protestors occupied Wall Street...

Oh wait, they already did! How did it go?

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:31:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:54:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 28 February 2014 01:05, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:13:22 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> >>
> >> On 26 February 2014 23:58, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to
> describe
> >> >> cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing
> involuntary
> >> >> movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the affected
> hand
> >> >> from
> >> >> an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's
> unaffected
> >> >> hand.
> >> >> In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened
> >> >> considerably,
> >> >> and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the
> context
> >> >> of
> >> >> feelings of estrangement from or personification of the affected
> limb
> >> >> or its
> >> >> movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been
> reported,
> >> >> involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus callosum
> >> >> plus
> >> >> dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/subcortical
> >> >> areas. A
> >> >> patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular aetiology is
> >> >> reported
> >> >> and the findings are discussed in the light of a conceptualisation
> of
> >> >> posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less
> >> >> associated
> >> >> with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and
> >> >> callosal-frontal counterparts." -
> >> >> http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to
> >> > contradict
> >> > functionalism. If functionalism identifies consciousness with
> function,
> >> > then
> >> > it would seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen as
> >> > estranged
> >> > from the personal awareness, is it is really no different from a
> zombie
> >> > in
> >> > which the substitution level is set at the body level. There is no
> >> > damage to
> >> > the arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet, its is
> felt
> >> > to
> >> > be outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to be
> your
> >> > sensations.
> >> >
> >> > This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would expect
> to
> >> > encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any
> inorganic
> >> > substitute. At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too would
> >> > the
> >> > brain become non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system would
> >> > fail
> >> > to be incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain could
> still
> >> > learn to use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own
> >> > articulation and familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is a one
> way
> >> > street and the prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal
> awareness
> >> > and
> >> > merge with it.
> >>
> >> This example shows that if there is a lesion in the neural circuitry
> >> it affects consciousness. If you fix the lesion such that the
> >> circuitry works properly but the consciousness is affected (keeping
> >> the environmental input constant) then that implies that consciousness
> >> is generated by something other than the brain.
> >
> >
> > Paying attention to the circuitry is a red herring. What I'm bringing up
> is
> > how dissociation of functions identified with the self does not make
> sense
> > for the functionalist view of consciousness. How do you give a program
> > 'alien subroutine syndrome'? Why does the program make a distinction
> between
> > the pure function of the subroutine and some feeling of belonging that
> is
> > generated by something other than the progr
>
>
> I'm sure there is some difference, but it doesn't affect the functionality
> of the hand. Under functionalism, since we can observe no difference
> between the function of the body with or without AHS, we should assume no
> such thing as AHS. If consciousness is like AHS, and the hand is like the
> brain or body, then we should not be able to see a difference between a
> conscious brain and simulation of brain activity that is unconscious.
>

 There is an observable difference in the body with AHS: the subject says
that it doesn't feel like his hand. This happens because the neural
circuits between the hand and the language centres are disrupted. If they
were not disrupted the language centres would get normal input and the
subject would say everything was normal.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:57:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 28 February 2014 15:22, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
 On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we
> need a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien?
>
> Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you
 that it's your hand?

>>>
>>> Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference does
>>> it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand.
>>>
>>
>> It's important for an animal to be able to distinguish self from
>> non-self, as can be seen if two animals are locked in combat - one that
>> can't tell its own limb from its opponent's is just as likely to bite
>> itself as its prey. Repeat that often enough and you have a strong
>> evolutionary pressure to distinguish self from non-self. I would imagine
>> alien hand syndrome is a breakdown of this system.
>>
>
> Sure, but I don't see that functionalism provides a basis to distinguish
> self from non-self other than function. As long as the functionality of the
> hand is there, and other people cannot tell any difference in what the hand
> can do, there should be no basis for any particular distress. We could make
> up a different evolutionary story too - that being physically close to your
> family or social group is important to survival and reproduction, so that
> there is a strong evolutionary pressure to suppress the difference between
> self and not-self. If it were the case that AHS were a breakdown in a
> global system like that, I would expect that victims might identify their
> family as strangers, etc.
>
> The particulars aren't the important thing though. I use AHS to add to
> blindsight and synesthesia as examples where the function-feeling
> equivalence which functionalism depends on appears to be violated.
>

You have too simplistic a view of what "function" means in the context of
an intelligent being. That is actually your whole problem: you look at
machine, imagine that you can see how it works, then look at a human, can't
figure out how it works, so conclude there must be something non-machine
like in the human. Yet the very examples you use demonstrate that even
mysterious-seeming behaviours such as those displayed in ALH are generated
by neural circuitry which can be easily disrupted.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Is information physical?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Well, we already know we get your knowledge of physics from TV shows so why 
not your knowledge, or lack thereof, of other subjects as well?
:-)

And you should really learn the difference between antiques and 
antiquities. You just display your continuing dismal ignorance by confusing 
them...

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 7:08:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> If one can believe TV shows, antiques dealers are a bunch of rogues hoping 
> to fleece old dears out of a fortune by giving them a tiny payout for some 
> valuable item they've kept in the attic for decades and don't realise the 
> true value of.
>
>
> On 2 March 2014 12:34, > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>>
>>> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest. 

>>>
>>> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The 
>>> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other 
>>> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical 
>>> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in 
>>> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality 
>>> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental 
>>> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS 
>>> mathematical.
>>>
>>> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities 
>>> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>>>
>>>   John K Clark
>>>
>>  
>> He's so not as cool as me. I'm like - antiques dealing is not for me. But 
>> tracking down rare antiquities in a bashed up fedora I will so like do 
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 3:31 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 March 2014 12:26, mailto:spudboy...@aol.com>> wrote:

John, because those in power say that Global Warming is imminent, and the 
solution
is to switch to wind and solar, and shut off the dirty electrical sources. 
The
problem is these sources cannot yet do it. But the progressives demand this 
anyway.
It should not rationally matter what energy source we use, as long as it 
works, but
we now have ideology in play.



But it does matter.  Fossil fuel works to supply energy, but it entails other losses.  So 
it does rationally matter.  When you say "other sources cannot yet do it" you are invoking 
your politically motivated all-or-nothing standard of "doing it".  You're the on who is 
bringing your anti-government ideology to the problem. Government provides lots of 
benefits to the fossil fuel like propping up the Saudi ruling family and some other 
despotic leaders who will guarantee access to oil.  And that's just realpoltik.  But in 
deciding where to spend the taxpayers money the Government has an obligation to consider 
all the costs, not just those on Exxon-Mobil accounting sheets.


Brent



I haven't come across this myself. It sounds like a straw man . I think most 
progressives would like to see ANY movement towards renewable, non-polluting energy 
generation. I certainly would.

--
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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 12:18,  wrote:

> Occupy was a Soros funded org liz. It started with a Canadian mag call Add
> Busters, and is Soros owned. It was, what the dems called an astro-turf
> organization, created to react to the losses in the 2010 elections, due to
> us Tea Baggers. It was the idea that the "real masses were out in the
> streets against the capitalists, but the protestors walked past Soros's
> Manhattan townhouse. It was both creepy and phony. As for the second
> amendment simply look to the ugliness that is happening in the Ukraine
> right now. The ruling class is frightened of armed yokels for some
> reason.
>

Who is this Soros person?
So the ruling class is scared of armed yokels ... I guess that put you guys
off in 1776?

-- 
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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To address your points in order:

1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important 
point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks 
at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an 
observation. In fact from their native comoving frames they will observe A 
at some other age than their calculation. So the calculations trump the 
views.

Thus it is valid in relativity to CALCULATE things we CANNOT OBSERVE from 
our frame. That's what I do to establish 1:1 correlations of actual ages. I 
use calculations that trump Views, that trump observations. We don't always 
have to use frame views to establish relativistic truth. Do you agree with 
that? You must if you accept proper age invariance.

Also note that the ticks of the symmetric twins' own comoving clocks serve 
as event markers. So if the proper ages of the twins are invariant to all 
observers, then all observers can simply observe their clock tick markers 
reading exactly the same for the same proper ages of both twins. That 
PROVES the 1:1 correlation that the real actual ages of the symmetric twins 
always occur at the same clock tick markers and thus they are the same 
proper ages at the same times.

Thus all observers agree that the proper ages of both twins occur at the 
same clock tick marker readings of the twins own proper clocks.

This is one more proof the actual ages of the symmetric twins are equal 
during the trip, and EVERY OBSERVER AGREES ON THIS. Thus it is a real 
physical fact.


2. What all these quotes mean in saying that all frames are equally valid 
is that all observer VIEWS are real actual VIEWS of reality. That they are 
what the observer actually observes. I certainly agree with that. However 
as I've pointed out they don't all preserve the actual physical reality of 
SPECIFIC facts. I just pointed out how they don't with respect to the 
invariance of proper times which are not observable views but calculations. 
Proper age invariance is a physical fact at odds with the notion that all 
frames are equally valid as anything else than VIEWS.

3. No. By "the different ages of twins in relative motion are not agreed 
and thus are views rather than actual physical facts" I mean just that, and 
just what I've always said. The 1:1 correlation is NOT the VIEW of one twin 
of the other's clock. It is a logical calculation and not a view that 
establishes that 1:1.

4. **You now say you "DON'T CLAIM YOU PROVE P-TIME SIMULTANEITY IS NOT 
TRANSITIVE!". OK, great. Wonderful! That's progress, and a complete change 
from what you said previously. You then are apparently trying to prove 
something else. But please, respectfully, you are trying to disprove MY 
theory, so please let ME state MY theory and then try to disprove that 
rather than trying to disprove something that isn't my actual theory.

I just gave a concise statement of my theory earlier today. Can you 
disprove it or can't you?

Edgar







On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is 
> frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at 
> a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a 
> particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin), 
> then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get 
> the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what 
> Alice's age is at the "same moment" that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial 
> location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any 
> "actual physical fact" about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule 
> out presentism since there could still be a "metaphysical fact" about 
> simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if 
> there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical 
> predictions).
>
>
>  
>
>  but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her 
> actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this?
>
>
> "Don't change her actual age" WHEN? Doesn't change her age at some 
> specific event on her worldline, or doesn't change what her age is "now" at 
> the same moment that some distant observer like Bob reaches a particular 
> age, say 40? If the first I agree that she has an actual age at any given 
> event on her 

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 12:37,  wrote:

> You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the
> dirty power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to
> go. The leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its
> imminent.
>
> You seriously think there is any chance that the dirty power will be shut
down???

What planet would that be on?


>
>

-- 
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: Is information physical?

[LizR]

If one can believe TV shows, antiques dealers are a bunch of rogues hoping
to fleece old dears out of a fortune by giving them a tiny payout for some
valuable item they've kept in the attic for decades and don't realise the
true value of.


On 2 March 2014 12:34,  wrote:

>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest.
>>>
>>
>> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The
>> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other
>> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical
>> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in
>> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality
>> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental
>> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS
>> mathematical.
>>
>> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities
>> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>>
>>   John K Clark
>>
>
> He's so not as cool as me. I'm like - antiques dealing is not for me. But
> tracking down rare antiquities in a bashed up fedora I will so like do
>
> --
> 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: Block Universes

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:57:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> I apologize, but I'm a little unsure as to what you are actually asking of 
> me here, but I'll try to answer.
>
> First P-time and relativity are NOT causally isolated. A proper 
> interpretation of relativity actually implies the necessity of P-time. i've 
> demonstrated why. Please read to my proximate reply to Quentin for an 
> explanation of some of it.
>
> So because they are causally connected, there could be an inconsistency, 
> which would be fatal, but there isn't any such consistency that has arisen 
> even after many have tried to find one.
>
> Edgar
>
 
 
They actually are not causally connected Edgar. 
 
p-time doesn't infer from within itself the layer above will be 
relativistic. And Relativity calculates everything and 
theoretically carries its own weight too without ever once depending on a 
p-time. 
 
What you do is, propose a common shared moment at the point of a handshake 
in a local space. Relativity explains how they got there independently of 
that, but because your proposition is inherently not causal, in that, it's 
an encapsulating dimension. Which it would be possible to propose a 
further encapsulation of that too, without changing anything. Because 
that's the nature of your proposition, there is no definitive, resolvable 
inconsistency.
 
By the way that's the right way to do it IMHO. It's correct to introduce a 
theory that way. It's super robust. No one can refuse it. 
 
However the approach method is that of the tautology. It's the very best 
way to begin. But the introduction is then worth nothing in and of 
itself. Everything hangs on what you construct from that tautological 
foundation.
 
The two problems I've pointed out in your efforts, have been, this one. 
 
And the one where you argue you can correlate moment for moment between 
twins, and that as a proof for p-time. Unfortunately it's not legitimate, 
what you say, because - remembering you are doing this correlating from 
absolute time, it's always going to be possible to 1:1 correlate, moment 
for moment, literally any two objects in the universe, if you are allowed 
to stretch or contract one of them in the dimension of measurement. Which 
is what you allow yourself to do to handle relativistic effects.  

>  
>

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

You  need to power all civilization, once the leaders shut down all the dirty 
power. What can we replace it with. What do we have we have ready to go. The 
leaders all global Warming, so what can we do? They say its imminent. 


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Feb 28, 2014 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany



On 1 March 2014 04:59,   wrote:

It does. You cannot fake electricity. You cannot fake electric current. If you 
are depending on solar power for 20% of your electricity supply, and the rest 
for coal, because coal is reliable on a 7 x 24 basis, you can only rely on 
solar for a slim fraction of electricity. You haven't solved the problem in a 
technical manner, all one is doing is employing solar for a fraction of total 
electricity consumption, to make ones self "feel" better. This is not 
engineering, it is ideology- a faith movement to make one "feel" better, 
without providing clean power to power one's civilization. How long must we 
wait for miracle power sources, if the shadow of Climate Change is overwhelming 
us all? It is politics and not health, and not engineering that is driving this 
issue, right?




I don't see what you're saying here. Indeed, you appear to be contradicting 
yourself. If solar provides 20% of your power, it provides 20% of your power. 
There is nothing faith based about that, assuming it's a fact (e.g. about 70% 
of New Zealand's power is provided by hydro, on average - that's not faith, or 
a miracle, or a conspiracy, it's just a fact).


If solar can provide X% of your power, on average, then that means only 100-X% 
has to rely on fossil fuels. Hence you can reduce your fossil fuel usage by 
that amount, and provide that much more of a distance between civilisation and 
any future effects of pollution, climate change, and resource depletion.


Sorry, what don't you understand here?



-- 
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: Is information physical?

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 8:54:19 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> > information does need a substrate in which to manifest. 
>>
>
> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level. The 
> integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other 
> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical 
> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in 
> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality 
> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental 
> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS 
> mathematical.
>
> On a completely different subject, are you Edgar Owen the antiquities 
> dealer? If so you have a pretty cool job.
>
>   John K Clark
>
 
He's so not as cool as me. I'm like - antiques dealing is not for me. But 
tracking down rare antiquities in a bashed up fedora I will so like do 

-- 
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: Block Universes

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 11:51, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Let me ask you one simple question.
>>
>> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with
>> the exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude
>> they must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the
>> trip?
>>
>> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in
>> the exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the
>> twins actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>>
>
The same answer as usual. Because the lengths of their worldlines through
space-time between the start and end points are the same.

Do pay attention, 007.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 12:26,  wrote:

> John, because those in power say that Global Warming is imminent, and the
> solution is to switch to wind and solar, and shut off the dirty electrical
> sources. The problem is these sources cannot yet do it. But the
> progressives demand this anyway. It should not rationally matter what
> energy source we use, as long as it works, but we now have ideology in play.
>

I haven't come across this myself. It sounds like a straw man . I think
most progressives would like to see ANY movement towards renewable,
non-polluting energy generation. I certainly would.

-- 
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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[spudboy100]

John, because those in power say that Global Warming is imminent, and the 
solution is to switch to wind and solar, and shut off the dirty electrical 
sources. The problem is these sources cannot yet do it. But the progressives 
demand this anyway. It should not rationally matter what energy source we use, 
as long as it works, but we now have ideology in play.


-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 1, 2014 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany


Spudboy and Liz:
I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?' when I detected the original 
title about Germany going for it. Still a closed mind to assign the rest to 
coal (fossil). All that with Liz's example of NZ (hydro). No Windfarms? no 
Geotherm? 
In our capitalistic ways profit is the biggest driving force. No gov't "bribe" 
can override it. 
Today the fossils are supported (polluting allowances, tax-structures, mining 
support, help for distribution grids, etc. and no definite adequate treatise 
for the cost of solar. 
(Especially on a 7/24 basis). 
One side-remark: I failed to realize in descriptions of hybrid-vehicles the 
amount of OIL etc. necessary to produce the electricity for battery recharging 
plotted against the saving in gasoline-based fuel...Could we 'read' beyond our 
nose?
JM








On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM,   wrote:

Chris, if this is all true and available today, or very, soon, Japan, which 
experienced the core meltdown at Fukushima, has not pursued a crash program of 
PV farms.?all over to replace nuclear. I read energy stuff all the time, as you 
must, and have seen a PV farm at sea, proposal. But I don't see this as more 
than the normal R&D. I hope you are correct. There's a radiation leak, in the 
American Southwest, at the plutonium waste storage facility. 



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 


Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany







  
 
 
 
   From: "spudboy...@aol.com" 
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:01 AM
 Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
  
 


>>Can you do the same with London in the UK? 
Yes


>>Can you produce 4 times more than it consumes Tokyo? 
Yes


>>Can you do this at night, and can you do this during times of rain and 
>>snowstorms? 
Electric energy can be stored. Utility scale electric energy storage is 
advancing very rapidly. So, yes.




The article wasn't clear. A coal plant or a uranium plant can do quite a bit of 
this also, and transmit the excess electricity to other towns and cities, on a 
7 x 24 basis. If, for any reason, we cannot do this with solar, then..? Also, 
what is the cost per kilowatt. I have heard that solar has made great progress 
in the last several years with with efficiency and cost-price. 


The cost per kilowatt -- for complete installed systems -- is starting to get 
close to parity with the cost for electricity from coal. In ten years from now 
solar will be far less expensive than coal electricity.



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 4:07 am
Subject: RE: The solar example of a town in Germany



It produces 4X the energy it needs just from the solar PV on the roofs of its 
buildings…. Isn’t it amazing what you can accomplish with such dilute sources 
of energy. I include the link because the pictures are pretty cool, and 
illustrate what a solar city could look like.
 
http://inhabitat.com/sonnenschiff-solar-city-produces-4x-the-energy-it-needs/
 
What can I say – I have an architecture kick, especially when it is sustainable 
and low footprint. 
Chris


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 
 
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-l

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

Occupy was a Soros funded org liz. It started with a Canadian mag call Add 
Busters, and is Soros owned. It was, what the dems called an astro-turf 
organization, created to react to the losses in the 2010 elections, due to us 
Tea Baggers. It was the idea that the "real masses were out in the streets 
against the capitalists, but the protestors walked past Soros's Manhattan 
townhouse. It was both creepy and phony. As for the second amendment simply 
look to the ugliness that is happening in the Ukraine right now. The ruling 
class is frightened of armed yokels for some reason.   


Not that I'm advocating violence, of course, but they might be more amenable to 
changing their ways if, say, some protestors occupied Wall Street...


Oh wait, they already did! How did it go?






-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 6:45 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 28 February 2014 07:11,   wrote:


Why trust any of these billionaires?? Why trust the Koch's if you don't trust 
Soros (like me)? Let us call the US system what it is-a plutocracy. Run from 
the law firms on K-street in Washington, DC. Technically, its a corporatism 
form of government. Because somebody likes NOVA is no reason to embrace the 
Ruling Class, axiomatically. 


Well, you have kept "the right to bear arms" in your constitutin specifically 
so you can do something about having oppressive rulers.

Not that I'm advocating violence, of course, but they might be more amenable to 
changing their ways if, say, some protestors occupied Wall Street...


Oh wait, they already did! How did it go?




-- 
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: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you one simple question.
>
> In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the
> exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they
> must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?
>
> If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the
> exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins
> actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?
>


It's not that I'm claiming that there's an objective truth that they DON'T
have the same ages during the trip. I'm just saying that as far as physics
is concerned, there simply IS NO OBJECTIVE OR "ACTUAL" TRUTH ABOUT
SIMULTANEITY, and thus there is neither an "actual" truth that they are the
same age or an "actual" truth that they are different ages. These things
are purely a matter of human coordinate conventions, like the question of
which pairs of points on different measuring-tapes have the "same y
coordinates" in any given Cartesian coordinate system. Similarly, questions
of simultaneity reduce to questions about which pairs of points on
different worldlines have the "same t coordinate" in any given inertial
coordinate system, nothing more.



>
> What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not
> have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the
> exact same actual ages when they meet?
>

Again, I do not say there is any objective truth that they "do not have the
same actual ages", I simply say there is no objective truth about which
ages are "actually" simultaneous in some sense that is more than just an
arbitrary coordinate convention. But if you're just asking about how things
work in FRAMES where they don't have the same actual ages during the trip,
the answer is that in such a frame you always find that the answer to which
twin's clock is ticking faster changes at some point during the trip, so
the twin whose clock was formerly ticking faster is now ticking slower
after a certain time coordinate t, and it always balances out exactly so
that their clocks have elapsed the same total time when they reunite. If
you like I could give you a simple numerical example where I analyze a
symmetric trip both from the frame where their velocities are symmetrical,
and a different frame where their velocities are non-symmetrical, and show
that it does work out that the second frame predicts their ages will be the
same when they reunite despite them aging at different rates during
different phases of the trip in this frame.

Meanwhile, are you going to address the question about whether you agree
with the 3 premises that I claim together lead to a contradiction? I'll
repost the question from my last post:

'Again, the 3 premises are:

1. If a pair of inertial observers are at rest relative to one another,
then events (like clock readings) that are simultaneous in their comoving
frame are also simultaneous in p-time

2. Any two events that happen at precisely the same position and time
coordinate in a particular inertial frame must be simultaneous in p-time

3. p-time simultaneity is transitive

So to start with, please just tell me if you do agree with all these
premises, or if there is one or more you disagree with or aren't sure about
and require clarification on. And if you disagree with or are not sure
about #2, this is the "same point in spacetime" issue we had been
discussing earlier before you stopped responding, so in this case please go
back to my last post on the subject at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJand
respond to that.'

Jesse

-- 
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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 2:00 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 

Since this thread is about Fukushima, can I just mention that if all the
power stations in the world could somehow switch to using renewables while
all vehicles in the world (bar a tiny few) continued to use fossil fuels,
that would STILL be a big boost for the environment.

 

With power stations you don't need to worry about the same factors (energy
density etc) but you do need to worry about other things - load balancing,
etc - which is why non-renewable sources are unlikely to go away completely
for power stations (unless we get something like a world-wide power grid,
which I don't suppose is very feasible). But they could still do a lot
better than they are now.

 

A mix of renewables and gas turbines (which themselves could increasingly be
fueled by algae bio-gas sources). Gas turbines achieve 50% efficiency, are
relatively clean and are able to be spun up or spun down quite rapidly
making them the best choice for spinning reserve - along with hydro, which
can also take on the role of spinning reserve.

 

LFTR could provide a portion of baseload power that coupled with a much
larger energy storage capacity (that acts to decouple supply from demand and
smooth it all out) and the available spinning reserve could ensure grid
stability 24X7X365

 

Some - varying from place to place - mix of renewable sources + baseload
sources + spinning reserve + energy storage capacity will gradually supplant
the current power generation mix dominated by large dirty unsustainable coal
fired thermo-electric and an aging fleet of increasingly scary reactors
(such as the one in Florida where they have just discovered that its high
pressure steam tubes are worn up to 30% for example) a fleet of nukes that
are operating well past their design specs - routinely getting relicensed,
with SFP getting filled far beyond original intended capacity - by tight
packing the spent fuel. 

 

Speaking of baseload power sources; there is another baseload source that
has a massive potential to scale, but also is saddled with some potentially
serious problems - of the kind that is a terrible PR nightmare. I speak of
engineered dry hot rock geothermal, using a similar fracking approach to
engineer a steam permeable reservoir in a deep volume of hot dry rock. It
would inject high pressure water/poppant slurry into the micro-factures the
very high pressure fluid creates in the rock mass, but without all the toxic
solvents, surfactants etc. present in the witches brews the gas companies
are pumping down dissolved in the fracking fluid used by the kerogen and gas
fracking plays. It has been tried a few times and famously in Basil seems to
have triggered a fairly noticeable tremor - which ended that experiment
immediately. For some reason the earth tremors are "acceptable" and little
mentioned when it comes to fracking for gas or kerogen, but become large
point headlines for dry rock geothermal. 

It is a problem, but perhaps it is not that much of a problem in many
geologic formations. A much improved understanding of how the forces and
stresses at work in the deep hot bottom of the crust dynamically behave and
what effects fracking will have could address this. If this issue can be
addresses this form of geothermal energy has a pretty big upside potential
for supplying baseload power - it gets very hot beneath our feet a few miles
deep. and good deep rock formations are very widely available.

Chris

 

-- 
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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Hmmm, that's exactly what I said. So why are you disagreeing with yourself 
again? Looks like you are out of touch both with reality and English 
comprehension...

Edgar

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:51:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer >wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> Edgar
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Let me ask you one simple question.

In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the 
exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they 
must also have been the exact same real actual ages all during the trip?

If, as you claim, the same exact proper accelerations do NOT result in the 
exact same actual ages all during the trip then how in hell can the twins 
actually have the exact same actual ages when they meet up?

What is the mysterious mechanism you propose that causes twins that do not 
have the same actual ages during the trip to just happen to end up with the 
exact same actual ages when they meet?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 1, 2014 11:42:18 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
> sorts of different ages
>
>
> I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is 
> frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at 
> a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a 
> particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin), 
> then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get 
> the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what 
> Alice's age is at the "same moment" that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial 
> location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any 
> "actual physical fact" about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule 
> out presentism since there could still be a "metaphysical fact" about 
> simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if 
> there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical 
> predictions).
>
>
>  
>
>  but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her 
> actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this?
>
>
> "Don't change her actual age" WHEN? Doesn't change her age at some 
> specific event on her worldline, or doesn't change what her age is "now" at 
> the same moment that some distant observer like Bob reaches a particular 
> age, say 40? If the first I agree that she has an actual age at any given 
> event on her wrodline, but there ARE no different "views" of this since all 
> frames agree on her proper age at any specific event on her worldline. If 
> the latter I don't agree there is any physical basis for saying she has a 
> unique "actual age" when Bob is 40, since relativity doesn't give any 
> physical basis for a preferred definition of simultaneity.
>  
>
>
> Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand 
> that all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical 
> fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some 
> frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER 
> OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. 
>
>
> Not a physicist in the world would agree with you that there is a 
> "fundamental notion in relativity that some frames represent actual 
> physical facts", you appear to be completely confused about the difference 
> between your own p-time views and mainstream relativity. In special 
> relativity there can NEVER be a basis for considering one inertial frame 
> more "correct" than any other. There are only two kinds of facts in 
> relativity:
>
> 1. Facts about frame-independent matters like the proper time of an 
> observer at a particular event on their worldline; all frames agree in 
> their predictions about these, so they don't give any reason to prefer one 
> frame over another.
>
> 2. Facts about frame-dependent matters like the coordinate velocity of an 
> object at a particular event on its worldline, or the question of which 
> point on worldline B is simultaneous with a particular point on worldline 
> A; different frames disagree on these matters, and in relativity NO FRAME'S 
> STATEMENTS ABOUT FRAME-DEPENDENT MATTERS ARE CONSIDERED MORE VALID THAN ANY 
> OTHER FRAME'S.
>
> If you don't believe me that it's a basic principle of relativity that all 
> frames are considered equally valid and none are preferred over others, 
> here are some quotes from books written by physicists that I found on 
> google books:
>
> "If one reference frame moves uniformly relative to another, then the two 
> are equally good frames for observing nature, and two identical experiments 
> performed in the two frames will give identical results."
>
> --From "Relativity for the Questioning 

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

Since this thread is about Fukushima, can I just mention that if all the
power stations in the world could somehow switch to using renewables while
all vehicles in the world (bar a tiny few) continued to use fossil fuels,
that would STILL be a big boost for the environment.

With power stations you don't need to worry about the same factors (energy
density etc) but you do need to worry about other things - load balancing,
etc - which is why non-renewable sources are unlikely to go away completely
for power stations (unless we get something like a world-wide power grid,
which I don't suppose is very feasible). But they could still do a lot
better than they are now.

-- 
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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 10:04 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Chris de Morsella > wrote:


>> Who cares about gravimetric density?


> Evidently you don't; that much is clear. The automobile companies that 
are moving
towards electric vehicles care -- and care a lot.


Why? They care about weight and how much energy it can store, but I don't see why they'd 
care how dense it was. Well OK if it had the density of styrofoam there could be a 
problem finding a place to put 200 pounds of it in a small car, but that is not a 
realistic issue; as long as  the battery was reliable and cheap and stored lots of 
energy for its weight I don't see why car makers would much care if it was as dense as 
aluminum or as dense as lead.




As I  recall the problem with zinc-air batteries is that the peak available current is too 
low.  It doesn't work for an automobile to have a lot of energy available but very little 
power.


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: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 08:50, John Mikes  wrote:

> Spudboy and Liz:
> I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?'
>

If you know of a greater source of energy in our neighbourhood, let me know.


> Still a closed mind to assign the rest to coal (fossil). All that with
> Liz's example of NZ (hydro). No Windfarms? no Geotherm?
>

NZ also uses wind and geothermal energy but it isn't a large pecentage so I
didn't think it would cut much ice (so to speak) with spudboy.

I'm in favour of all forms of renewable energy, and in favour of
non-renewables that don't cause massive environmental damage like bumping
up atmospheric CO2 by 50% (e.g. nuclear is fine if it doesn't cause
problems like Fukushima - there are far safer reactor designs around than
the majority of those currently deployed, I'm told)


> In our capitalistic ways profit is the biggest driving force. No gov't
> "bribe" can override it.
>

Hm. So the UK nuclear industry wasn't driven by govt bribes?


> Today the fossils are supported (polluting allowances, tax-structures,
> mining support, help for distribution grids, etc. and no definite
>

More govt bribes???


> adequate treatise for the cost of solar.
> (Especially on a 7/24 basis).
>

My idea is to use solar where possible, as well as all the other
sustainable sources, and fossils / nuclear where they are needed to take up
the slack. Which is what is already happening, though not enough as yet to
help our children avoid the effects of our splurging of the Earth's
resources.


> One side-remark: I failed to realize in descriptions of hybrid-vehicles
> the amount of OIL etc. necessary to produce the electricity for battery
> recharging plotted against the saving in gasoline-based fuel...Could we
> 'read' beyond our nose?
>
> This is why I'd like to see more research into extracting CO2 from the air
and preferably turning it back into petrol. As is apparently being looked
into.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 12:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number regardless of whether 
anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, or indeed whether anyone is even 
alive (e.g. it was prime in the first instants of the big bang - maths has been used 
to work out what happened in the early universe, with observable consequences now). 
There's a lot of hand waving going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down 
argument (or even a suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.


To deny what? That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory that the world 
consists of countable things - whether it really is, is questionable.


Well, in the comp theory, there are no countable things, and non mechanically countable 
things, etc. Both in the math, the physics, the theology, etc.


Arithmetic doesn't include countable things, aka "numbers".  I think you're slipping into 
mysticism, 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.

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark

 

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 

>> Who cares about gravimetric density?


> Evidently you don't; that much is clear. The automobile companies that are
moving towards electric vehicles care - and care a lot. 

 

Why? They care about weight and how much energy it can store, but I don't
see why they'd care how dense it was. Well OK if it had the density of
styrofoam there could be a problem finding a place to put 200 pounds of it
in a small car, but that is not a realistic issue; as long as  the battery
was reliable and cheap and stored lots of energy for its weight I don't see
why car makers would much care if it was as dense as aluminum or as dense as
lead. 

Gravimetric density is the measure of unit of potential energy per unit of
weight; while volumetric density measures unit of potential energy per unit
of volume. While both are measures of energy density; they are not
inter-changeable and are measuring different things. Both are important. To
give you an example hydrogen gas has a very high gravimetric density, but a
very low volumetric density. Weight essentially determines how much power a
car will need; the more a car weighs the more energy it will require to move
it along. If a battery system has twice the gravimetric density as another
type of battery it can store twice as much energy per kilogram of mass.
Can't you see how important this is for automobile manufacturers - or for
that matter for the makers of all the mobile electronic devices becoming so
ubiquitous nowadays.. The smartphones, tablets, digital cameras, music
players and so on.

Hope this clears up any confusion on your part on the specific meaning of
these two related means of measuring energy density.

 > The advanced battery field is moving very fast 

>>I disagree. Nearly all electronic components are astronomically better
than they were 50 years ago, but batteries are the exception, they are only
slightly better.  

 

That was the case up until recently, but the need for better batteries is
huge. Just the market for powering portable devices itself is huge and
growing. Whereas before battery R&D spending languished and was stuck in the
slow lane, for the last ten to fifteen years R&D spending has really ramped
up on it and the results of all of this effort is moving through the R&D
pipeline towards market.

But I agree it has moved frustratingly slow compared to the pace in say chip
transistor density.

Energy density is critical for transportation and portable applications; it
is much less of a factor for fixed large scale energy storage facilities.
What matters for these is of course COST, scale, durability (how many cycles
before degradation becomes a factor) and metrics of this nature. 

Costs keep coming down -- EOS Energy Storage, for example, intends to launch
its zinc-air battery next year with a price of $200-$250/kWh, which includes
the cost of the inverters to go between DC and AC power. This is starting to
close in on the cost for gas turbines, which are the current default means
of providing spinning reserve for the grid.

 

 

>  It may surprise you but I wish the US would start up an LFTR program. in
fact, I wish the 8+ billion dollar loan guarantee now earmarked to fund
those nuclear white elephants in Georgia was instead - much more wisely IMO
- being used to kick start an LFTR program.


Well, we agree on something. And I would rather they had spent 8 billion
dollars on research to improve photovoltaic cells and batteries rather than
build more reactors based on designs from the 1960s; even the most promising
ideas can go south and this matter is too important to place all our bets on
just one vision.

 

We do agree on this.

Chris

 

 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.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[meekerdb]

On 3/1/2014 12:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2014, at 23:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is a fact that 
1+1=2.


Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct objects and 
counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of Reason" and Lakoff and Nunez 
"Where Mathematics Comes From".


That makes sense, but only by negating computationalism.


I don't see that it is inconsistent with saying "yes" to the doctor - though it may be 
inconsistent with other parts of your argument like the UDA.


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: Block Universes

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
>> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
>> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>>
>> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any
>> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think
>> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all
>> sorts of different ages
>>
>
Edgar

I'm sorry, but this sort of comment shows that your grasp of relativity
theory is about as good as your understanding of block universes - which is
to say that yet again, you're completely missing the point. All frames are
equal when it comes to representing physical facts, some are just more
convenient than others for doing the maths (hence "relativity"). And you
can't make Alice's age whatever you like, you can only obtain different
values by measuring it from frames moving at different velocities, because
the planes of simultaneity attached to those frames intersect Alice's
worldline at different points in space-time.

Why not go away and read up on the subject before you pontificate 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 09:28, John Mikes  wrote:

> Liz:
>
> subatomic physics does not indicate anything. We created the figment
> *physics* by our misunderstanding of partial phenomena into our temporary
> state of  mental inventory we had at the approriate time. Macro, atomic,
> subatomic whatever.
>

Oh. OK.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[John Mikes]

Liz:

subatomic physics does not indicate anything. We created the figment
*physics* by our misunderstanding of partial phenomena into our temporary
state of  mental inventory we had at the approriate time. Macro, atomic,
subatomic whatever.

JM


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 1 March 2014 11:58, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/2014 2:32 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>>
>>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
>>> is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>>
>>
>> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of distinct
>> objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of Reason"
>> and Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From".
>>
>
> It isn't just us. Subatomic physics indicates that the world consists of
> distinct objects, and keeps track of the number of 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.
>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[John Mikes]

Bruno concluded his Feb 28 post:

*The "TOE" extracted from comp assumes we agree on the laws of addition and
multiplication, and on classical logic. From this you can prove the
existence of the universal numbers and or all their computations, and even
interview the Löbian numbers, on what is possible for them, in different
relative sense.*

*So, math comes from arithmetic, and arithmetic can explain why it is
impossible to explain arithmetic from less than arithmetic, making
arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a good start.*

*God created the Integers. All the rest came when God added "Add and
Multiply". *
*Basically. - **Bruno*

*Start;*  "TOE" extracted from comp - so we are talking about a fraction of
everything, the part as extracted. I like to consider Everything as
infinite and all, beyond what we can know about, identify or understand.

*Finish:* "GOD" created the integers - and the World, and the Angels,
And(faith).  He
(or She, or It) added "Add and multiply" - nothing else.
(Strictly for math, not for capitalism and/or having lots of children).

How do fractions come out of that? Can you add, or multiply integers, to
get *0.123456*?
or *irrational* numbers? I described here already my 'story' of the Roman
numbers before the invention of zero, based on TWO hands (with fingers, '5'
one palm- two fingers)..
JM



On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 28 Feb 2014, at 08:20, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information - encoded
> on what though? - Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some
> cling to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very
> real. However when you get right down to it all we have is measured values
> of things and meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated
> in the experience of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in
> the end all that we can say for sure about anything is the value it has
> when we measure it.
> I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark's book - I read a bit
> each day when I break for lunch - so this is partly influencing this train
> of thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how
> in a sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every
> possible outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it
> that I had never read before.
> Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea
> of comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an
> emergent phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of
> parallelism and vastness of scale of the information system in which it is
> self-emergent.
>
> Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every
> information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a
> substrate medium upon which to encode itself; information seems describable
> in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on some substrate system. I
> would like to avoid the infinite regression of stopping at the point of
> describing systems as existing upon other and requiring other substrate
> systems that themselves require substrates themselves described as
> information again requiring some substrate... repeat eternally.
> It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a
> very simple substrate system given enough replication of elements... a simple
> binary state machine could suffice, given enough bits.
> But what are the bits encoded on?
>
> At some point reductionism can no longer reduce And then we are back to
> where we first started How did that arise or come to be? If for example
> we say that math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and
> the various set operations? What of enumerations? These simplest of simple
> things. Can you reduce the {} null set?
> What does it arise from?
>
> Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which everything
> else is tapestried over is unanswerable; it is something that keeps coming
> back to itch my ears.
>
> Am interested in hearing what some of you may have to say about this
> universe of the most simple things: numbers, sets; and the very simple base
> operators -- {+-*/=!^()} etc. that operate on these enumerable entities and
> the logical operators {and, or, xor}
>
> What is a number? Doesn't it only have meaning in the sense that it is
> greater  than the number that is less than it & less than the one greater
> than it? Does the concept of a number actually even have any meaning
> outside of being thought of as being a member of the enumerable set
> {1,2,3,4,... n}?In other words '3' by itself means nothing and is
> nothing; it only means something in terms of the set of numbers as in:
> 2<3<4... 
> And what of the simple operators. When we say a + b = c   we are dealing
> with two separate kinds of entities, with one {a,b,c} being quantities or

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Mikes]

Spudboy and Liz:
I wanted to ask 'why the closed mind FOR solar?' when I detected the
original title about Germany going for it. Still a closed mind to assign
the rest to coal (fossil). All that with Liz's example of NZ (hydro). No
Windfarms? no Geotherm?
In our capitalistic ways profit is the biggest driving force. No gov't
"bribe" can override it.
Today the fossils are supported (polluting allowances, tax-structures,
mining support, help for distribution grids, etc. and no definite adequate
treatise for the cost of solar.
(Especially on a 7/24 basis).
One side-remark: I failed to realize in descriptions of hybrid-vehicles the
amount of OIL etc. necessary to produce the electricity for battery
recharging plotted against the saving in gasoline-based fuel...Could we
'read' beyond our nose?
JM




On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:58 PM,  wrote:

> Chris, if this is all true and available today, or very, soon, Japan,
> which experienced the core meltdown at Fukushima, has not pursued a crash
> program of PV farms.?all over to replace nuclear. I read energy stuff all
> the time, as you must, and have seen a PV farm at sea, proposal. But I
> don't see this as more than the normal R&D. I hope you are correct. There's
> a radiation leak, in the American Southwest, at the plutonium waste storage
> facility.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris de Morsella 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 3:39 pm
> Subject: Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>
>
>   --
>  *From:* "spudboy...@aol.com" 
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 27, 2014 10:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>  >>Can you do the same with London in the UK?
> Yes
>
>  >>Can you produce 4 times more than it consumes Tokyo?
> Yes
>
>  >>Can you do this at night, and can you do this during times of rain and
> snowstorms?
> Electric energy can be stored. Utility scale electric energy storage is
> advancing very rapidly. So, yes.
>
>
>  The article wasn't clear. A coal plant or a uranium plant can do quite a
> bit of this also, and transmit the excess electricity to other towns and
> cities, on a 7 x 24 basis. If, for any reason, we cannot do this with
> solar, then..? Also, what is the cost per kilowatt. I have heard that solar
> has made great progress in the last several years with with efficiency and
> cost-price.
>
>  The cost per kilowatt -- for complete installed systems -- is starting
> to get close to parity with the cost for electricity from coal. In ten
> years from now solar will be far less expensive than coal electricity.
>
>
>  -Original Message-
> From: Chris de Morsella 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 4:07 am
> Subject: RE: The solar example of a town in Germany
>
>   It produces 4X the energy it needs just from the solar PV on the roofs
> of its buildings Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish with such
> dilute sources of energy. I include the link because the pictures are
> pretty cool, and illustrate what a solar city could look like.
>
>
> http://inhabitat.com/sonnenschiff-solar-city-produces-4x-the-energy-it-needs/
>
> What can I say - I have an architecture kick, especially when it is
> sustainable and low footprint.
> Chris
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>--
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this gr

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Clark]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:07 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> It produces 4X the energy it needs just from the solar PV on the roofs of
> its buildings Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish with such dilute
> sources of energy. I include the link because the pictures are pretty cool,
> and illustrate what a solar city could look like.
>
>
> http://inhabitat.com/sonnenschiff-solar-city-produces-4x-the-energy-it-needs/
>
>  What can I say
>

What I can say is that governments can get people to build anything no
matter how ridiculous if the bribe to do so is big enough. Germany has the
highest electricity prices in Europe, partially because they're shutting
down their nuclear plants but mostly because 50% of the average consumer's
electric bill goes into subsidizing solar energy.  So far the German
consumer has been forced to subsidize the solar cell industry to the tune
of 100 billion euros (128 billion dollars). So what did they get out of
those 128 billions dollars worth of solar cells? They reduced the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere enough that by the end of this century they will have
delayed global warming by about 23 hours.

Even the Germans are starting to get fed up with this nonsense and say they
will pull the plug on solar subsidies by 2018. If so then, unless there are
major technological breakthroughs, you can expect the solar industry to
crash in 2018.

  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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>> Who cares about gravimetric density?
>>
>
> > Evidently you don't; that much is clear. The automobile companies that
> are moving towards electric vehicles care - and care a lot.
>

Why? They care about weight and how much energy it can store, but I don't
see why they'd care how dense it was. Well OK if it had the density of
styrofoam there could be a problem finding a place to put 200 pounds of it
in a small car, but that is not a realistic issue; as long as  the battery
was reliable and cheap and stored lots of energy for its weight I don't see
why car makers would much care if it was as dense as aluminum or as dense
as lead.

 > The advanced battery field is moving very fast
>
I disagree. Nearly all electronic components are astronomically better than
they were 50 years ago, but batteries are the exception, they are only
slightly better.

>  It may surprise you but I wish the US would start up an LFTR program... in
> fact, I wish the 8+ billion dollar loan guarantee now earmarked to fund
> those nuclear white elephants in Georgia was instead - much more wisely IMO
> - being used to kick start an LFTR program.
>

Well, we agree on something. And I would rather they had spent 8 billion
dollars on research to improve photovoltaic cells and batteries rather than
build more reactors based on designs from the 1960s; even the most
promising ideas can go south and this matter is too important to place all
our bets on just one vision.

 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:48:48 PM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
 is a fact that 1+1=2.


>>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All
>>> it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard.
>>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to
>>> everything. Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one
>>> raining cloud.
>>>
>>
>> (I'll try to elaborate and clarify in MSR terms; apologies if I get it
>> wrong or miss the topic, as it is very high level stuff...)
>>
>> And since every raindrop can in principle be assigned to a cloud, the
>> number of raindrops equals the number of possible clouds which also equal
>> one (because normative brain cloud), which equals two (as sense " is
>> abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects to
>> virtual objects with no subjective interior", so who cares, right?), which
>> equals mustard in your sense brain individuality map, which isn't the
>> territory, as you all know by now.
>>
>> I just asked my mustard bottle in the fridge, and it confirmed no desire
>> for a subjective interior feeling of being, with its silence. Why would an
>> entity be silent if it had subjective interior feeling? You don't think
>> mustard bottles chat on internet lists about their internal state while
>> staying silent via some mustard-yellow-spicy-wireless LAN emergent qualia
>> fridge intelligence, do you? Ha, gottcha! That's where we miss perhaps the
>> subtleties of MSR.
>>
>> I really wish this would be the final word and champion MSR as the final
>> TOE, because the day we can convince our banks of this point, everybody
>> with a positive balance becomes infinitely rich and everybody with negative
>> balance gets some fuzzy amount of mustard.
>>
>> Maybe then I could afford the time to thoroughly understand MSR's main
>> points, which again, as enumerated and therefore arithmetic points, all
>> abstract themselves into a language which extend it beyond literal objects
>> to virtual objects with no subjective interior desire territories, thus
>> boiling it down to one brain point wherein, to my amazement, Silicon
>> Valley, MSR, NSA meet, chanting:
>>
>>
>>  "the cloud!"
>>
>> The cloud as the mustard of sense.
>>
>> But I don't know if I have that time to really grasp MSR yet. It's my
>> first post working with it... so how am I doing, Craig? PGC
>>
>
> What a charming satire. So fresh and witty. It reminds me of one of the
> gentlemen in the front row of this painting:
>
>
Don't show me a painting; convince the banks!


>
> http://nevermindgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/w/rw016.jpg
>
>
That painting is just a representation of 1s and 0s, devoid of any interior
subjectivity, so who cares?

But if you allow this string of 1s and 0s to actually count as a painting
(!), then I'm the drunk cowboy of course in front of the front row.
Champion of MSR, I don't wear red because red burns retinas of sense. Red
is the over-literalization of sense, and responsible for science's
inconsistencies, as I'll demonstrate sense to show.

Your work is just the start and my novel calibration of MSRDAPT (D for
digital, Actualness, P-time), is already widening MSR's original scope, to
allow P-time actualness and paintings, represented digitally to be
subjectively sensed paintings, with an interior subjective life for the
sensing beholder at some screen, like the one you just posted. In original
MSR it would just be devoid of any sense, as implemented by 1s and 0s. In
MSRD, these 1s and 0s can be a painting in which you share sense with me,
without the actual painting's physical sense presence.

It was said people on these lists are not flexible and never change their
minds. I went from Plato to MSRD in one post. I'll keep mastering P-time
actualness as well, although I won't buy any books until you convince the
banks.

For example: since the Universe is consistent, I as a part of it am
consistent, so my statements are consistent; thus MSRD and P-time are
reconcilable and consistent, because they cannot not be; otherwise
everything would fall apart, i.e. no buckets of water and clouds
experienced right now.

Who cares about "inconsistencies of science"? The universe is obviously
here, and so is consistency. Inconsistency is merely the locus of the
spectrum of internally void subjective representations, where the map isn't
territory (so I port some old MSR here into the new model) because
objective, which fails to account 

Re: Is information physical?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrot

>>> information does need a substrate in which to manifest.
>>>
>>
>> >> That seems to be the case but perhaps not at the very lowest level.
>> The integers are abstract things that aren't made of anything except other
>> numbers and once you describe how they interact with other mathematical
>> objects you've said all there is to say about them. In the same way in
>> string theory the strings aren't made of anything and they have reality
>> only in how they interact with other strings; so perhaps at the fundamental
>> level reality not only can be described mathematically but actually IS
>> mathematical.
>>
>
> > And that is a necessary consequence of computationalism, but this leads
> to the explicit problem of justifying physics from arithmetic or Turing
> equivalent.


Perhaps it's a difference in degree not of kind, when the properties of
stuff becomes rich and complex enough we start referring to it as physical
not mathematical. Most would say that a pie chart is mathematical but an
apple pie is physical, but other than the fact that one is enormously more
complex than the other it's difficult to pin down a fundamental difference
between the two. And what about the memory of a apple pie you saw last
week, is that  mathematical or physical?  If Darwin's ideas were even close
to being correct then we know that the sensation we experience when we
remember last week's apple pie could almost certainly be duplicated on a
Turing Machine, and that is mathematical. And all the apple pies you've
ever experienced come from the past, it's just that some are more recent
than others, again a difference in degree not of kind.

 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: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
> another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
> representing ACTUAL physical facts.
>
> E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any
> number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think
> they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all
> sorts of different ages
>

I've already told you that proper time at an event on Alice's worldline is
frame-independent, did you forget already? If one frame says Alice is 30 at
a particular event in her worldline, like the event of her passing a
particular object or observer (or her age when she reunites with her twin),
then ALL frames say this, there is no need to use her comoving frame to get
the correct answer. Different frames may disagree about simultaneity--what
Alice's age is at the "same moment" that Bob turns 40, at a distant spatial
location--but this is precisely why physicists don't believe there is any
"actual physical fact" about simultaneity in relativity (this doesn't rule
out presentism since there could still be a "metaphysical fact" about
simultaneity, but no physical experiment would be able to determine it if
there was, unless relativity turns out to be incorrect in its physical
predictions).




> but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of her age don't change her
> actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you agree with this?
>

"Don't change her actual age" WHEN? Doesn't change her age at some specific
event on her worldline, or doesn't change what her age is "now" at the same
moment that some distant observer like Bob reaches a particular age, say
40? If the first I agree that she has an actual age at any given event on
her wrodline, but there ARE no different "views" of this since all frames
agree on her proper age at any specific event on her worldline. If the
latter I don't agree there is any physical basis for saying she has a
unique "actual age" when Bob is 40, since relativity doesn't give any
physical basis for a preferred definition of simultaneity.


>
> Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand
> that all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical
> fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some
> frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER
> OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts.
>

Not a physicist in the world would agree with you that there is a
"fundamental notion in relativity that some frames represent actual
physical facts", you appear to be completely confused about the difference
between your own p-time views and mainstream relativity. In special
relativity there can NEVER be a basis for considering one inertial frame
more "correct" than any other. There are only two kinds of facts in
relativity:

1. Facts about frame-independent matters like the proper time of an
observer at a particular event on their worldline; all frames agree in
their predictions about these, so they don't give any reason to prefer one
frame over another.

2. Facts about frame-dependent matters like the coordinate velocity of an
object at a particular event on its worldline, or the question of which
point on worldline B is simultaneous with a particular point on worldline
A; different frames disagree on these matters, and in relativity NO FRAME'S
STATEMENTS ABOUT FRAME-DEPENDENT MATTERS ARE CONSIDERED MORE VALID THAN ANY
OTHER FRAME'S.

If you don't believe me that it's a basic principle of relativity that all
frames are considered equally valid and none are preferred over others,
here are some quotes from books written by physicists that I found on
google books:

"If one reference frame moves uniformly relative to another, then the two
are equally good frames for observing nature, and two identical experiments
performed in the two frames will give identical results."

--From "Relativity for the Questioning Mind" by Daniel Styer, at
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ebr7YhJcUd0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA13

"The descriptions of the two sets of observers are equally real and equally
valid, each within their own frame of reference. Since no preferred frame
exists, there is no objective basis for ascribing any more reality to one
description than the other."

--From "Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein's
Theories" by Leo Sartori, at
http://books.google.com/books?id=gV6kgxrZjL8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA173

"If Albert and Betty clap nearly simultaneously, one observer may report
that Albert clapped first, whereas a second observer, in motion with
respect to the first, may report that Betty clapped first. It makes no
sense to ask, 'Who really clapped first?' The question assumes that one
viewpoint, one reference frame, is valid or 'real' and the other is not.
But time is not absolute; it is a property of a particu

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

To address your questions:

1. Yes, of course the choice of "their own frame" is a matter of 
convention. But that does NOT mean that all frames are equal when it comes 
to accurately representing some particular physical fact or relationship.

2. The "their experience" in my symmetric example is the actual physical 
fact that they know their accelerations are symmetric because they 
exchanged flight plans to ensure that. And because their ACTUAL EXPERIENCE 
is the fact that they both can feel their proper accelerations AND time 
them by their own proper clocks to ensure they are in accordance with the 
flight plans they exchanged. By simple logic they then KNOW BEYOND DOUBT 
that their proper times are always in synch. AND they confirm this by 
meeting with the exact same clock readings that they AGREE upon.

It is true "their OBSERVATIONAL experiences" of each other do not reflect 
this 1:1 proper time correlation but they are SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND 
that these are NON agreed VIEWS which do NOT reflect the actual physical 
FACTS of the relationship on which they DO AGREE and thus which is an 
actual physical fact rather than just views of facts.

3. I DO want to address your '"proof" of non-transitivity. But for the sake 
of clarity and saving time can you please just restate it in the simplest 
possible terms? I'll make it easier by restating my thesis concisely.

I claim:

a. That any two observers can always establish an agreed 1:1 correlation of 
their proper times BETWEEN THEMSELVES.
(This does NOT MEAN that A's t is always = B's t'. It means there is a 
1:1 correlation that both A and B agree upon.)
b. That this 1:1 relationship will be transitive in the sense that if A's t 
:: B's t', and B's t' :: C's t'', then C's t'' :: A's t.

Assuming my method of establishing the 1:1 correlation what's your proof 
this is incorrect?

Edgar



On Friday, February 28, 2014 1:28:01 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you 
> are replying to... 
>
> Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember 
> we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS 
> THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and it is only a symmetric frame 
> that preserves the facts as EXPERIENCED BY THE TWINS THEMSELVES. ALL we 
> need to do in my p-time theory is demonstrate that each twin can correlate 
> his OWN proper time with that of the other twin.
>
>
> But you agreed earlier (in your post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/PYrVLII1ClYJ) 
> that the idea of calling the comoving inertial frame of an observer 
> "their own frame" is purely a matter of CONVENTION, not anything imposed on 
> them by "reality". So, we could easily choose a different convention--one 
> in which each twin defines "their own frame", or "what they experience 
> themselves", as the inertial frame in which they have a velocity of 0.99c 
> along the x-axis. If they both agreed to define "the facts as experienced 
> by the twins themselves" in this way, by convention, they could also agree 
> on a 1:1 correlation between their proper times, one that would be 
> different from the 1:1 correlation they'd get if they used the comoving 
> frame.
>
> Do you wish to take back your earlier agreement that phrases like "their 
> own frame", "their view", "what they observe/experience" are only by 
> CONVENTION understood to refer to the comoving inertial frame, that this 
> isn't something forced on us by reality? If you still agree this is a 
> matter of convention, then it seems to me that trying to use something 
> that's merely a matter of human linguistic convention to prove something 
> absolute about "reality" is obviously silly, like trying to prove something 
> about the essential nature of God by noting that according to the spelling 
> conventions of English, "God" is "dog" spelled backwards.
>  
>
>
> All the other frames are the views of OTHER observers, not the views of 
> the twins themselves which is all that we need to consider to establish 
> whether the TWINS THEMSELVES can establish a 1:1.
>
> Obviously if all observers agreed on an invariant 1:1 correlation we never 
> would have to establish the 1:1 on a successive observer pair basis and 
> then try to prove it transitive as I've consistently worked on doing. 
>
> MY theory establishes this 1:1 correlation BETWEEN THE ACTUAL TWINS 
> THEMSELVES on a pairwise basis, not on the basis of any invariance. 
> Therefore it obviously uses a symmetric frame that is consistent with how 
> those two twins experience their own and each other's realities and doesn't 
> require input from any other frames to do that.
>
>
> That isn't obvious at all--I don't see how the symmetric frame reflects 
> their "experience" in any way that isn't purely a matter of convention, 
> they certainl

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over 
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to 
representing ACTUAL physical facts.

E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any 
number we like but nevertheless they are still actually the age they think 
they are. If Alice is really 30 we can choose a frame in which she is all 
sorts of different ages but she is still actually 30. Different VIEWS of 
her age don't change her actual age. Isn't that obvious, and don't you 
agree with this?

Your expertise in relativity is clear but you don't seem to understand that 
all frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing actual physical 
fact. You don't understand the fundamental notion in relativity that some 
frames represent actual physical fact, but others represent only HOW OTHER 
OBSERVERS VIEW those physical facts. 

This is quite obvious from the age example above, but it also applies to 
the actual relationship BETWEEN TWINS in my examples. The relationship 
between twins is exactly that, it is a RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONLY THOSE 
TWINS. Of course you can come up with frames in which that relationship is 
VIEWED differently, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the actual relationship 
between the twins TO THEMSELVES which is what my theory is based on because 
that is the ACTUAL REALITY of that physical situation. It is not just some 
arbitrary VIEW of that reality, it is the REALITY ITSELF. My theory 
recognizes the need to concentrate on actual physical fact as opposed to 
VIEWS of physical facts.

There is a simple CRITERION to determine whether we are talking about 
PHYSICAL FACT or a VIEW of a physical fact. If the parties TO THE FACT 
AGREE on their views of the fact then that agreed view probably represents 
the actual physical fact. If they DO NOT agree then this disagreement 
represents VIEWS of physical facts rather than the FACTS THEMSELVES. I can 
perhaps think of a few explainable exceptions but this is the generally 
applicable criterion.

For example the different ages of the twins when they meet is AGREED by 
both twins. Thus it is a physical fact. But the different ages of twins in 
relative motion is NOT AGREED by both twins. Thus those are VIEWS OF FACTS, 
RATHER THAN THE FACTS THEMSELVES. An absolutely crucial distinction in 
understanding what relativity is all about.

If we can agree on this obvious point, and that we CAN establish a 1:1 
proper time correlation on this basis, then I look forward to considering 
your example which you claim PROVES this 1:1 proper time correlation is not 
transitive. I'm pretty sure it is transitive when properly understood but 
am certainly willing to consider your 'proof'.

Edgar


On Friday, February 28, 2014 11:55:40 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT 
> the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual 
> symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation.
>
>
> Why? You give no rational justification for why "reality" should coincide 
> with the frame where the coordinates assigned to their paths are 
> symmetrical as opposed to any other frame which makes the same physical 
> predictions, this just seems like a quasi-aesthetic intuition on your part. 
> But I also have a more definitive argument against identifying 
> "simultaneity in the frame where their paths look symmetrical" with any 
> sort of absolute simultaneity--because, as I have said over and over, it 
> leads directly to contradictions when we consider multiple "symmetrical" 
> pairs of observers, and the transitive nature of absolute 
> simultaneity/p-time. If you will just respond to my Feb 24 post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/dM2tcGYspfMJas 
> you promised to do earlier, then as soon as we are completely settled on 
> the matter of whether events that have the same space and time coordinates 
> in an inertial frame must have happened at the same p-time, we can go back 
> and look at the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwhich 
> PROVES that a contradiction follows fr
> ...

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 8:00:54 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. 
>

How do we know "consistency" though? Isn't the ability to detect and 
interpret consistency (through sense and sense-making) more primitive than 
the quality of truth or consistency?
 

> The universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have 
> no direct knowledge of the universe. 
>

If people have no direct sense of the universe, then neither does anything 
else, and the expectation of some noumenal universe which nothing can ever 
have knowledge of it itself purely hypothetical. We have direct knowledge 
of our experience, and our experience of the universe is the only universe 
that we can ever refer to empirically. I do not know that the universe is 
consistent, since I am part of the universe I know that consistency is a 
chore. If I want to make sense and find truth, I have to participate in a 
process of intuitive comparisons and empirical methods.

They have only their internal mental simulation of the universe. 
>

We have the ability to mentally simulate, but we also have the ability to 
directly contact and control external physical realities. If we did not, 
then it would not matter how bad our simulations were.
 

> To the extent that simulation is consistent they are able to live and 
> function in a consistent universe. Consistency across maximum scope IS 
> TRUTH.
>

I agree, but would qualify it: Maximum appreciation of the significance of 
maximum consistency across the maximum scope is truth. Without appreciation 
of significance, consistency is merely a repeating coincidence with no 
expectation of consequence.


> In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some 
> aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there 
> is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and 
> you come nearer to truth.
>
> Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.
>

Except that consistency can be projected by the mind itself. When all 
inconsistency vanishes, complete delusion can be achieved as well. 

Craig
 

>
> Edgar
>
> On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: 
>>
>> > 
>> >>> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of   
>> >>> distinct 
>> > objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of   
>> > Reason" and 
>> > Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From". 
>> > 
>> > In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing   
>> > out of 
>> > our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of   
>> > reality, or 
>> > is it an emergent phenomena? 
>> > Chris 
>>
>> In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from   
>> assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of   
>> the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,   
>> or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably   
>> redundant or wrong. 
>>
>> I gave more that one TOE as examples. 
>>
>> 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

This is incorrect. We know truth by its consistency across scope. The 
universe is consistent. A person is part of the universe. People have no 
direct knowledge of the universe. They have only their internal mental 
simulation of the universe. To the extent that simulation is consistent 
they are able to live and function in a consistent universe. Consistency 
across maximum scope IS TRUTH.

In fact this is the fundamental principle of scientific method. If some 
aspect of scientific knowledge is NOT consistent with the rest then there 
is some error that is not truth somewhere. Correct the inconsistency and 
you come nearer to truth.

Only when all inconsistency vanishes can complete truth be achieved.

Edgar

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:26:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:23, Chris de Morsella wrote: 
>
> > 
> >>> Or it comes from our conceptualizing the world as consisting of   
> >>> distinct 
> > objects and counting them, c.f. William S. Cooper "The Origin of   
> > Reason" and 
> > Lakoff and Nunez "Where Mathematics Comes From". 
> > 
> > In that case math would emerge from our conscious minds -- growing   
> > out of 
> > our making sense of the world. Is math the fundamental basis of   
> > reality, or 
> > is it an emergent phenomena? 
> > Chris 
>
> In science we never know we get the truth, but we can reason from   
> assumption, and if you can agree with comp, if only for the sake of   
> the argument, you can understand that if comp is true then arithmetic,   
> or anything Turing equivalent, is enough, and that more is provably   
> redundant or wrong. 
>
> I gave more that one TOE as examples. 
>
> 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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 3:31:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:54:53 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28 February 2014 01:05, Craig Weinberg  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > On Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:13:22 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: 
>>> >> 
>>> >> On 26 February 2014 23:58, Craig Weinberg  
>>> wrote: 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> >> "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to 
>>> describe 
>>> >> >> cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing 
>>> involuntary 
>>> >> >> movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the affected 
>>> hand 
>>> >> >> from 
>>> >> >> an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's 
>>> unaffected 
>>> >> >> hand. 
>>> >> >> In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened 
>>> >> >> considerably, 
>>> >> >> and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the 
>>> context 
>>> >> >> of 
>>> >> >> feelings of estrangement from or personification of the affected 
>>> limb 
>>> >> >> or its 
>>> >> >> movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been 
>>> reported, 
>>> >> >> involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus 
>>> callosum 
>>> >> >> plus 
>>> >> >> dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/subcortical 
>>> >> >> areas. A 
>>> >> >> patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular aetiology 
>>> is 
>>> >> >> reported 
>>> >> >> and the findings are discussed in the light of a conceptualisation 
>>> of 
>>> >> >> posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less 
>>> >> >> associated 
>>> >> >> with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and 
>>> >> >> callosal-frontal counterparts." - 
>>> >> >> http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to 
>>> >> > contradict 
>>> >> > functionalism. If functionalism identifies consciousness with 
>>> function, 
>>> >> > then 
>>> >> > it would seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen as 
>>> >> > estranged 
>>> >> > from the personal awareness, is it is really no different from a 
>>> zombie 
>>> >> > in 
>>> >> > which the substitution level is set at the body level. There is no 
>>> >> > damage to 
>>> >> > the arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet, its is 
>>> felt 
>>> >> > to 
>>> >> > be outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to be 
>>> your 
>>> >> > sensations. 
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would 
>>> expect to 
>>> >> > encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any 
>>> inorganic 
>>> >> > substitute. At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too 
>>> would 
>>> >> > the 
>>> >> > brain become non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system 
>>> would 
>>> >> > fail 
>>> >> > to be incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain could 
>>> still 
>>> >> > learn to use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own 
>>> >> > articulation and familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is a 
>>> one way 
>>> >> > street and the prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal 
>>> awareness 
>>> >> > and 
>>> >> > merge with it. 
>>> >> 
>>> >> This example shows that if there is a lesion in the neural circuitry 
>>> >> it affects consciousness. If you fix the lesion such that the 
>>> >> circuitry works properly but the consciousness is affected (keeping 
>>> >> the environmental input constant) then that implies that 
>>> consciousness 
>>> >> is generated by something other than the brain. 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > Paying attention to the circuitry is a red herring. What I'm bringing 
>>> up is 
>>> > how dissociation of functions identified with the self does not make 
>>> sense 
>>> > for the functionalist view of consciousness. How do you give a program 
>>> > 'alien subroutine syndrome'? Why does the program make a distinction 
>>> between 
>>> > the pure function of the subroutine and some feeling of belonging that 
>>> is 
>>> > generated by something other than the program? 
>>>
>>> I don't know why you distinguish between a function such as moving the 
>>> hand and identifying the hand as your own. 
>>
>>
>> Because there is nothing that functionalism could allow 'your own' to 
>> mean other than 'it is available to be used by the system'. The alien hand 
>> is available to be used, but that is perceived to be irrelevant. That is 
>> consistent with consciousness being a set of aesthetic qualities and direct 
>> participation, but not consistent with consciousness being a complex set of 
>> generic skills.
>>
>
> There must be some difference in the input from the hand or its subsequent 
> neural  processing for it to be identified as foreign, and this is 
> consistent with the fact that there is a brain lesion in alien hand 
> syndrome. 
>

I'm sure there 

Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:57:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 28 February 2014 15:22, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>>

 In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we need 
 a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien?

 Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you that 
>>> it's your hand?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference does 
>> it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand.
>>
>
> It's important for an animal to be able to distinguish self from non-self, 
> as can be seen if two animals are locked in combat - one that can't tell 
> its own limb from its opponent's is just as likely to bite itself as its 
> prey. Repeat that often enough and you have a strong evolutionary pressure 
> to distinguish self from non-self. I would imagine alien hand syndrome is a 
> breakdown of this system.
>

Sure, but I don't see that functionalism provides a basis to distinguish 
self from non-self other than function. As long as the functionality of the 
hand is there, and other people cannot tell any difference in what the hand 
can do, there should be no basis for any particular distress. We could make 
up a different evolutionary story too - that being physically close to your 
family or social group is important to survival and reproduction, so that 
there is a strong evolutionary pressure to suppress the difference between 
self and not-self. If it were the case that AHS were a breakdown in a 
global system like that, I would expect that victims might identify their 
family as strangers, etc. 

The particulars aren't the important thing though. I use AHS to add to 
blindsight and synesthesia as examples where the function-feeling 
equivalence which functionalism depends on appears to be violated.

-- 
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: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:52:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2014, at 03:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 8:03:15 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 28 February 2014 03:02, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In other words, why, in a functionalist/materialist world would we need 
>>> a breakable program to keep telling us that our hand is not Alien?
>>>
>>> Or contrariwise, why do you need a breakable programme to tell you that 
>> it's your hand?
>>
>
> Sure, that too. It doesn't make sense functionally. What difference does 
> it make 'who' the hand 'belongs' to, as long as it performs as a hand.
>  
>
>> Maybe it isn't always obvious that it's my hand... I believe the brain 
>> has an internal model of the body. I guess without one it wouldn't find it 
>> so easy to control it? A body's quite complicated, after all...
>>
>
> Why should the model include its own non-functional presence though?
>
>
>
> Because the "model", the machine is not just confronted with its own 
> self-representation, but also with truth, as far as we are. Put 
> differently, because the machine can't conflate []p and []p & p. Only God 
> can do that.
>

I don't see why self-representation would or could go beyond a simple 
inventory of functions. It seems a clear double standard to suggest on one 
hand that once a substitution level is met there can be no difference 
between your sun in law and a natural person, but on the other hand you are 
saying that of course machines can tell a difference between two identical 
functions just because one of them feels alien.

Craig


> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>  
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-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.
>
>
> 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: Is information physical?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:18:29 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 10:51:00AM -0500, spudb...@aol.com 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Ok, Thanks. We're back to the Observer again, where all things are 
> decided at the quantum. From here on the questions tumble forth as a 
> cascade, on whether the Observer is conscious, who is the Observer, what is 
> the Observer? 
> > 
>
> Interesting questions, to be sure, but all quite irrelevant to 
> information theory. All an observer needs to do for information theory 
> is detect a difference (that makes a difference). 
>

Something needs to be able to assign a significance to that detection also, 
and to have the power to manipulate and combine significance, difference, 
detection, and re-manipulation. In short, something needs to sense and to 
make sense of sense.

Craig


> Cheers 
>
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: Russell Standish > 
> > To: everything-list > 
> > Sent: Thu, Feb 27, 2014 5:15 pm 
> > Subject: Re: Is information physical? 
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:01:51PM -0500, spudb...@aol.com 
> > wrote: 
> > > Not to be a dick, but is not "information" or "data" perforations, and 
> pulses, 
> > in mater and energy? This is how we recognize information from 
> background noise, 
> > correct? Is there a third state of reality that is not matter or energy? 
> > > 
> > 
> > Only when interpreted by an observer. An electrical circuit has only 
> > voltages and currents, not bits. To an observer, a voltage on a data 
> > line might be interpreted as 1 if it is greater than 3V, and zero if 
> > it is less than 1V. In between those two thresholds, the voltage might 
> > be determinate, but the information is not. 
> > 
> > The "third state", as you call it, is a semantically different picture 
> > where things are described in terms of whether some physical state is 
> > the same as, or different from, some other physical state, according to 
> > the interpretation of an observer. From that, comes bits, and all the 
> > other information-based quantities. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > 
>  
>
> > Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> > Principal, High Performance Coders 
> > Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> > University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> > 
>  
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email 
> > to everything-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-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. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:46:44 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1 March 2014 19:04, meekerdb > wrote:
>
>>  On 2/28/2014 9:22 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>> Nevertheless, it does seem to be. That is, 17 is a prime number 
>> regardless of whether anyone knows it is, or even knows what numbers are, 
>> or indeed whether anyone is even alive (e.g. it was prime in the first 
>> instants of the big bang - maths has been used to work out what happened in 
>> the early universe, with observable consequences now). There's a lot of 
>> hand waving going on to deny this, but I haven't seen a knock down argument 
>> (or even a suggestion of one) to indicate otherwise.
>>
>>
>> To deny what?  That 17 is prime?  That's a tautology.  It's our theory 
>> that the world consists of countable things - whether it really is, is 
>> questionable.
>>
>> That's a different question. I'm not arguing for the world being based on 
> maths, I'm trying to answer the question in the thread title - where does 
> the maths come from? My answer is that it appears to just be a fact, or to 
> put it another way it comes from the fact that it couldn't be any other way 
> (17 couldn't be non-prime, for example, because there is no way to arrange 
> 17 objects, abstract or real, that lets them fitt on the intersections of a 
> grid and exactly fill a rectangle).
>

Keep going. Where does "fact" come from? What is the capacity which 
determines what ways can and cannot be?

Sense. Where else?
 

> If you think that 17 being prime is a tautology (I may have misunderstood 
> what you said about, but *if* you do) then you appear to agree.
>
>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:12:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:36, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>
>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
>> is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>
>>
> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All it 
> takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. 
>
>
> It can change your mind into believing that 1+1=mustard, but 1+1 would 
> still be equal to 2. 
>

Not if you were the only mind left in the universe.
 

>
>
>
> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to 
> everything. 
>
>
> 1+1=2 independently of the misused that someone can do with that theory. 
>

Nothing can "=" anything independently of sense.
 

>
>
>
> Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining 
> cloud. Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the sense which 
> objects make when we count them. 
>
>
> No math can study clouds too. Cf Mandelbrot.
>

Clouds can be counted from a distance, but not when we are traveling 
through them. The effectiveness of math is directly proportional to the 
objectivity of the phenomenon being modeled.
 

>
>
>
> That sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal 
> objects to virtual objects, 
>
>
> If literal objects exists, but there are no evidences, and such an 
> hypothesis introduces difficulties which have no use.
>

A real bucket is a literal object. A formula which describes a bucket-like 
shape is a virtual object. I don't see any difficulties.
 

>
>
>
> but no matter what you do with math, it has no subjective interior. 
>
>
> You don't know that.
>

I don't claim to know it, I only say that it makes more sense and that I 
have heard no convincing argument to the contrary.
 

>
>
> It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what which is already 
> feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a thing could 
> exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be anything. 
>
>
> OK, but your argument have never shown that.
>

No argument can show truths related to consciousness, you have to make the 
argument your own, and then you should see it for yourself.

Craig
 

>
> 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-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.
>
>
> 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

Wee small hours in Auckland too, almost. Good night fellow mathenauts.

On 2 March 2014 00:01, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

> I would like to respond... and thanks for getting into detail, but I need to
> wait till tomorrow - it is the wee morning hour here in Seattle now.
> Interesting stuff.
>
> Chris
>
>
>

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[LizR]

On 2 March 2014 00:00, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
>> On 1 March 2014 14:36, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

 Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it
 is a fact that 1+1=2.

 These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All
 it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard.
 Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to
 everything.

>>>
>> If it's a fact, it's irrelevant whether my brain thinks it's mustard.
>>
>
> Not if you're the only person left in the universe. I don't think that
> your brain thinks anything, except maybe about electrochemical ratios and
> biochemical synthesis. What decides what is "relevant"?
>

No idea, I'm too busy deciding on which electrochemical rations to wear.

>
>
>>
>>
>>>  Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining
 cloud. Math is about a very specific

>>>
>> Please don't come out with the cloud example,  I've heard that so many
>> times but it's never become any more relevant. Surely you know I'm talking
>> about the abstract concepts?
>>
>
> Why would abstract concepts be more relevant than examples from reality?
>

That question only makes sense if you have already decided that physical
reality is real and abstract concepts aren't. (Yet oddly, physics is
unprovable, while maths apparently isn't.)

But the answer is that we're talking about the origin of maths. In that
context it seems rather likely that abstract concepts are more relevant
than "reality".

>
>
>>
>>
>>>  aspect of sense - the sense which objects make when we count them. That
 sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects
 to virtual objects, but no matter what you do with math, it has no
 subjective interior. It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what
 which is already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a
 thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be
 anything.

>>>
>> Well, that's me told. Next time I want to make a point with you is it OK
>> if I quote "I am the Walrus" ?
>>
>
> Is "Well, that's me told." a line in "I am the Walrus"?
>
> No, it's more of a comment from Jonathan Hoag, the famous art critic.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

I would like to respond… and thanks for getting into detail, but I need to wait 
till tomorrow – it is the wee morning hour here in Seattle now. Interesting 
stuff. 

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:44 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 07:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 






Personally the notion that all that exists is comp & information – encoded on 
what though? – Is not especially troubling for me. I understand how some cling 
to a fundamental material realism; after all it does seem so very real. However 
when you get right down to it all we have is measured values of things and 
meters by which we measure other things; we live encapsulated in the experience 
of our own being and the sensorial stream of life and in the end all that we 
can say for sure about anything is the value it has when we measure it.

I am getting into the interesting part of Tegmark’s book – I read a bit each 
day when I break for lunch – so this is partly influencing this train of 
thought. By the way enjoyed his description of quantum computing and how in a 
sense q-bits are leveraging the Level III multiverse to compute every possible 
outcome while in quantum superposition; a way of thinking about it that I had 
never read before.

Naturally I have been reading some of the discussions here, and the idea of 
comp is something I also find intuitively possible. The soul is an emergent 
phenomena given enough depth of complexity and breadth of parallelism and 
vastness of scale of the information system in which it is self-emergent.

 

Several questions have been re-occurring for me. One of these is: Every 
information system, at least that I have ever been aware of, requires a 
substrate medium upon which to encode itself; 

 

If you agree that 1+1=2, then you can prove that universal numlbers exists, and 
those will defined the relative implementations of computational histories.

 

We have top start from some theory, in all case. And the TOE that we can 
derived from comp are just the minimal part common to basically all scientific 
theories.

 

Then we can explain even why we cannot explain where our beliefs in the number 
comes from. The theory of Lakoff presumes implicitly numbers, and much more.

 

 

 





information seems describable in this sense as the meta-encoding existing on 
some substrate system. I would like to avoid the infinite regression of 
stopping at the point of describing systems as existing upon other and 
requiring other substrate systems that themselves require substrates themselves 
described as information again requiring some substrate… repeat eternally.

 

 

We can start from:

 

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+y)

x*0=0

x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

 

We don't need more. Just definitions.

 

 

 





It is also true that exquisitely complex information can be encoded in a very 
simple substrate system given enough replication of elements… a simple binary 
state machine could suffice, given enough bits.

But what are the bits encoded on?

 

Elementary arithmetic is enough. But the two axioms Kxy=x + Sxyz = xz(yz) too.

 

 





 

At some point reductionism can no longer reduce…. And then we are back to where 
we first started…. How did that arise or come to be? If for example we say that 
math is reducible to logic or set theory then what of sets and the various set 
operations? 

 

Math is not reducible to a theory. machine's math is already not reducible to a 
theory. Nor are machine's knowledge.

 

Computationalism refutes reductionism of most conception we can have on numbers 
and machine.

 

 

 





What of enumerations? These simplest of simple things. Can you reduce the {} 
null set?

What does it arise from?

 

In this case you can reduce it to number theory.

 

Your point seems to be that we must start from something non trivial, and you 
are right on this. My point is that if we believe that the brain is a sort of 
machine, then arithmetic is not just enough, but more is non sensical or 
redundant at the basic level.

 

 





 

Perhaps to try to find some fundamental something upon which everything else is 
tapestried over is unanswerable; it is something that keeps coming back to itch 
my ears.

 

Arithmetic is enough if you can believe in comp, and plausibly too much or not 
enough if comp is false.

 

 





 

Am interested in hearing what some of you may have to say about this universe 
of the most simple things: numbers, sets; and the very simple base operators -- 
{+-*/=!^()} etc. that operate on these enumerable entities and the logical 
operators {and, or, xor}

 

You need much less. I will soon (or a bit later) explain explicitly how to 
derive matter and mind from

 

0 ≠ s(x)

s(x) = s(y) -> x = y

x+0 = x

x+s(y) = s(x+

Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:27:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 1 March 2014 14:36, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>>
>>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
>>> is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>>
>>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All 
>>> it takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. 
>>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to 
>>> everything.
>>>
>>
> If it's a fact, it's irrelevant whether my brain thinks it's mustard.
>

Not if you're the only person left in the universe. I don't think that your 
brain thinks anything, except maybe about electrochemical ratios and 
biochemical synthesis. What decides what is "relevant"?
 

>  
>
>>  Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one raining 
>>> cloud. Math is about a very specific
>>>
>>
> Please don't come out with the cloud example,  I've heard that so many 
> times but it's never become any more relevant. Surely you know I'm talking 
> about the abstract concepts?
>

Why would abstract concepts be more relevant than examples from reality?
 

>  
>
>>  aspect of sense - the sense which objects make when we count them. That 
>>> sense is abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects 
>>> to virtual objects, but no matter what you do with math, it has no 
>>> subjective interior. It's about doing and knowing that is desired by what 
>>> which is already feeling and being. Doing and knowing by itself, if such a 
>>> thing could exist, would be information, but it could never feel or be 
>>> anything. 
>>>
>>
> Well, that's me told. Next time I want to make a point with you is it OK 
> if I quote "I am the Walrus" ?
>

Is "Well, that's me told." a line in "I am the Walrus"?

Craig

 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 12:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

 

 

On 01 Mar 2014, at 06:16, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 

"If it's all math, then where does math come from?"

>>Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it is
a fact that 1+1=2.

 

Somehow I do not find that satisfying; in what way and by what evidence does
this occur?

Especially - as I had posited if math is the fundamental thing - even more
fundamental than the emergent material universe. I could see this logic in a
pre-existing universe replete with 10 to a very large number of atoms, but
if math is to be the superstructure underlying everything then I - speaking
for myself - am not satisfied by saying it just is a fact.

 

 

But do you agree with 1+1=2?

I agree that math is internally consistent and that within mathematical
ontology it is self-consistent. Furthermore it seems to crop up in reality
again and again. Patterns, equations, such as say the Fibonacci series
manifesting in so many unrelated places; the universe in its reduced symbol
set of "smeared" quarks and leptons; its constants and various cardinal
values and states such as spin, color, charge etc. - it does all seem very
binary and mathematical.

I however remain curious, where "1" came from, and even before 1, the null
set. the set of nothing at all. The null set is a lot more than nothing. It
takes a great leap to get from nothing to the null set. At this most
reductionist of levels; is this where everyone gives up, perhaps because it
is unknowable.

I can see the logical progression from 1+1=2 to an ever inflating infinite
forest of numbers with infinite overlays of dynamism operating over layer
and layers of stochastic boundaries. 

 

 

Because the rest is sunday philosophy in my opinion.

 

Of course, in "my" theory 1+1=2 is just a theorem. The interesting things is
that "Chris believes (or not) in 1+1=2" is also a theorem.

 

Sure. an emergent phenomena; don't really have any existential issues with
my being, being emergent.. In fact I rather like the idea of emerging into
being. It fits with the brains massive parallelism and lack of any central
operating system (that we have found). I emerge; therefore I am.

Chris

 

Bruno

 

 





Chris

 

-- 
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.

-- 
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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 28, 2014 9:48:48 PM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 28, 2014 5:32:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> "If it's all math, then where does math come from?"
>>>
>>> Strange to say, elementary maths just appears to be a fact. That is, it 
>>> is a fact that 1+1=2.
>>>
>>>
>> These shapes appear to be letters and words also, but they aren't. All it 
>> takes is a small chemical change in your brain and 1+1 could = mustard. 
>> Even in a completely normative state of mind, 1+1 = 2 doesn't apply to 
>> everything. Once cloud plus one cloud equals one large cloud, or maybe one 
>> raining cloud. 
>>
>
> (I'll try to elaborate and clarify in MSR terms; apologies if I get it 
> wrong or miss the topic, as it is very high level stuff...)
>
> And since every raindrop can in principle be assigned to a cloud, the 
> number of raindrops equals the number of possible clouds which also equal 
> one (because normative brain cloud), which equals two (as sense " is 
> abstracted into a language which extends it beyond literal objects to 
> virtual objects with no subjective interior", so who cares, right?), which 
> equals mustard in your sense brain individuality map, which isn't the 
> territory, as you all know by now.
>
> I just asked my mustard bottle in the fridge, and it confirmed no desire 
> for a subjective interior feeling of being, with its silence. Why would an 
> entity be silent if it had subjective interior feeling? You don't think 
> mustard bottles chat on internet lists about their internal state while 
> staying silent via some mustard-yellow-spicy-wireless LAN emergent qualia 
> fridge intelligence, do you? Ha, gottcha! That's where we miss perhaps the 
> subtleties of MSR.
>
> I really wish this would be the final word and champion MSR as the final 
> TOE, because the day we can convince our banks of this point, everybody 
> with a positive balance becomes infinitely rich and everybody with negative 
> balance gets some fuzzy amount of mustard. 
>
> Maybe then I could afford the time to thoroughly understand MSR's main 
> points, which again, as enumerated and therefore arithmetic points, all 
> abstract themselves into a language which extend it beyond literal objects 
> to virtual objects with no subjective interior desire territories, thus 
> boiling it down to one brain point wherein, to my amazement, Silicon 
> Valley, MSR, NSA meet, chanting: 
>
>   
>
> "the cloud!" 
>
> The cloud as the mustard of sense. 
>
> But I don't know if I have that time to really grasp MSR yet. It's my 
> first post working with it... so how am I doing, Craig? PGC
>

What a charming satire. So fresh and witty. It reminds me of one of the 
gentlemen in the front row of this painting:

http://nevermindgallery.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/w/rw016.jpg


 

>  
>
>> Math is about a very specific aspect of sense - the sense which objects 
>> make when we count them. That sense is abstracted into a language which 
>> extends it beyond literal objects to virtual objects, but no matter what 
>> you do with math, it has no subjective interior. It's about doing and 
>> knowing that is desired by what which is already feeling and being. Doing 
>> and knowing by itself, if such a thing could exist, would be information, 
>> but it could never feel or be anything. 
>>  
>> -- 
>> 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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

[LizR]

On 1 March 2014 21:03, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:06, LizR wrote:
>
> On 1 March 2014 03:22, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:31, LizR wrote:
>>
>> Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept "Yes Doctor" the
>>> rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true,
>>>
>> ? You might elaborate on this. What is the "rest", and why do you think
>> it does not follow?
>>
>
> I mean the rest as I understand it. "Yes Doctor" implies that identity
> relies on a "capsule memory", and hence that H=M and H=W, and also that
> H=simulated M / W, H = M+100 years, and so on.
>
> That is not so clear to me.
>

OK. That is my take on it, which may be based on intuition or
misunderstanding. But it seems to me the idea of "Yes Doctor" - that you
could have your brain replaced by a digital equivalent and not know the
difference - is only possible if all the other things you mention are, too.
How would "Yes Doctor" work? You'd have to have your brain frozen (or
something similar), scanned and destroyed, while the digital one was
programmed to be a simulation of your brain (below the substitution level).
And from your own perspective you would fall asleep on the operating table
and wake up with a digital brain (and maybe a robot body). That's only
possible (it seems to me) if your continuation of consciousness from day to
day is discontinuous in a similar manner. Otherwise in "Yes Doctor" you
would die, and a replica would be created. Similarly after classical
teleportation, where you are destroyed and recreated, you only come out at
the other end as the same person if that's what consciousness - if it's
"Heralicitean", so to speak. But if that is the case, then you can be
teleported, cloned, and so on - not to mention kidnapped (or 50% kidnapped)
by someone able to scan your brain at some point without destroying it and
recreating you in their own private digital world. That's why it seems if
you accept "Yes Doctor", everything else (the other steps) have to follow,
because you have already accepted what we might as well call the
Heraclitean nature of consciousness.

>
>> Of course I define comp by "yes doctor" + Church's thesis.
>>
>
> That is why I realise it isn't quite true that YD implies everything,
> because you need CT and AR.
>
> But you just said that "1+1=2" is a fact, which is stronger than AR. AR
> just says that 1+1=2, and nothing more. And CT is not really needed in the
> math: just add Turing before machine or universal number. But CT makes
> things smooth and prevent uninteresting critics like "and what if we are
> not Turing emulable, but still "machines" in some unknonw sense.
>

That was in another thread! I was making a suggestion about "where the
maths comes from". I don't necessarily assume that when talking about comp.
Also, I suspect that you have a stronger meaning of "fact" in mind. What is
the difference betwen asserting that 1+1=2 (like AR) and saying that 1+1=2
is a fact, like I did? (I suspect the difference is something like Bp vs p
except I beleive B means believing ...)

>
> But if you accept the Doctor's offer then you are committing to a "capsule
> theory of identity" which implies most of what you have said about
> duplication experiments with delays, VR, and so on.
>
> OK. I would say "relative (to universal numbers) capsule theory of
> identity".
>

I'm not sure I understand, what would be the alternative capsule theory
(i.e. one that isn't relative to universal numbers?)

-- 
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.