Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:18, chris peck wrote: So has Tegmark convinced me that in his thought experiment I would assign 50/50 probability of seeing one or the other room each iteration? Not really. The question is: can you refute this. And for the UDA, you don't need the 50%. You need only to assess the indeterminacy, and its invariance for the changes described in the next steps. What is you talk about the step 4? It asks if the way to evaluate the P(W) and the P(M) changes if some delay of reconstitution is introduced in W, or in M. 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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
I would like to get a non-kindle version (!) - is that available? On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. 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 Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 3/3/2014 11:55 PM, chris peck wrote: * I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said,* Im reading the quote Jason kindly provided and responding to exactly what Tegmark said. *but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally likely events you actually experience is an example of bernoulli trials. * and the figures I've been stating reflect bernoulli trials precisely. * The proportion of 1s and 0s both converge to 1/2 in probability. * but in doing so call in to question definitions of 'about' 'roughly' and 'almost all'. But then you haven't read the Tegmark quote so you won't be able to add anything substantive about that. I read Jason's quote: 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. But I don't know what Figure 8.3 is. * It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down.* Whats irrelevant is the use of proportion of 1s and 0s in determining 'apparent randomness'. It doesn't. Which is my point. The figures for exact proportions were just my arse about tit way of getting there. That's true. The proportions of 1s and 0s doesn't determine randomness, it just determines the relative measures of experiencing room 1 and room 0. But what Max wrote is true also; there would be 2^N yous and most of them would have written down sequences that were within z/sqrt(N) of 50/50 and looked random (i.e. incompressible) where you can choose z to be whatever you want to define most of them. But whatever you choose for z, z/sqrt(N) still goes toward zero as N-inf. Brent But still, even though I seemed to get there on my tod, at least I know what a Bernoulli trial is now. Thanks for that. -- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:43:29 -0800 From: meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said, but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally likely events you actually experience is an example of bernoulli trials. The proportion of 1s and 0s both converge to 1/2 in probability. This is exactly the way prediction of probabilities are evaluated experimentally. It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down. Brent On 3/3/2014 8:32 PM, chris peck wrote: Hi Liz * I'm not sure I follow.* Me neither. * 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.* there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation right, Liz. It would be all the time, exactly 50%. Hes saying that zeros occur about 50%of the time in the zeros and ones you have written down. That corresponds to the individual bit strings. Not the entire collection of them. * I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most sequences?* I suspect its sloppy interpretation rather than sloppy phrasing that implies that. * I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 sequences above)* 6/16 isn't half is it? I measured 1 divided by 2 just now and it still seems to come out as 0.5 here. * or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with longer sequences. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me?* I wrote a little program Liz that collects together all the bit strings that can be made from 16 bits. Then it counts the number of 1s and 0s in each one. It has a little counter that goes up by one every time there are 8 zeros. there are 65536 combinations. 12870 of them have 8 zeros. 12870 / 65536 * 100 = 19%. 6/16*100 = 37% I don't know about you but 19, being less than 37, suggests to me that the percentage is going down. But ofcourse ask a mathematician if you're not certain of that yourself. * I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the chapters I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his subject matter seem more accessible.* Yeah, which is preferable to people with similar ideas being slap dash in order to make them less accessible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Please let me know when the hard copy is available, as I would like a physical version (ironic, I suspect, given the subject). On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. 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 Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 04 Mar 2014, at 04:49, LizR wrote: I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said 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. That seems to me to be correct. If you do the experiment 4 times you get the sequences I typed out before, except I seem to have accidentally doubled up! The correct sequences should read: 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 Depending on how you decide something looks random, I'd say quite a few of those sequences do. And 0s do occur 50% of the time overall, for sure. I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most sequences? I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 sequences above) or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with longer sequences. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me? Imagine you throw a billions of coins. You can understand intuitively that getting *exactly* half tails and half heads would be a lucky event. Then you can do the math, and it confirms this. You will get white noise, most of the case. With big number, such sequence of P=1/2 events gives a grey white noise, which confirms Tegmark statement that most sequence will have approximately the same number of head and tail, but the about here is important. The deviation from this will be non null, but non significant. It drops like 1/ sqrt(n) as Brent said. Indeed, if you get too many heads, or too many tails, that would make you believe that the coins are biased. All correlation studies in experimental physics are based on this. I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the chapters I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his subject matter seem more accessible. Yes, I have often met that problem. I like to be slightly non rigorous for helping people to grasp the main idea, but then nitpickers jumps on the details. If you expose the point in taking all details into account, then you are accused of making things less accessible, or to hide difficulties in jargon. Some people just try hard to not understand, and this usually, I guess, for private agenda or some ideologies, I'm afraid. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome
On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:16:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 whats...@gmail.com 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. []p is self representation only. But []p p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate anything 3p-describable for []p p. It is not a representation, but a (meta) link between representation and truth. Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages? Because we duplicate too slowly, unlike amoeba, which have not the cognitive abilities to exploit this. This entails that in natural language we use the same indexical term I for both the 3-I and the 1-I. We say I lost a tooth (3-I) , and I feel pain in my mouth (1-I). Only teleportation and duplication, or deep reflexion on belief and knowledge, makes clear the difference. It appears clearly in Theaetetus, and in other fundamental texts. When we say I lost a tooth what we mean is In my experience it seems like I lost a tooth. It is still 1-I. We may wake up and find that experience was a dream, in which case we say I didn't lose a tooth but mean In my experience it seems like my previous experience of losing a tooth was a dream, Funny but irrelevant. Like Clark can always avoid a question on the 1- views, by jumping out of his body and adding a 3 (passing from some 1-1-1 view to a 3-1-1-1 view for example), you can always add a 1 on any view, like you do here. But in the argument we were assuming the 3p view at the start. Instead of seeing it in terms of Bp p, I see it as something like Bp Bp^e (where e is Euler's number). ??? There is no p, only a tendency toward stability across nested histories of experience as the accumulate. If there is no p, there is no truth, and we waste our time when doing research. I begin to think I waste my time trying to get you back to research instead of your hopelessly negative and destructive quasi- racist personal reification. Bruno Craig Bruno PS for reason of scheduling, I will comment only paragraph that I understand. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. Best, Bruno On 04 Mar 2014, at 07:43, Russell Standish wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. 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. 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?
On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed O Fortuna (the first song of Orff's Carmina Burana) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the threeness of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. Beat in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 4 March 2014 18:43, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: I'm not reading Max's book, so I don't know exactly what he said, It's quoted in the first post on this thread. but using FPI as in Everett QM and writing down which of two equally likely events you actually experience is an example of bernoulli trials. The proportion of 1s and 0s both converge to 1/2 in probability. This is exactly the way prediction of probabilities are evaluated experimentally. It is irrelevant that the proportion of subsequences that have exactly equally 1s and 0s goes down. It depends what Max meant. I think he meant that there are likely to be *roughly* equal numbers of 0s and 1s in a long string, which depends on how you interpret roughly. Say with chris' programme that counts the 0s in all the 16 bit numbers, we should take roughly half to be between, say, 7 and 9 inclusive, while with 4 bits it's more reasonable to make it exactly 2. With a 64 bit string it might be reasonable to make it between 30 and 34 (if I got that right). This is a bit nitpicky since we know (or can calculate) the actual proportions anyway, so we can see for ourselves how the number of 0s is distributed. I suspect a bell shaped curve with the maximum at 50% :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame. The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion. I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases. Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers? To address your new questions: Do you deny acceleration and gravitation produce real actual slowings of clock rates and thus of real actual aging rates? Of course we can VIEW these slowings differently from different frames, but the ACTUAL effects they produce on the observer who experiences them are exact. It is these exact actual effects that my method explains, and yours doesn't. We know these effects are real and actual when twins meet up with different ages. Thus we know they were ALSO REAL AND ACTUAL BEFORE the twins met. That is pure simple logic. How many times do I have to explain. The twins exchange flight plans for EXACT SAME ACCLERATIONS AT THE EXACT SAME TIMES before they part. This ABSOLUTELY ENSURES that their age rates will slow EXACTLY THE SAME during their trip. There is no way around that. Another observer can VIEW that differently but from the POV of the twins themselves it IS EXACT AND ABSOLUTE. Thus it is clear to anyone that to properly analyze the REAL ACTUAL CORRELATION OF THE TWINS' AGES WE MUST PRESERVE THE REAL ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACCELERATIONS THAT ARE THE ONLY CAUSE OF AGE RATE CHANGES. Jeez, how difficult is that to understand? And your different frame to exchange flight plans in is an oxymoron because it would make their actual symmetric flight plans appear to be NON symmetric. Only a pair of idiots would do that You are just endlessly repeating what you read in some relativity textbook without using simple logic to determine its proper application Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:51:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I explained that this was because I was using correlation in the way YOU had consistently been using it up until now, to refer to a 1:1 correlation in which each proper age of a twin is matched up to one unique proper age of the other twin. The archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/ has a better search function than google's archive (returning individual posts rather than threads), so I searched for posts from Edgar L. Owen with correlate or correlation in them, results here: http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1l=everything-list%40googlegroups.comhaswords=correlatefrom=Edgar+L.+Owennotwords=subject=datewithin=1ddate=order=datenewestsearch=Search http://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1l=everything-list%40googlegroups.comhaswords=correlationfrom=Edgar+L.+Owennotwords=subject=datewithin=1ddate=order=datenewestsearch=Search Earliest posts on the block time thread I could find in these searches (that were directed at me, and not some other poster) were these from Feb. 12 and 13 (shown in order below), where you can see from the quotes that you were talking specifically about 1:1 correlations that map clock times of one to specific clock times of the other: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48613.html So all observers are always in the same p-time moment. Now it's just a matter of correlating their clock times to see which clock times occurred in any particular current moment of p-time. http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48716.html Do you see how this mutual agreed on understanding of how each's clock time varies in the other's frame always allows each to correlate their own comoving clock time with the comoving (own) clock time of the other? In other words for A to always know what B's clock time was reading when A's clock time was reading t, and for B to always know what A's clock time was reading when B's clock time was reading t'?
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Bruno, It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality. Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind. Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for plants love music. Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do? :-) Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of everything must be arithmetic as you say. If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any logical specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and arithmetic is enough. The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this (again) soon. The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of 2D space, which I guess might be a...database? That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There are resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite running of the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is his 3-1 view actually). But with computationalism we get an explanation from a 0-dimensional theory of the way an Hilbert space (infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, and the cosmology is more difficult to extract. Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a new theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a theory of mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the mind-body problem, and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/ testable. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from consciousness. Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics emerge from arithmetic? Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one? Bruno What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy. -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) i Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. ion If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what object and experiences what consciousness, and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly of that code? , Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton
Re: MODAL Last exercise
On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:18, LizR wrote:
OK, so ignoring Brent who I'm sure is way ahead of me...
The problem is to show that
(W, R) respects []A - A if and only if R is reflexive,
Where reflexive means for all alpha, { alpha R alpha } (and nothing
more is implied!)
OK.
(better not to use the accolade though, as you are just saying that
for all alpha, alpha R alpha (and then if you represent R by a set, R
will contain all couples like (alpha, alpha), so R = {(alpha, alpha),
(alpha beta), (beta beta), ... }.
And []p means that p is true in all worlds reachable from the world
being considered.
OK.
You could have said more precisely that
[]p means, in a world alpha, that p is true in all worlds reachable
from the world alpha.
(...I think. I just checked my diary and was told that []p means
that p is a law. Maybe that was the wrong page...)
Yes, that's was in the Leibniz semantics. Something similar will
happen with kripke, but if I explain now, it can be confusing.
OK, so anyway, before I get too confused
You should never allow this to happen. It happens because you allow
slight confusion, and then they add up. I know it is not easy.
let's consider world alpha which is part of W.
A part of W means usually a subset of W.
A world is an element of W.
If W = {a, b}, a and b are elements of W. The parts of W are { }, {a},
{b}, {a, b}. If W has n elements, we have seen that W has 2^n parts.
I hope you don't mind I help you to use the standard terminology, as
it will help us a lot later.
We know { alpha R alpha }.
?
At this stage I am not sure if you try to prove:
(W, R) respects []A - A - R is reflexive,
or
R is reflexive - (W, R) respects []A - A
I will have to guess. And here I guess you assume R is reflexive, and
so you intent to deduce from this that (W, R) respects []A - A.
[]p means p is true in all worlds reachable from alpha (I think)
which includes alpha itself, hence it means that p has to be true in
alpha, hence it means []p - p.
That's correct, but still a bit fuzzy. To say that (W, R) respects a
formula, like []A - A, means that (W,R, V) satisfies the formula, for
all valuations V.
May be I am just nitpicking, but what if p is not true in alpha. Do we
still have []p - p?
Your fuzziness, or perhaps my own imperfect brain, makes consistent
that you did treat that case, or that you did not.
(Conversely, if alpha wasn't reachable from itself, then p being
true in all worlds reachable from alpha wouldn't entail that p is
true in alpha.)
Very good. Just a bit lazy. When you say that p being true in all
worlds reachable from alpha wouldn't entail that p is true in alpha,
you might give us the counterexample, like chosing a valuation
(illumination) V with p false in alpha and true in all worlds
accessible from alpha.
We love counter-examples, you know.
QED, perhaps? Did I just prove something?
Yes. You did.
You have proved that
1) if R is reflexive, []A - A is automatically true in all worlds in
any reflexive illuminated multiverse.
And then, three lines above, beginning by Conversely, ... you have
proved that, conversely indeed:
2) ~ (R is reflexive) -~(For all V (W,R,V) respects []A -
A)) (by showing one V with a world in which []A - A is false,
when R is not reflexive).
If so, I'still m not sure that proves if any only if...
Oh! You might say that once you proved 2) you did prove that
2') (For all V (W,R,V) respects []A - A)) - (R is reflexive)
But you can derived P - Q from a derivation of ~Q - ~P. All
right.
You did it, and it would have been simpler for you, and for me, if you
just started from what you were asked to prove.
Although... maybe it does.
Sure it does.
For []p to imply p in a world alpha, where []p means p is true in
all worlds reachable from alpha, it can only imply p is true if
alpha is reachable from alpha.
This applies to all worlds in (W, R) hence it must be reflexive.
I think.
Good.
To prove that P - Q, you can prove that P ~Q leads to a
contradiction, or you can prove that ~Q leads to ~P.
But it helps a lot if you start from what you want to prove, up to the
conclusion, so that not only you prove it, but you know exactly what
you discovered. In this case a necessary link, in Kripke semantics,
between a binary relation (reflexivity) and a modal formula []A-A.
You learned that the fact that (W, R) respects []A - A is equivalent
with the fact that R is reflexive.
OK?
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit
Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
Thanks, Professor Marchal, I shall be purchasing your newly, translated, book on Amazon, and a hat tip to professor Standish for the alert on this. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 9:07 am Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of everything must be arithmetic as you say. If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any logical specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and arithmetic is enough. The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this (again) soon. The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of 2D space, which I guess might be a...database? That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There are resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite running of the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is his 3-1 view actually). But with computationalism we get an explanation from a 0-dimensional theory of the way an Hilbert space (infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, and the cosmology is more difficult to extract. Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a new theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a theory of mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the mind-body problem, and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/testable. Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from consciousness. Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics emerge from arithmetic? Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one? Bruno What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy. -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) i Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. ion If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what object and experiences what consciousness, and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms
RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Thanks. I will look for the paperback version towards the end of this month. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:16 AM To: f...@googlegroups.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store Please let me know when the hard copy is available, as I would like a physical version (ironic, I suspect, given the subject). On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. 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 Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:foar%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. 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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
Great news! I've got mine already on my trusty ebook reader. Let's displace Paul McCartney http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Paul-Mccartney/dp/B001OD6HRW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1393954155sr=8-1keywords=the+secret+of+the+amoeba :) On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: Thanks. I will look for the paperback version towards the end of this month. Chris *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:16 AM *To:* f...@googlegroups.com; everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store Please let me know when the hard copy is available, as I would like a physical version (ironic, I suspect, given the subject). On 4 March 2014 19:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Hi everyone, Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno Marchal's The Amoeba's Secret is now available from Amazon's Kindle store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript available from Bruno's website. The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now, after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished the translation of this book into English. For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the best of both worlds. 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 Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: MODAL Last exercise (+ a zest of the real thing)
On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:00, LizR wrote: Hm. I don't know if the first one was OK but anyway let's look at the second one. A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said transitive if R is transitive. That is alpha R beta, and beta R gamma entails alpha R gamma, for all alpha beta and gamma in W. Show that (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, I think []A - [][]A means (for a world alpha in (W,R)) that if A is true in all worlds accessible from alpha, then it's true in all worlds reachable from alpha that A is true in all worlds reachable from alpha. I am not sure. []A - [][]A means, in a world alpha, in W, from (W,R), indeed, that []A - [][]A is true in alpha. So if []A is true in alpha, you know that [][]A is true in alpha, so that means that if A is true in all accessible worlds, then []A is true in all the accessible worlds. That's a bit - I don't know - recursive? I can feel a bit of boggling starting in my mind. Let's try to keep things (very, very) simple. No problem. Consider a world alpha in which p is true. I assume I can use p since I'm used to typing []p by now! And suppose we have beta and gamma as above. So []p implies that p is true in beta because alpha R beta... OK so far... Hang on, does transitive imply reflexive? This is hard to think about, having 3 things! For ALL a,b,c, in (W,R) we have (aRb bRc) - aRc. Specifically if a,b,c are the same (aRa aRa) - aRa, so we (kind of redundantly) get reflexivity too. I think. Well tried, but if (a Ra) is false, that is just f - f. Take a strict order relation like strictly less than, on N, or R, that relation is transitive, but not reflexive. Take less or equal, that relation is both reflexive and transitive. Strictly less than is even worse than not reflexive, it is irreflexive. For all a ~(aRa), or if you prefer ~ Exist a such that a R A. By the way, I suspect that the 3-fold nature of the transitivity rule somehow connects with the 3 []s in the thing I'm trying to prove! But I have no idea why or how that works, if it does. Maybe I should stop for a coffee break and let this percolate around my brain for a bit. Take the time. And don't worry, at some point I will have to re-explained all this, to what some people might take as a very dumb machine, which indeed believes only few axioms of elementary arithmetic. That will be the real things, some modal logics will impose themselves there, including the one corresponding to alternating consistent extensions. The theory of everything, here, is classical first order logic + the following formula: 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 An observer will be defined, in the theory above, by a sound extension believer of the axioms above, + some amount of induction axioms, of the type: (F(0) Ax(F(x) - F(s(x))) - AxF(x), with F(x) being a formula in the arithmetical language (with 0, s, +, *). We have to explain to a dumb machine, which understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... and can only add and multiply, but yet can reason in classical logic, the very functioning of such a dumb machine. There is no miracle. To define the variables, we can use the letter x, y, ..., it works well for many human people, but the dumb machine understands only 0, s(0), s(s(0)), so we will have to decide to say something like let the variable be defined by 0, s(s(0)), s(s(s(s(0, that is, the even number, so we will defined in arithmetic, the variable by the even numbers. Variable(x) - even(x) - Ey(2*y = x) And about , - t, and even what about (, and ) ? Well, again, there is no magic, you have to chose particular odd numbers (to not confuse them from variable) to represent them. That is both logic and polite. And then, how about finite sequences of symbols like 0≠s(x)? There too must be defined in terms of number relations, and in this case a simple way, if we allow ourselves the use of exponentiation, is given by the uniqueness of prime decomposition. If g(0), g(≠), ... represents the particular odd number symbol for 0, ≠, etc. then you can represent 0≠s(x) by 2^g(0)*3^g(≠)*5^g(s)*7^g(()*11^g(x)*13^g()). Then the theory itself can be defined or represented, as a number, being a finite sequences of the number corresponding to the axioms above. We will have to defined in arithmetic what we mean by a valid proof. A proof is itself a finite (or infinite) sequences of application of inference rules, making proof easy to check (and hard to find in many domains). So we can define in arithmetic a predicate b(x, y) true when y is a proof (in the dumb number language) of x. Then provable(x) can be defined by EyB(x, y). It is a Turing complete sigma_1 arithmetical predicate, a Löbian once it get few induction axioms. That provable(x), or believable(x), or assertable(x) by the modest believer in the axiom above,
Re: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
Edgar, On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality. Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind. Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for plants love music. About plants loving music, you take my words far too much seriously, and you have already acknowledge that your theory implies comp, so that you should learn its consequences, which makes your point possibly consistent with an internal view of the block mindscape of the universal Turing machine (computer in the mathematical sense). (but it makes it definitely inconsistent as reified reality). Don't infer from that that I would be certain that some plants don't love music, as I am too much ignorant for that. But their behavior is amazing, notably on larger scale. Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do? :-) Only a troll can add a smiley to an insult, I think. I mean that you know that we are *seriously* asking ourself if you are not a troll. In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories by making clear the assumptions. I will comment your posts only if I got them. And without them I will eventually put you in the spam list, if you insist on the boring insulting strategy. I think you convince no one on this list. You loose. Come back when better prepared. Just give us a link with your assumptions, and mode of reasoning. Stop insulting us. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed O Fortuna (the first song of Orff's Carmina Burana) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the threeness of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. Beat in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are 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
Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:27:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:16:49 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:50:07 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Mar 2014, at 12:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 whats...@gmail.com 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. []p is self representation only. But []p p is not. We can prove that the machine cannot associate anything 3p-describable for []p p. It is not a representation, but a (meta) link between representation and truth. Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages? Because we duplicate too slowly, unlike amoeba, which have not the cognitive abilities to exploit this. This entails that in natural language we use the same indexical term I for both the 3-I and the 1-I. We say I lost a tooth (3-I) , and I feel pain in my mouth (1-I). Only teleportation and duplication, or deep reflexion on belief and knowledge, makes clear the difference. It appears clearly in Theaetetus, and in other fundamental texts. When we say I lost a tooth what we mean is In my experience it seems like I lost a tooth. It is still 1-I. We may wake up and find that experience was a dream, in which case we say I didn't lose a tooth but mean In my experience it seems like my previous experience of losing a tooth was a dream, Funny but irrelevant. Like Clark can always avoid a question on the 1-views, by jumping out of his body and adding a 3 (passing from some 1-1-1 view to a 3-1-1-1 view for example), you can always add a 1 on any view, like you do here. But in the argument we were assuming the 3p view at the start. I'm not adding a 1 view, I'm giving a literal description of the phenomenon. There is no expectation of 3p unless that expectation is provided by the 1p. We were not assuming the 3p view at the start though, since I think that the 3p view is only realized as a (Bp-x/Bp)(x/Bp+x/Bp), never as a stand-alone perspective. Instead of seeing it in terms of Bp p, I see it as something like Bp Bp^e (where e is Euler's number). ??? Yes. My view is that there is no p other than as a representation within some Bp. Truth is a measure of the length of the trail of experiences leading back closer and closer to the capacity for sense itself. Short trails present the truth of superficial, disconnected sensations. Long trails present profoundly unifying states of consciousness. There is no p, only a tendency toward stability across nested histories of experience as the accumulate. If there is no p, there is no truth, and we waste our time when doing research. No, there is truth, but it is not a separate perfect thing, it's more like the mass of experience. Truth is a measure of how much sense is made of what makes sense already. I begin to think I waste my time trying to get you back to research instead of your hopelessly negative and destructive quasi-racist personal reification. I can see your research as hopelessly naive and potentially destructive as well, as to me, it conflates the personal with a reified impersonal and presents a quasi-racist arithmetic supremacy. I wouldn't hold that against you though. You could still be right, I just happen to think that my view makes more sense in defining the basic points. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno PS for reason of scheduling, I will comment only paragraph that I understand. 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
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:42 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if the sad choice is saving the environment or human beings? At least to some degree that is indeed the choice. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, never before in the history of the Earth has a large animal (over 50 pounds) of the same species been that numerous or even come close to it. To keep all of those people alive other animals are going to suffer, to keep them not only alive but happy and prosperous its inevitable that other species will suffer even more. Environmentalists seem to expect everybody to live as Thoreau did at Walden Pond, but the Earth is not big enough for 7 billion people to remain alive, much less be prosperous, that way. Those 7 billion people need energy to live and environmentalists want nearly all existing energy sources shut down yesterday and they can offer nothing to replace them. And even Thoreau, the poster boy for the back to nature crowd, only lived at Walden Pond for 2 years 2 months and 2 days, after that he had enough and went back to energy hungry civilization. I don't blame him. 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?
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Edgar, In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories by making clear the assumptions. The a priori assumption is that you can have a sensible strategy to deflate your assumptions by making a priori explicit sense of them. In all cases, the first implicit assumption is sense itself. Sense of arithmetic, sense of machines, sense of sense, sense of self...all of that comes later. 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: Block Universes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same place in spacetime to describe my views, and interpreting it in a way that I would never had agreed with? Again, this phrase could be interpreted two possible ways: 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime in T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) Minor typo in #1 there, it should read If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, not in T. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration differences either before or after. There are two equivalent ways they can confirm their actual 1:1 age correlations in both (all cases) when they cross paths. First they can directly observe this 1:1 correlation by simply looking at each other's clocks as they pass. Normally this is not possible if two observers have relative motion with respect to each other, but in this case there is no time delay and the looking only takes a SINGLE MOMENT OF TIME, so even though the time RATES of each other's proper clocks are dilated in each other's frames, each can still actually read the correct proper time on the other's clock as they cross. (One might initially think it is impossible to read each others' clocks correctly due to the dilation of relative motion, or even if they passed with different accelerations, but this is not true in the case where they read as they cross. Each proper clock is ALWAYS reading the actual proper age. The apparent dilation effect is just due to the longer interval it takes for signals from that clock to reach the observer. But the signals received always display the real and actual proper age of the clock WHEN the signals were sent. So in the crossing case where there is only a single signal with NO time delay the clock reading received = the actual clock reading when the signal was sent. Note that this analysis points out that all proper clocks continually show the actual proper age of the clock when the signal was sent. So that real actual age is REALLY OUT THERE. Your imaginary 1:1 correlation problem just doesn't take into proper account the transmission time from the clock to the receiver. Just subtract the transmission time and you will get the actual 1:1 age correlation between when any proper age signal was sent and what proper time it was received.) Second they CAN CONFIRM the actual age correlation in ALL cases simply by exchanging light messages as they cross telling each other their actual ages which is an equivalent method. As they cross the light signal has no appreciable delay so whatever actual age they report will correlate to the actual age the other receives the signal. In this way crossing observers CAN UNambiguously determine the 1:1 correlation of their actual ages even if they are in relative motion. With this understanding your 1. is true of symmetric cases, and 2. is true of all cases... Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:19:27 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame. The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases of extreme separation or motion. I think we have to analyze the age correlation from a POV that preserves the actual relationship of the accelerations that are the ONLY cause of age rate differences. Whereas you think we have to consider all possible views irrespective of whether they properly preserve the relationship of causes of age rate differences. My method provides an EXACT correlation. Your method provides an ALMOST EXACT correlation in all but extreme cases. Also now that I have pointed out the error in your Alice, Bob, Arlene, Bart example do you agree my method does produce consistent, unambiguous and transitive 1:1 correlations of proper ages among all observers? So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and C's proper ages are
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
But there's no rule that there have to be 7 billion people (and going to 9). Where ever the Enlightenment and technology have displaced religion and poverty the birthrate has dropped to below replacement. Brent On 3/4/2014 10:23 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:42 PM, spudboy...@aol.com mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if the sad choice is saving the environment or human beings? At least to some degree that is indeed the choice. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, never before in the history of the Earth has a large animal (over 50 pounds) of the same species been that numerous or even come close to it. To keep all of those people alive other animals are going to suffer, to keep them not only alive but happy and prosperous its inevitable that other species will suffer even more. Environmentalists seem to expect everybody to live as Thoreau did at Walden Pond, but the Earth is not big enough for 7 billion people to remain alive, much less be prosperous, that way. Those 7 billion people need energy to live and environmentalists want nearly all existing energy sources shut down yesterday and they can offer nothing to replace them. And even Thoreau, the poster boy for the back to nature crowd, only lived at Walden Pond for 2 years 2 months and 2 days, after that he had enough and went back to energy hungry civilization. I don't blame him. 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?
Bruno, I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. If you don't I certainly won't. OK? Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: Edgar, On 04 Mar 2014, at 15:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, It may be that some plants respond to music or at least to sound but to claim some plants love music is an unwarranted anthropomorphism that demonstrates a rather 'New Agey' mentality. Can you link me to any slow motion videos in which plants move IN SYNCH WITH MUSIC? I rather doubt it but I've got an open mind. Extreme claims demand a modicum of evidence. Of course there is NO evidence at all for comp so I won't be surprised if you can't come up with any for plants love music. About plants loving music, you take my words far too much seriously, and you have already acknowledge that your theory implies comp, so that you should learn its consequences, which makes your point possibly consistent with an internal view of the block mindscape of the universal Turing machine (computer in the mathematical sense). (but it makes it definitely inconsistent as reified reality). Don't infer from that that I would be certain that some plants don't love music, as I am too much ignorant for that. But their behavior is amazing, notably on larger scale. Hmmm, isn't that a symptom of what you and Liz claim Trolls do? :-) Only a troll can add a smiley to an insult, I think. I mean that you know that we are *seriously* asking ourself if you are not a troll. In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories by making clear the assumptions. I will comment your posts only if I got them. And without them I will eventually put you in the spam list, if you insist on the boring insulting strategy. I think you convince no one on this list. You loose. Come back when better prepared. Just give us a link with your assumptions, and mode of reasoning. Stop insulting us. Bruno Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:05:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Mar 2014, at 03:11, Kim Jones wrote: On 4 Mar 2014, at 9:48 am, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote: Without listening to that (since I'm at work) I am under the impression that Carmina Burana is, at the beginning at least, 4 beats to the bar, not 3? Maybe I missed the point. I am not musical (except that I like listening to music). You would have to be halfway musical to even pick up on that! Indeed “O Fortuna” (the first song of Orff’s “Carmina Burana”) is cast in 3 beats to the bar at the opening, certainly when it gets fully under way... I just checked it on the full orchestral score. This is interesting because the “threeness” of this huge opening is not explicit, which is what I was saying earlier. “Beat” in music is simple arithmatic, yet even with such simple resources as ordinal numbers associating with each other (somehow!) to produce these qualia that gives me an aesthetic impression of circularity is already incredibly advanced and difficult to describe. Tis the magic of the numbers. Music IS numbers, but the qualia it induces in my consciousness are something else. If I understand that part of comp correctly. The qualia are not numbers, indeed. No 1p notion at all can be a 3p notion, like numbers are. But a qualia can be associated to some 1p notions, which arise in some of the self-referential machine's talk, when distinguishing the proofs and the truth available by that machine, and taking into account many intensional combinations. By the way, did you know that some plant loves music. There is even a dancing plant, which seems to dance on classical melody, but not on noise or on too rocky music. If interested here is a video on plant's mind: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeX6ST7rexslist=WL20F101EB06378011 Bruno K -- You received this message because you are 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: Block Universes
On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. This isn't true. In the inertial frame of a third party passing by, B and C age at different rates in different segments of their world lines even though those rates integrate to the same total aging between their two meetings. 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
according to a study today out in New Scientist, a researcher has estimated that OTEC power,even with 3% efficiency, can produce 4000 times our current consumption. It may even be affordable. We may have a good way out. -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 1:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:42 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if the sad choice is saving the environment or human beings? At least to some degree that is indeed the choice. There are over 7 billion people on the planet, never before in the history of the Earth has a large animal (over 50 pounds) of the same species been that numerous or even come close to it. To keep all of those people alive other animals are going to suffer, to keep them not only alive but happy and prosperous its inevitable that other species will suffer even more. Environmentalists seem to expect everybody to live as Thoreau did at Walden Pond, but the Earth is not big enough for 7 billion people to remain alive, much less be prosperous, that way. Those 7 billion people need energy to live and environmentalists want nearly all existing energy sources shut down yesterday and they can offer nothing to replace them. And even Thoreau, the poster boy for the back to nature crowd, only lived at Walden Pond for 2 years 2 months and 2 days, after that he had enough and went back to energy hungry civilization. I don't blame him. 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: Block Universes
Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age reading attached. Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT have to synchronize the signals to do this. This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each other. Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can determine exactly what that correlation is. Do you agree? I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time... Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration differences either before or after. Thanks for the clear answer. So now you hopefully see that you must retract your claim that there's an error in my comments about the scenario with the two pairs of twins A/B and C/D, since I never asserted anything remotely resembling #1, my point about ages that occur at the same point in spacetime being simultaneous in p-time referred SOLELY to #2. Now, can you please address the follow-up questions that I asked you to address if you did agree with #2? I will requote them below: 'On the other hand, if you would answer no, statement #2 is not in error, I agree that in this case T1 and T2 are simultaneous in absolute terms, then please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time as a function of coordinate time, for each observer, and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements: For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12 --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or disagree? --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Agree or disagree?' (if you don't understand the math of how to use x(t) to determine whether someone passed through a given point in spacetime with known x and t coordinates, or how to determine their proper time T at this point, then just ask and I will elaborate) There are two equivalent ways they can confirm their actual 1:1 age correlations in both (all cases) when they cross paths.
Re: Block Universes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age reading attached. Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT have to synchronize the signals to do this. This is a valid method for determining what ages are simultaneous in the inertial frame where they are both at rest. But there is no basis in relativity for judging this frame's views on simultaneity to be any more valid than another frame's. This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each other. Again, you present no argument for why this is the single correct correlation, you just assert it. Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can determine exactly what that correlation is. Do you agree? No. You already agreed in an earlier post that for an inertial observer to label the frame where they are at rest as their own frame is purely a matter of HUMAN CONVENTION, not an objective reality that is forced on them by nature. So even if we ignore these other observers, there is nothing stopping A and B from using a different convention to define their own frame, such as the inertial frame where they both have a velocity of 0.99c along the x-axis. I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Again, you are conflating observers with frames, even though you earlier acknowledged that any link between particular observers and particular frames is just a matter of convention. I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time... OK, thanks. Please prioritize my latest post discussing the scenario with A/B and C/D and statement #1 vs. statement #2, since it seems that your original argument for an error in my analysis was based on falsely imagining I was asserting statement #1 rather than statement #2. Since the analysis really only depends on #2 which you seem to agree with, I would like to proceed with the analysis of this scenario to see if you can find any other reason to object to any other step in the reasoning--if you can't, then presumably you will have no basis for denying the final conclusion that two different ages of the same observer A would have to be simultaneous in p-time, according to your own rules. Jesse On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. 2. is true in all cases. The actual ages T1 and T2 at which they simultaneously cross will stand in a 1:1 correlation, but ONLY AT THAT POINT P because their ages could be different due to acceleration differences either before or after. Thanks for the clear answer. So now you hopefully see that you must retract your claim that there's an error in my comments about the scenario with the two pairs of twins A/B and C/D, since I never asserted anything remotely resembling #1, my point about ages that occur at the same point in spacetime being
Re: Block Universes
Brent, First thanks for your comment. I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship. Though Jesse would probably disagree. The current discussion is about choice of frames though. Check my latest post for a synopsis of one case.. Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:56:49 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's worldlines both pass through a specific point in spacetime P, and B's age is T1 when she passes through P, while C's age is T2 when she passes through P, then B must be at age T1 simultaneously with C being at age T2 (i.e. whatever two specific ages they have at P, they must reach those two ages simultaneously, even if the two ages are different) First I assume that by passing through the same point in spacetime you mean that the worldlines cross at P simultaneously by the operational definition of no light delay. 1. is true only in a SYMMETRIC case. In the symmetric case they would have the same ages as they pass through the same point P, but in that case they have the same ages during the WHOLE trip so no big surprise. This isn't true. In the inertial frame of a third party passing by, B and C age at different rates in different segments of their world lines even though those rates integrate to the same total aging between their two meetings. 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
Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is transitive among all observers, AND is the exact same method that gives the correct answer WHEN A AND B MEET and everyone, even you, agrees on the 1:1 age correlation. Our disagreement over choice of frames is spinning its wheels and not getting anywhere. It's a matter of how to INTERPRET relativity, rather than relativity itself. And I have given very convincing reasons why a privileged frame that preserves the actual physical facts that affect age changes is appropriate. You just don't agree with them. As to your example claiming to prove my method leads to a contradiction, just give me the bottom line, a simple synopsis. I don't have the time to wade through a detailed example only to find the only disagreement is over choice of frames again. On the other hand if you ASSUME privileged frames the way I do and think my method of using them leads to a contradiction that isn't just another disagreement over choice of frames that were assumed, then give me a simple example, the simplest you can come up with. Edgar On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:37:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to each other A sends B a light message telling B what A's current age is, and B immediately reflects that light message back to A with B's current age reading attached. Because they are at rest A knows that the actual age difference is A's CURRENT age - B's REPORTED age + 1/2 delta c (half the light signal's round trip time). In this way A determines a unique 1:1 age correlation between his and B's age that will hold for as long as they are at rest. B can use the same method to determine his 1:1 age correlation with A. A and B do NOT have to synchronize the signals to do this. This is a valid method for determining what ages are simultaneous in the inertial frame where they are both at rest. But there is no basis in relativity for judging this frame's views on simultaneity to be any more valid than another frame's. This gives both A and B their single correct 1:1 age correlation at any distance which holds so long as they are at rest with respect to each other. Again, you present no argument for why this is the single correct correlation, you just assert it. Of course other observers may see this differently but IT'S NOT THEIR AGE CORRELATION, IT'S ONLY A'S AND B'S AGE CORRELATION and A and B can determine exactly what that correlation is. Do you agree? No. You already agreed in an earlier post that for an inertial observer to label the frame where they are at rest as their own frame is purely a matter of HUMAN CONVENTION, not an objective reality that is forced on them by nature. So even if we ignore these other observers, there is nothing stopping A and B from using a different convention to define their own frame, such as the inertial frame where they both have a velocity of 0.99c along the x-axis. I know you will claim it's not valid since other observers may view it differently, but frankly A and B's age correlation is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Again, you are conflating observers with frames, even though you earlier acknowledged that any link between particular observers and particular frames is just a matter of convention. I'll respond to the rest of your post later when I have more time... OK, thanks. Please prioritize my latest post discussing the scenario with A/B and C/D and statement #1 vs. statement #2, since it seems that your original argument for an error in my analysis was based on falsely imagining I was asserting statement #1 rather than statement #2. Since the analysis really only depends on #2 which you seem to agree with, I would like to proceed with the analysis of this scenario to see if you can find any other reason to object to any other step in the reasoning--if you can't, then presumably you will have no basis for denying the final conclusion that two different ages of the same observer A would have to be simultaneous in p-time, according to your own rules. Jesse On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 2:19:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then
Re: Block Universes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree You are avoiding my question of whether identifying this frame with A and B's view or perspective is just a matter of convention as you previously seemed to agree, or whether it is tied to them in some more fundamental way. If it's just a matter of convention, then A and B could equally well agree to define any other frame as their own view of the situation. is transitive among all observers, AND is the exact same method that gives the correct answer WHEN A AND B MEET and everyone, even you, agrees on the 1:1 age correlation. Our disagreement over choice of frames is spinning its wheels and not getting anywhere. It's a matter of how to INTERPRET relativity, rather than relativity itself. And I have given very convincing reasons why a privileged frame that preserves the actual physical facts that affect age changes is appropriate. You just don't agree with them. But you refuse to answer my very simple questions about your reasons, like my question about whether you ASSUME FROM THE START that a particular definition of simultaneity (the one you prefer) is the actual reality, or whether you claim to have convincing reasons for this definition of simultaneity representing reality that don't simply assume it from the start. As to your example claiming to prove my method leads to a contradiction, just give me the bottom line, a simple synopsis. I don't have the time to wade through a detailed example only to find the only disagreement is over choice of frames again. I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are: ASSUMPTION 1. If two observers are at rest in the same inertial frame, then events on their worldlines that are simultaneous in their rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time ASSUMPTION 2. If two observers cross paths at a single point in spacetime P, and observer #1's proper time at P is T1 while observer #2's proper time at P is T2, then the event of observer #1's clock showing T1 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of observer #2's clock showing T2. ASSUMPTION 3. p-time simultaneity is transitive That's it! I make no other assumptions about p-time simultaneity. But if you want to actually see how the contradiction is derived, there's really no shortcut besides looking at the math. If you are willing to do that, can we just start with the last 2 questions I asked about the scenario? Here's what I asked again, with a few cosmetic modifications: Please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time as a function of coordinate time, for each observer (expressed using the inertial frame where A and B are at rest, and C and D are moving at 0.8c), and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements: For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12 --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of B's proper time clock reading T=0 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of C's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of A's proper time clock reading T=20 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of D's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? (if you don't understand the math of how to use x(t) to determine whether someone passed through a given point in spacetime with known x and t coordinates, or how to determine their proper time T at this point, then just ask and I will elaborate) If you agree with both of these, then I will proceed to the next few agree/disagree statements that follow from the three assumptions, and if you agree with them all you'll have no way to avoid the contradiction. On the other hand if you ASSUME privileged frames the way I do and think my method of using them leads to a contradiction that isn't just another disagreement over
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
On 5 March 2014 06:29, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Great news! I've got mine already on my trusty ebook reader. Let's displace Paul McCartney http://www.amazon.com/Amoebas-Secret-Paul-Mccartney/dp/B001OD6HRW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8qid=1393954155sr=8-1keywords=the+secret+of+the+amoeba Wow! Great minds really do think alike. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: MODAL Last exercise
On 5 March 2014 04:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Good. To prove that P - Q, you can prove that P ~Q leads to a contradiction, or you can prove that ~Q leads to ~P. But it helps a lot if you start from what you want to prove, up to the conclusion, so that not only you prove it, but you know exactly what you discovered. In this case a necessary link, in Kripke semantics, between a binary relation (reflexivity) and a modal formula []A-A. I had to get my head around ... well, everything ... again. So I may have sneaked up on the result. You learned that the fact that (W, R) respects []A - A is equivalent with the fact that R is reflexive. OK? OK. So, the next question was A Kripke multiverse (W, R) is said transitive if R is transitive. That is alpha R beta, and beta R gamma entails alpha R gamma, for all alpha beta and gamma in W. Show that (W, R) respects []A - [][]A if and only R is transitive, Damn. This looks too complicated for me to fake 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 5 March 2014 09:56, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: according to a study today out in New Scientist, a researcher has estimated that OTEC power,even with 3% efficiency, can produce 4000 times our current consumption. It may even be affordable. We may have a good way out. What's OTEC? Oops silly me, Il'l look it up.OK. It's solar, via the oceans. Nice. The trouble is, New Scientist solves the world's problems regularly, as well as discovering the secret of life the universe and everything and a cure for cancer every other week. I bet most of their gosh wow stories never get off the drawing board. I hope this one does. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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?
On 5 March 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Bruno, I only insult people who insult me first, which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. It wasn't an insult, merely an observation based on how you have behaved. But in any case you have failed to understand what Bruno was saying; he meant stop insulting our intelligence by throwing out vague ideas with no intellectual substance. If you don't I certainly won't. OK? That has yet to be proved. So far, you have thrown around plenty of insults without provocation. Both the normal type and the sort Bruno was referring to. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are: ASSUMPTION 1. If two observers are at rest in the same inertial frame, then events on their worldlines that are simultaneous in their rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time ASSUMPTION 2. If two observers cross paths at a single point in spacetime P, and observer #1's proper time at P is T1 while observer #2's proper time at P is T2, then the event of observer #1's clock showing T1 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of observer #2's clock showing T2. ASSUMPTION 3. p-time simultaneity is transitive That's it! I make no other assumptions about p-time simultaneity. But if you want to actually see how the contradiction is derived, there's really no shortcut besides looking at the math. If you are willing to do that, can we just start with the last 2 questions I asked about the scenario? Here's what I asked again, with a few cosmetic modifications: Please have another look at the specific numbers I gave for x(t), coordinate position as a function of coordinate time, and T(t), proper time as a function of coordinate time, for each observer (expressed using the inertial frame where A and B are at rest, and C and D are moving at 0.8c), and then tell me if you agree or disagree with the following two statements: For A: x(t) = 25, T(t) = t For B: x(t) = 0, T(t) = t For C: x(t) = 0.8c * t, T(t) = 0.6*t For D: x(t) = [0.8c * t] + 9, T(t) = 0.6*t - 12 --given the x(t) functions for B and C, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=0, t=0. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that B has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates, and C also has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of B's proper time clock reading T=0 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of C's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? --given the x(t) functions for A and D, we can see that they both pass through the point in spacetime with coordinates x=25, t=20. Given their T(t) functions, we can see that A has a proper time T=20 at those coordinates, and D has a proper time T=0 at those coordinates. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of A's proper time clock reading T=20 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of D's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree? Another little correction--in the last two paragraphs there, where I said Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, I should have written ASSUMPTION 2, since in both cases I was deriving p-time simultaneity from the fact that two clock readings happened at the same point in spacetime. 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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:40 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 5 March 2014 09:56, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: according to a study today out in New Scientist, a researcher has estimated that OTEC power,even with 3% efficiency, can produce 4000 times our current consumption. It may even be affordable. We may have a good way out. What's OTEC? Oops silly me, Il'l look it up.OK. It's solar, via the oceans. Nice. I've looked at OTEC in the past, as you said it is essentially harvesting stored solar energy stored in the warm surface layer above the thermocline. There are however some formidable engineering issues dealing with salt corrosion, oceanic storms and such. They tried to build one - a ship based unit -- decades ago; I believe corrosion and other such problems were too costly. One place they are using OTEC is Hawaii - maybe the only place that I know of. There is an installation (or at least was operating a few years back) where they were pumping up the deep cold water onto an on land installation. They were able to use this quite cold water for air-conditioning concurrent production of some fresh water - the cooled air loses a lot of its water vapor as dew. I am not sure that this unit was producing electric energy as much as off-loading the air-conditioners load that would have otherwise been sucking electricity down from the grid. do perhaps indirectly in the form of negawatts (e.g. negative watts) The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency. In the US buildings consume the lion's share of total energy consumed, far more than the transportation sector for example. By just doing wide spread insulation retrofits, putting in double and triple pane glass, and by using energy efficient lighting - I have seen estimates that almost half the energy currently used could instead be saved (reserves would then last longer giving us more time to figure out an answer). This is by far the most significant thing we can do; this is the low hanging fruit. It is not sexy and is low tech for the most part, but it is by far the most effective action our society can take at this juncture, given the very poor energy efficiency base line of our nations built structures. Chris The trouble is, New Scientist solves the world's problems regularly, as well as discovering the secret of life the universe and everything and a cure for cancer every other week. I bet most of their gosh wow stories never get off the drawing board. I hope this one does. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
On 04 Mar 2014, at 19:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:27:58 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Mar 2014, at 21:17, Craig Weinberg wrote: Why don't we see such a (meta) link in our own languages? Because we duplicate too slowly, unlike amoeba, which have not the cognitive abilities to exploit this. This entails that in natural language we use the same indexical term I for both the 3-I and the 1-I. We say I lost a tooth (3- I) , and I feel pain in my mouth (1-I). Only teleportation and duplication, or deep reflexion on belief and knowledge, makes clear the difference. It appears clearly in Theaetetus, and in other fundamental texts. When we say I lost a tooth what we mean is In my experience it seems like I lost a tooth. It is still 1-I. We may wake up and find that experience was a dream, in which case we say I didn't lose a tooth but mean In my experience it seems like my previous experience of losing a tooth was a dream, Funny but irrelevant. Like Clark can always avoid a question on the 1-views, by jumping out of his body and adding a 3 (passing from some 1-1-1 view to a 3-1-1-1 view for example), you can always add a 1 on any view, like you do here. But in the argument we were assuming the 3p view at the start. I'm not adding a 1 view, I'm giving a literal description of the phenomenon. There is no expectation of 3p unless that expectation is provided by the 1p. that is what I meant by adding the 1-p view. We were not assuming the 3p view at the start though, That is why your position is akin to solipsism. since I think that the 3p view is only realized as a (Bp-x/Bp)(x/Bp +x/Bp), never as a stand-alone perspective. So what does stand alone? Instead of seeing it in terms of Bp p, I see it as something like Bp Bp^e (where e is Euler's number). ??? Yes. My view is that there is no p other than as a representation within some Bp. That is a form of solipsism. Truth is a measure of the length of the trail of experiences leading back closer and closer to the capacity for sense itself. Short trails present the truth of superficial, disconnected sensations. Long trails present profoundly unifying states of consciousness. To do science, we have to bet on something on which we can agree, and which is supposed to be independent on us. Keep in mind that I have no problem with your theory, especially that it is consistent with the machine's 1-view. I have a problem only with you using your theory to refute computationalism. It is non valid, if only because your theory is, basically, equivalent to the machine's 1- view. There is no p, only a tendency toward stability across nested histories of experience as the accumulate. If there is no p, there is no truth, and we waste our time when doing research. No, there is truth, but it is not a separate perfect thing, it's more like the mass of experience. Truth is a measure of how much sense is made of what makes sense already. This is a solipsistic vision of truth. You really talk like the machines universal soul (S4Grz). I begin to think I waste my time trying to get you back to research instead of your hopelessly negative and destructive quasi-racist personal reification. I can see your research as hopelessly naive and potentially destructive as well, as to me, it conflates the personal with a reified impersonal and presents a quasi-racist arithmetic supremacy. I wouldn't hold that against you though. You could still be right, I just happen to think that my view makes more sense in defining the basic points. I have yet to see a theory. You assume sense, you assume some physicalness (at least your refer to it a lot without explaining what is when you assume only sense), so you assume what I estimate (and argue) that we have to explain. You are not trying to make a scientific theory. You just seem to defend a personal opinion, which is negative on a class of entities, without us ever being able to get a reason why, except your opinion. Edgar, In this list we are open minded and basically agnostic, we don't a priori assume god, matter, universe, numbers, or whatever, and then try theories by making clear the assumptions. The a priori assumption is that you can have a sensible strategy to deflate your assumptions by making a priori explicit sense of them. That is accepted at the meta-level for *any* scientific theory. You do the same with the term sense. The difference is that many people actually agree on the assumptions, in the case of comp, and they are clear enough to learn from them. In all cases, the first implicit assumption is sense itself. Sense of arithmetic, sense of machines, sense of sense, sense of self...all of that comes later. Sense is not an assumption. That does not make sense. If you complain about toothache to your dentist,
Max and FPI
Here's Max! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC0zHIf2Gkw 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: If it's all math, then where does math come from?
On 04 Mar 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: I only insult people who insult me first, No. You have insulted many people a long time before they react to the insult. You arrive in a list, and you don't seem to have follow any previous thread. people suggested you to read the UDA, which makes your statement incompatible with computationalism, but it remains unclear if your statements fit or not with computationalism, as you don't define the term computation that you are using. which you and Liz did earlier today and yesterday by referring to me as a Troll. That was not an insult, but a question related to your way to insult people, and of never addressing their question, except by mocking them with an insulting tone. If you insult someone you should expect to receive the same. If you don't I certainly won't. OK? Tell us your assumption clearly. Tell us what you mean by computational, and this without invoking some reality, as computation, like most usable concept, is defined independently of any ontology, except for some infinite set of finitely specifiable objects (like strings, numbers, combinators, programs, ...). A computation is what a computer do. You said that reality computes. Are you saying that reality is a computer? Is it a mathematical computer, or is it implemented in some physical reality. If it is mathematical, can you tell us what you assume in math. You said information, but that term was not defined, and is typically used in many senses. I don't see any theory up to now. If you can clarify, it is up to you to provide the clarification. 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.
