Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:

Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show  
you what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs  
because you're looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.


binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing  
number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up,  
so any exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time,  
as you flip the coin more and more times, the distribution of  
proportions starts to cluster more and more tightly around the  
expected value.  So for tests when you do two million flips of a  
fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads  
and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and  
50.05%.



Good. So you agree with step 3? What about step 4? (*). I am  
interested to know.


the FPI is just the elementary statistics of the "bernouilly  
épreuve" (in french statistics), and that is pretty obvious when you  
grasp the definitions given of 1p and 3p.


Bruno

(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html



-Gabe

On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:36:11 AM UTC-6, chris peck wrote:
>>  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.



There's something strikes me as very strange about this idea.

Tegmark's method is just a means of writing down binary sequences.

Being strict, already with binary sequences just 4 digits long, only  
37.5% of those contain half zeros. This drops the longer the  
sequences get. So, with sequences 6 digits long, only 31.25% contain  
half zeros. With sequences 8 digits long only 27% and with 16 digits  
only about 19%.


If his experiment continued for a year, (365 digits) many people  
would find that either room 1 or room 0 was dominating strongly. For  
these people a change in room would seem very odd, a glitch in the  
matrix that wouldn't be of any great concern vis a vis prediction  
once 'normality' kicked back in the following night. For others, a  
change in room would occur at regular intervals and would seem very  
predictable. There would be the guy who changed room every night.  
There would be all the guys whose room changed every night except  
for the one time when it stayed the same. A little glitch is all.


In truth, the longer you continued the game and the more people got  
involved the less chance a person would have of finding room  
assignment random at all. There would be increasingly few people  
willing to bet 50/50 on a particular room assignment.


Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:13:23 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: liz...@gmail.com
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com

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

On 2 March 2014 16:35,  wrote:

heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an  
eccentric street market where traders call out their wares


"GETCHYOUR P-TIME  2 for 1 logico-computational really real  
structure today only"


"Assuming comp only, that's right comp only. Theology but done like  
science. Madam you are ugly but I will be sober in the morning. You  
there, you reek of not-comp, get lost. Ah sir, did you like the  
dreams? Same again?"


"GETCHOR P-TIME..,."



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

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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 st

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

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

 

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>> 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.


> But there's no rule that there have to be 7 billion people (and going to
9).  

 

It's not a rule it's a fact that there are already 7 billion people on this
small globe and the number of individuals who have volunteered to make that
number one less for the good of the environment is rather small. And just
like most people I have nothing personally against the Prairie Mole Cricket,
but if it comes down to a decision between him and me and only one of us can
stay then I choose me.

Yes, but it is also a fact that demographers have been surprised because
they expected hundreds of more millions of humans to be here now on earth,
but that are not here - as expected from their extrapolations of the
population explosion - due to the phenomenal decline in the total fertility
rate in much of the world, albeit, with some tragic exceptions. China for
one - with typical Stalinist draconian measures the one child policy (but
did they have a choice?). In fact if you look at the demographic pyramid of
China you quickly realize that it is not a pyramid - it is a column with a
narrowing base of young and an aging bulge that is getting on in the years.
Many important countries have now established some very low TFR Brazil for
example, much lower than the US TFR and has been lower for a decade or so.
On the downer side you have a country like Nigeria with clearly
unsustainable population growth. When I hear people speak of 700 million
Nigerians I laugh then I cry because I know there is no way on this earth
that Nigeria can sustain those numbers. So something has to give and that
something will be collapsing population levels through war, pestilence,
extreme brutal impoverishment, starvation and ethnic cleansing pogroms. It
is the worst kind of future imaginable  and is the only kind of future
realizable with TFR of Nigerian levels.

There are some surprising success stories on the TFR front. Iran for
example, not a country you would think of as being a leader in lowering
their fertility rate. In fact this is what happened when the Theocracy
kicked the US stooge dynasty - installed in a US run coup in 1953-54 period
(and Americans wonder why Iranians don't like us) - but I digress - and
admit I was surprised never expected a Muslim Theocracy to be so enlightened
(just look at our religious rights attitude toward birth control and family
planning) In any case the Iranian Shia regime actively promoted a lowering
of the birth rate from somewhere in the stratosphere like 7 where it had
been under the Shah (who entertained megalomaniac ideas for Aryan Iran) all
the way down to 1.8 or thereabouts where it is now. This got me into
investigating the issue of woman's rights under the Shia clergy dominated
regime that rules there and has ruled there for so long. I was surprised.
And in learning I realized that Iran did in fact fit the pattern, for
countries that experience low TFRs. The critical factor IMO - more than
wealth, technology, etc. is the level of social and economic equality
enjoyed by woman in some particular society. Where woman have few or no
rights fertility levels are high; where woman have more equal social, legal
and economic standing, where they are educated and can vote and drive a car
(which woman cannot do in Saudi Arabia to cite one kingdom of intolerance).
What I found is that in Iran is that in spite of all the outward impressions
one might have the actual situation for woman in Iran is a lot better than
it is in most Muslim countries. For example in Iran there are more woman
with university degrees than there are men, for example.

The long and short of this is that the world can rapidly lower its TFR to
below the replacement level of 2.1, much of the industrialized world already
has and important developing nations principally of course China, but also
sizeable countries such as Brazil have very low TFRs - lower than US TFR.
This will not solve the medium problem, because of demographic momentum -
and some places seem hopeless to me and I shudder to imagine the fate of the
people in those places. 

As a species we have clearly mismanaged our world; we have been I a race to
burn shit up as fast as possible and unfortunately it is a race our species
seems to have won. We have already burned through the easy half of all the
oil that there will ever be, and by far most of that has happened in the
last fifty years. Let that sink in - the liquid fossil fuel treasure trove
of this p

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish 
> > wrote:
>
>> Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
>> moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.
>>
>> As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration 
> Respiration 
>
> Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over 
> their gills . Unlike other fish, shark 
> gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified 
> slit called a spiracle  lies just 
> behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during 
> respiration  and plays 
> a major role in bottom–dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in 
> active pelagic  
> sharks.[21]While 
> the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the 
> gills in a process known as "ram ventilation". While at rest, most sharks 
> pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated 
> water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water 
> through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate 
> ram ventilators* and would presumably 
> asphyxiateif unable to move.Obligate 
> ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
> [32] 
>
obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure 
Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same 
named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you 
buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.
 
 
alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty 
little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna 
Everett ) 
 
more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to 
have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your 
timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in 
the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)

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

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 15:47,  wrote:

> and then there's that little critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels
> out on the origin of life story...
>

Davie 'crocket' Attenborough?!?! I've never heard him called that before.
(The "Whispering Voice of Television Documentaries", yes...)

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

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish  wrote:

> Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
> moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.
>
> As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
Respiration

Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
their gills . Unlike other fish, shark
gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified
slit called a spiracle  lies just
behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during
respiration  and plays a
major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in
active pelagic 
sharks.[21]While
the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the
gills in a process known as "ram ventilation". While at rest, most sharks
pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated
water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water
through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate
ram ventilators* and would presumably
asphyxiateif unable to
move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish
species.
[32] 




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

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:47:15 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> > > 
> > I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get 
> the 
> > oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
> > kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
> > room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
> > Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't 
> seem 
> > to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills. 
>
> The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means 
> small fish. 
>
> But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a 
> mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic. 
>
> In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell, 
> I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the 
> open ocean. 
>
> > 
> > > 
> > > Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
> > > need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
> > > bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
> > > time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
> > > autonomous "breathing" via their gills. 
> > > 
> > Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
> > that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 
>
> Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep 
> moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not. 
>
 
If it's a myth someone should tell them they don't have to die like that 
when the fishermen lasso and pull 'em backward :o) 

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

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
>> > > ghi...@gmail.comwrote: 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
>> machinery? 
>> > > Why 
>> > > > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
>> like 
>> > > a 
>> > > > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
>> > > > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
>> > > another 
>> > > > pair of night eyes. 
>> > > >   
>> > > 
>> > > Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
>> a 
>> > > time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
>> > > 
>> > > -- 
>> > 
>> >   
>> > Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
>> > issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
>> 24 
>> > hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
>> > hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
>> in 
>> > that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
>> preserves a 
>> > degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
>> > swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
>>
>> Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
>> sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
>> they're nocturnal. 
>>
> I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
> oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
> kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
> room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
> Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
> to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.
>
>>
>> Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
>> need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
>> bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
>> time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
>> autonomous "breathing" via their gills. 
>>
> Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
> that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 
>
> >This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
> the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
>  
> good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
> not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
> here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.
>
>
>  
as an aside to this, from memory a lot of the 'living fossils' - forms 
alive today that don't seem a lot changed from Cambrian fossils, though 
very different in form, seem to have commonality in that they integrate 
movement and oxygen getting more closely. One model for this is the 'jet 
turbine' that gets movement from sucking water in one end and blowing it 
out the other. Squid/octopus do this I think, and then there's that little 
critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels out on the origin of life 
story...forget the name but you'd recognize it straight away. I thought 
sharks also had a solution this way that prevents them sucking water 
through their gills like fish. The survivability argument, I think, relates 
to some of the larger mass extinctions such as the Permian that saw periods 
of extreme oceanic hypoxia, or evidence thereof. 
 

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

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
> oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
> kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
> room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
> Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
> to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.

The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means
small fish.

But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a
mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic.

In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell,
I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the
open ocean.

> 
> >
> > Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
> > need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
> > bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
> > time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
> > autonomous "breathing" via their gills. 
> >
> Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
> that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.


-- 


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


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:45:11 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the 
> existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the 
> idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive, 
> especially for a prey animal.
>
 
IMHO it's a really good point and not necessarily discredited by instances 
of animals that switch hemisphere because there are feasibly (I don't know) 
questions around that phenomenon. For example, how well understood/observed 
it actually is. Also, if only a small subset of species evolve to be awake 
most or all of the time, given the advantage of doing so is reasonably on a 
wider scale, the reason it doesn't happen on a wider scale 
could suggest major play-offs are involved in going down that route, in 
terms also of the brain. The argument for that would just be, why isn't a 
solution like that more widespread? Given that, for any competitive niche, 
the species that becomes 24 hour would have some sort of new advantage, if 
there were no costs involved for going that way. 
 
What I would come back to is (a) sleep is ubiquitous or near so (b) not 
sleeping has ubiquitous value or near so 
 
But how to navigate the complexity productively looks to be a 
methodological type problem. I'm replying to JohnM's post with a personal 
idea about that FWIW (which ain't much admittedly)

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

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
>> > > ghi...@gmail.comwrote: 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
>> machinery? 
>> > > Why 
>> > > > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
>> like 
>> > > a 
>> > > > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
>> > > > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
>> > > another 
>> > > > pair of night eyes. 
>> > > >   
>> > > 
>> > > Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
>> a 
>> > > time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
>> > > 
>> > > -- 
>> > 
>> >   
>> > Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
>> > issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
>> 24 
>> > hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
>> > hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
>> in 
>> > that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
>> preserves a 
>> > degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
>> > swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
>>
>> Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
>> sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
>> they're nocturnal. 
>>
> I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
> oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
> kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
> room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
> Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
> to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.
>
>>
>> Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
>> need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
>> bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
>> time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
>> autonomous "breathing" via their gills. 
>>
> Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
> that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 
>
> >This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
> the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
>  
> good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
> not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
> here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>
 
p.s. The breathing strategy of a dolphin or whale. It's easy to see that a 
more complex strategy would be necessary, but  would that be a 
difference in degree, or a difference in kind? Certainly the mammal 
needs to surface and submerge. But once surfaced the exhaust/inhale seems 
to be normal in sleep. Going down then back upI don't have the skills 
to say really. Interesting question to follow up though. I'll try to and 
get back at some point. 

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

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
> > > ghi...@gmail.comwrote: 
> > > > > 
> > > > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
> machinery? 
> > > Why 
> > > > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
> like 
> > > a 
> > > > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
> > > > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
> > > another 
> > > > pair of night eyes. 
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
> > > time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > 
> >   
> > Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
> > issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
> > hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
> > hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
> in 
> > that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
> preserves a 
> > degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
> > swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
>
> Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
> sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
> they're nocturnal. 
>
I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.

>
> Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
> need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
> bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
> time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
> autonomous "breathing" via their gills. 
>
Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

>This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
 
good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


-- 

 

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

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

RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[chris peck]

Hi Bruno

>> The question is: can you refute this.

To my own satisfaction? Yes. To your satisfaction? Apparantly not. Though 
perhaps you have an ideological agenda and are just trying very hard not to be 
refuted?

>> 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.

By your own admission your steps are dumbed down for morons like me and display 
a lack of rigour. Perhaps your book might help?

If I don't buy my little 2 year old a treat this month maybe I can afford it. 
Are there an awful lot of sums?  I hate sums.

Well its your call Bruno, should I treat my son or buy your book?

>> 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.

It doesn't change as far as I can see. Its still P(1) for both.

I'll tell you what, I'll have another look at step 7. see if I can make head or 
tails of it the fifth or sixth time aroundLast time I got stuck at the 
floating pen.

Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 14:05:21 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Brent, could you please reply to Edgar? He is, I'm sure, eagerly 
awaiting your response so he can unleash a torrent of carefully thought 
out arguments which will cover every point you've made. (As indeed am 
I.)
 On 1 March 2014 13:46, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Brent,
Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by Liz 
talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  

  
  
On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:



  

  If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness
I've already provided an explanation. It occurs as
fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and
then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no
deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime
fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments
randomly.

  
  

  
  OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how
it stacks up against Everett et al.
  

  

  
  But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum
theory, only relativity, and far out philosophies such as
'comp'.

  



On the contrary, I am
  interested in your theory of quantum randomness IF you can flesh
  it out.  For example how do you describe a Stern-Gerlach
  experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an EPR
  experiment, Bose-Einstein condensate,...?






-- 

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[LizR]

Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the
existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the
idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive,
especially for a prey animal.

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

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
> > wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
> > Why 
> > > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
> > a 
> > > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
> > > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
> > another 
> > > pair of night eyes. 
> > >   
> >
> > Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
> > time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
> >
> > -- 
> 
>  
> Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
> issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
> hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
> hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
> that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
> degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
> swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy
sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as
they're nocturnal.

Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so
need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a
bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the
time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on
autonomous "breathing" via their gills.

This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses.

-- 


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


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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

Brent, could you please reply to Edgar? He is, I'm sure, eagerly awaiting
your response so he can unleash a torrent of carefully thought out
arguments which will cover every point you've made. (As indeed am I.)

On 1 March 2014 13:46, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Brent,
>
> Are you addressing that question to me? You are responding to a post by
> Liz talking about "your" theory. If so I'll be glad to answer.
>

On Friday, February 28, 2014 6:14:42 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2014 2:43 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already
>>> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by
>>> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no
>>> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature
>>> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>>>
>>
>>  OK, I'll bite. Show us the maths and the experts can see how it stacks
>> up against Everett et al.
>>
>>>
>>>  But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only
>>> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>>>
>>
>> On the contrary, I am interested in your theory of quantum randomness IF
>> you can flesh it out.  For example how do you describe a Stern-Gerlach
>> experiment, a Vaidman no-interaction measurment, an EPR experiment,
>> Bose-Einstein condensate,...?
>>
>

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

[chris peck]

Hi Jason/Gabriel

Thanks for the posts. They were both really clear. I can see that it was a 
mistake to hedge my bets on exact figures and also, given Jason's comments, to 
think that seemingly regular sequences were quite common.

I do maintain that proportions of roughly 50/50 splits are a spurious measure 
of 'seemingly random' though and that irregularity of change is a better one.

There also seems to me to be a big difference between Tegmark's game as 
described in the quote below, and flicking coins. Tegmark's game is a process 
guaranteed to generate (over 4 iterations)  16 unique and exhaustive 
combinations of 0s and 1s (heads or tails). If 16 people were to flick a coin 4 
times and write down the results there is only a low probability that the 
resulting set would map on to that generated by Tegmarks game. There is fair 
chance there would be some repetition.

Jason, you say:

>> Even if your pattern were: 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1, you still have no better 
>> than a 50% chance of predicting the next bit, so despite the coincidental 
>> pattern the sequence is still random.

I disagree here. In Tegmarks game you know a particular outcome is not 
exclusive and that you'll have two successors who get one and the other.  The 
next outcome is (01010101010 AND 01010101011) not (01010101010 XOR 
01010101011). Now this might influence how you bet. If you care about your 
successors you might refuse to make a bet because you know one successor will 
lose. If we rolled dice rather than flicked coins and were to bet on getting 
anything but a 6, in a modified Tegmark game we might still refuse to bet 
knowing that one successor would certainly lose. Its a bet we almost certainly 
would take if we were rolling die in a classical world without clones.

More dramatically, if you play Russian roulette in Everettian Multiverse you 
always shoot someone in the head. Crossing the road becomes deeply immoral 
because vast numbers of successors trip and get run down by trucks.

A final confusion: Does anything ever seem 'apparently random' in a 
Marchalian/Tegmarkian game? Given that you know outcomes are generated by a 
mechanical process and given you know exactly what the following set of 
outcomes will be, how can they seem random? Even 100010110011 isn't looking 
very random anymore.

:(


Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:21:47 +1300
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen  wrote:

Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you what's 
happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're looking at 
cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.  


binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.


binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747


Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing number of 
distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any exact 
proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip the coin 
more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to cluster more and 
more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when you do two million 
flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 50% heads 
and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and 50.05%.


Thank you, that's exactly what I was attempting to say in my cack-handed way. 
(And it is almost certainly what Max intended to say.)






-- 

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:55:47 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
>> Why
>> > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
>> like a
>> > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
>> > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
>> another
>> > pair of night eyes.
>> >
>>
>> Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
>> time, so they don't drown in their sleep.
>>
>> Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them 
> falling of telephone wires :-)
>
> I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes 
> sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain 
> hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for 
> some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state 
> because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.
>
We could make play-time predictions based on what we suspect the 
explanation ultimately is. My prediction - stated without knowledge - is 
that no complex animal is fully functional all the time. Functioning during 
sleep, on the other hand, all life must accomplish. It reasonable that the 
precise details of sleep mode would be open to selection per niche. There'd 
presumably be a range of sophistication necessary for that. 
But full functioning would be desirable for pretty much any niche at any 
stage in history. So if its possible to do, it ought to be ubiquitous, 
hence I'm predicting against.
 

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

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> > > 
> > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
> Why 
> > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
> a 
> > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
> > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
> another 
> > pair of night eyes. 
> >   
>
> Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
> time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
>
> -- 

 
Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
On the other hand if it was a case of full-on functioning day and night, 
things become much more interesting. However from a standpoint of the 
issues being raised here, a full on day and night dolphin reality would 
only be in a position to refute or support certain hypothesis, if it wasn't 
a case of whole hemisphere swapping. In the case it was, all the same 
questions would be applicable to each hemisphere as in both cases sleep was 
a fundamental requirement. It could possibly rule out the fact mammals have 
this largely duplicated structure in two hemispheres as directly related. 
I'll have to ask that old mucker queegeuc on his return anyway, from 
nantuckat with that other fella.  

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

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 12:42, John Mikes  wrote:

> LizR wrote 3-2-14:
>
> *(JM:*
>
>> *Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's
>> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.* )
>>
> *Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's
> knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do *
> *anything?! (L)*
>
> "Look at the problem" is quite diffeent from "*settling it* by today's
> knowledge & means.
> We may "anticipate" tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a
> grain of salt.
>
> You said "set" the first time, not "settle". (And you put it in quotes for
some reason.) Maybe you could try explaining yourself well enough that I
know what I'm answering? It *sounds* like you're fulminating against
"do-gooders" who are trying to solve problems using the tools they have to
hand, and saying that they are going about it the wrong way - but maybe you
meant something completely different?

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

Re: The solar example of a town in Germany

[John Mikes]

LizR wrote 3-2-14:

*(JM:*

> *Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's
> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.* )
>
*Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's
knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do *
*anything?! (L)*

"Look at the problem" is quite diffeent from "*settling it* by today's
knowledge & means.
We may "anticipate" tomorrow's knowledge and means, but not without a grain
of salt.
JM


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 3 March 2014 13:06, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Dear Russell,
>>
>> please allow me to address your contribution after so much of emotionally
>> impaired and poorly adjusted hoopla
>> in this discussion. Let me join your considerate way - if I am capable of
>> - and speak about SOME details only.
>> I spent a lifetime in environmentally 'infected' science/technology R&D
>> so my conclusions are not just hot air - I hope.
>>
>> We are not ready to switch from the polluting practices into 'clean' (not
>> RENEWABLE, please) energy. JohnK's
>>
>
> My apologies if you don't like "renewable" - obviously the Sun will run
> down eventually, and so on, but it seems like a reasonable term to use on
> the human scale.
>
>
>> remark on 'geotherm' are unfounded. The methods he visualizes are in the
>> obsolescence of one method. What I was
>> hintig at, is a lowered (deepened?) double-tube in types like ongoing oil
>> wells in a closed system, pumping down
>> ultrapure deionized water and letting up high pressure steam into
>> turbines. I have nothing against solar applications
>> with certain caveats I explained lately. Hydro-applications depend on the
>> subsistence of ground water (questioned
>> after the snowcaps melted away).
>>
>> Main point:* we will need a multiple production of energy *and are not
>> ready to choose what kind.
>> Maybe all of them? I consider the energy domain as 'second' - we still
>> manage as well as we can.
>> The first biggest concern  is water, for* irrigation*, for *potable*(human - 
>> animal) for
>> *industry* and *ENERGY purposes*.
>> There is plenty in the oceans (*ref: *Liz asking about a bigger energy
>> source nearby than the sun). Desalination to
>> different levels may take care of all the listed problems.
>>
>
> Yes, water is going to be a huge problem, indeed it already is in many
> parts of the world. Again I apologise for not highlighting this myself
> because it's a big concern.
>
>>
>> It is a question of willingness! as long as our well established
>> capitalists insist in reaping profits from existing plants,
>> (fossil that is). Their 'owned' governments will do nothing. It is (and
>> will be) a long struggle and a successful research.
>>
>
> This isn't completely true but it is about 90%.
>
>
>> Those people of goodwill who want to 'set' the problem by today's
>> knowledge/means are doing a disservice to all.
>>
>
> Well if us people of goodwill don't look at the problem using today's
> knowledge/means (and maybe try to envisage tomorrow's) who is going to do
> anything?!
>
>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[John Mikes]

Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long as you
cannot identify it. Attribute of "a 1st person"? that would leave out lots
of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st person.

When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I found
that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes. Around
'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence of THOSE
opinions into some more and more general understanding just to arrive at my
DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed to') - streamlined
since then into:---  Response to relations. 
Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.
(That also changed my "observer" into ANYTHING reacting to -well -
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric charge, or a
stone rolling down a slope.

What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of the
anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN reactivity and
effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her changes in every respect.
We are consequence. Of more - much much more than we know about (what I
call our 'inventory'). Computation (cum+putare) is definitely a human way
and the quantitative side of it is "math" (IMO). No matter if the facts
underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose with/after
them.

So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?) of
which we are a tiny part only. There are "relations" (everybody may
identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our knowledge.
I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site for it
(definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours). Just as I claim
agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the "bio" or wider Earthbound,
not even carried on 'physical' material substrate.

Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no answer, but
SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What I enjoyed was the
2D mentioned by Liz as the database.

Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM,  wrote:

> 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 performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why
> hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?
>
> --
> You received this

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why
> > not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like
> a
> > legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
> > benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and
> another
> > pair of night eyes.
> >
>
> Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
> time, so they don't drown in their sleep.
>
> Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them
falling of telephone wires :-)

I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes
sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain
hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for
some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state
because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.

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

[Russell Standish]

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
> not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
> legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
> benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
> pair of night eyes. 
>  

Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

-- 


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


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:31:03 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>> > 
>> > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> 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? 
>>
>> Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
>> as I experience 
>> it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based 
>> on perceptions and 
>> memories, about what happens in my life.  
>
>
> You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make 
> up stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a 
> story to itself that it already knows?
>
> Craig 
>
 
Hear hear Craig. IMHO not only a legitimate question, but also the right 
sort of asking-of-questions. That assumes there's a major reason for things 
first, before the more trivial. 
 
As an aside, could it be a sort of misunderstanding of 'Occam' that people 
look first for the more trivial explanation? Doing that, would imply 
Occam says things are 'simple to happen'...but Occam only says the 'all 
else being equal, the simpler explanation is better'. Totally different, 
and one definitely does not imply the other. 
 

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

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:20:17 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 4 March 2014 13:04, > wrote:
>
>>  I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
>> everything must be arithmetic as you say. 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?
>>  
>> "DB2" ?!
>
> I'm sure I used to use a database by that name back in about 1985.
>
 
lol Liz - the first time I saw "DB2" I thought exactly the same thing! Who 
hasn't named a backup or development database DB2. I'm not even a developer 
and I've named them that. 
 
Not a developer but learned how to because these days everyone in business 
should do that IMHO. Also it's actually not hard to learn a large amount of 
basic stuff...that pays you back if you have to pay the buggers to do 
stuff. That said, I've learned enough to respect the profession a great 
deal. Developing is a bit like driving a car. It doesn't take long to learn 
to do it well enough to pass a driving test. But that don't mean you can 
race formula 3. 
 
 

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

[LizR]

Let's take 3 worlds A B C making a minimal transitive multiverse. ARB and
BRC implies ARC. So if we assume ARB and BRC we also get ARC (if we don't
assume this we don't have a multiverse or at least not one we can say
anything about. []p in this case means the value of p in A is the same as
its value in B and C (t or f). This also means that in A B and C, []p is
true, hence we can also say that in all worlds [][]p. (And indeed [][][]p
and so on?)

So it's true for the minimal case that []p -> [][]p

But then adding more worlds will just give the same result in each set of
3... so does that prove it?

No, hang on. Take { A B C } with p having values { t t f }. []p is true in
C, because C is not connected to anywhere else, which makes it trivially
true if I remember correctly. But []p is false in A and B. So [][]p is
false, even though []p is true in C. So []p being true in C doesn't imply
[][]p.

So that seems to disprove it, because C is in its own little multiverse.
There's nothing in the definition that says ARB and BRC entails CRA or CRB,
is there?

Unless I have the "trivially true" thing wrong...

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

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:47:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, > wrote:
>
> John - thanks for having a bash at the questions :o) 
 

> > why do we get tired
>>
>
> Because we run out of fuel or because of lactic acid buildup in our 
> muscles.
>
 
Hi John, mental tiredness isn't resolved anything like as clearly as for 
muscles. Back in the 60's they were talking in terms of it being about 
glucose for instance. That's long since been thrown out.  
 
Physical fatigue is a lot easier to override via training and  motivation 
than mental fatigue. On the mental side, your performance goes down, and a 
few days up, it gets almost impossible to think straight and stay awake, no 
matter training. Yet we don't have a good explanation why that is. 

>
>  > Why do we need to sleep?
>>
>
> Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded out 
> individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering 
> around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into 
> an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.
>
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
pair of night eyes. 
 
The ubiquitous and so regimented/stringent character of sleep seems to need 
a major explanation. Especially given the huge fitness cost. 
 

>
> > Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
>> specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?
>>
>
> Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom is a 
> vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence, electronic or 
> biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents us from getting 
> stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom point be set 
> correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of making an AI. Set 
> too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to listen while you tell 
> me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring), set too high and we get 
> stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that red rubber ball bounces 
> up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two, three, four) 
>
 
 
It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a 
little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I 
just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation? 
 

>
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>

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

Re: Block Universes

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 11:01, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from
>> +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over
>> them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
>>
>
> There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite
> sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined
> over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can
> be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result
> will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you
> can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a
> uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to
> a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution
> when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference
> frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start.
>
> Ah, yes, I know you can integrate some continuous function from + to -
infinity, but I was assuming that cases like Bell curves were privileging
one particular point (e.g. starting from or centred on 0) - but I guess I
got that wrong.

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

[LizR]

On 5 March 2014 20:59, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> You have to show two things:
>
> 1) R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A
>
> and
>
> 2) (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A->   R is transitive
>
> Let us look at "1)". To show that   "R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects
> []A -> [][]A", you might try to derive a contradiction from
> R is transitive, and (W,R) does not respect []A -> [][]A.
>
> What does it mean that (W,R) does not respect a formula?  It can only mean
> that in some (W,R,V) there is world alpha where that formula is false.
> To say that "[]A->[][]A" is false in alpha means only that []A is true in
> that world and that [][]A is false in that world.
>

OK. I'm not sure where V came from, but anyway...

So as you say a contradiction is t -> f (because f -> x is always true, as
it t -> t)

So []A is true in a world alpha. Hence if alpha is transitive, and if []A
is true in all worlds reachable from alpha, let's call one beta, then []A
is also true in all worlds reachable from beta. We don't know if alpha is
reachable from beta, but we do know that if []A is true in beta then it's
true in all worlds reachable from beta.

>
> I let you or Brent continue, or anyone else. I don't want to spoil the
> pleasure of finding the contradiction. Then we can discuss the "2)".
>

Surely the pleasure of NOT finding a contradiction?

Oh dear I don't think my brain can take this!

Maybe a diagram would help. Anyway I have to go now :)

>
> It is almost more easy to find this by yourself than reading the solution,
> and then searching the solution is part of the needed training to be sure
> you put the right sense on the matter.
>
> Keep in mind the semantic definitions. We assume some illuminated (W,R,V)
>
> Atomic proposition (like the initial p, q, r, ...) is true in a world
> alpha , iff  V(p) = 1 for that word alpha.
> Classical propositional tautologies are true in all worlds.
> []A is true at world alpha iff A is true in all worlds accessible from
> alpha.
>
> (W,R,V) satisfies a formula if that formula is true in all worlds in W
>  (with its R and V, of course).
> (W,R) respects a formula if that formula is satisfied for all V. So the
> formula is true in all worlds of W, whatever the valuation V is.
>
> Courage!
>
> 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.
>

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR  wrote:

> If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c
> to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them?
> Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
>


There's no inherent problem with defining measures on uncountably infinite
sets--for example, a bell curve is a continuous probability measure defined
over the infinite real number line from -infinity to +infinity, which can
be integrated over any specific range to define a probability that a result
will fall in that range. But as I've said, the problem is that although you
can define a measure over all frames in relativity, if it looks like a
uniform distribution when you state the velocity of each frame relative to
a particular reference frame A, then it will be a non-uniform distribution
when you state the velocity of each frame relative to a different reference
frame B, so any such measure will be privileging one frame from the start.

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: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> >> 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? 
>
> Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
> as I experience 
> it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
> perceptions and 
> memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
> for this is that 
> in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
> much to remember 
> in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
> the events in 
> order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
> way I would 
> design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
> would entail 
> that it would be conscious. 
>
 
IMHO reasonable speculations. Are you possibly also saying then, there's a 
processing advantage to an architecture with a conscious component? Like 
for example, you get some UI patterns that build in a lot of complexity 
upfront, but in so doing, maybe, halve the ongoing complexity, say click 
action on a button or whatever. 
 
What would the on-going natural selection driver be for something like 
that? Wouldn't it be significant constraint on processing? We talk a lot 
about the infinite capability of the brain. Certainly there's a lot of 
complexity. But in understanding that, wouldn't the first principle be that 
strong forces of natural selection where necessary to sort all that out? 
But for strong forces of natural selection there have to be strong 
limitations in play. 
 
The most obvious limitation in the frame seems to be that processing is 
hard to secure. 

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY
> causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age
> rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them
> when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.
>

No, they produce real actual differences in TOTAL ELAPSED PROPER TIME
BETWEEN MEETINGS, which all frames agree on. This tells us nothing about
the moment-by-moment "rates" of each clock between meetings, unless you are
simply talking about the AVERAGE ticking rate between meetings (and all
frames do agree on the ratio between two clock's AVERAGE ticking rate
between meetings, since the average ticking rate for clock #1 between
meetings in any frame is [proper time elapsed on #1 between meetings /
coordinate time between meetings] and the average ticking rate for clock #2
is [proper time elapsed on #2 between meetings / coordinate time between
meetings], thus the ratio of the two averages is [proper time elapsed on #1
between meetings / proper time elapsed on #2 between meetings] which all
frames will agree on).



> Relativity agrees on this when the parties MEET. All my method does is to
> give a method to calculate these real actual changes BEFORE they meet, when
> the parties are still separated or in relative motion or acceleration or
> gravitation.
>

It gives a "method" which is based on simply ASSUMING FROM THE START that
the clock rates behave a certain way between the meetings, without ever
deriving or demonstrating this from more basic premises. Even a fellow
presentist could easily disagree with your assumptions, and you would have
no ARGUMENT for convincing him that your assumptions are correct, using
starting premises that you both could agree on.

And as always, my example with two pairs of twins demonstrates that your
methods lead to a direct contradiction where two different ages of A have
to labeled simultaneous in p-time--if you disagree, the only intellectually
honest way to show I'm wrong is to go through my numbered "STATEMENTs"
about p-time simultaneity, and tell me which is the first that is not a
valid inference using your method.



>
> This is incredibly simple to understand if you can just escape the notion
> that all VIEWS of an age relationship are somehow the same as the ACTUAL
> relationship itself. The views DO differ and these VIEWS ARE VALID VIEWS,
> but they don't affect the actual RELATIONSHIP THEY ARE VIEWING which is
> what my method calculates.
>
> Again, this is a difference in INTERPRETATIONS of relativity. It does NOT
> contradict the equations of relativity itself. It simply uses the one that
> describes the actual relationship rather than ones that describe VIEWS of
> that relationship.
>
> Aren't you at least able to understand what I'm saying even if you don't
> agree with it? I see no evidence you are even able to do that
>

I understand that your method gives a way of deciding which events are
simultaneous in p-time in your theory, it just that:

a) I don't think you have any argument for the validity of your method that
doesn't simply assume p-time simultaneity works the way you want it to from
the start, something that even another presentist who believes in absolute
simultaneity could reasonably disagree with

b) I think your method can be used to derive a contradiction, even though
you don't understand that yet and seem to be refusing to engage with the
nitty-gritty details of my example.

Jesse



>
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>>
>> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow
>> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster
>> around m
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

If we are obliged to conserve angular momentum, surely car engines (and
tidal power generators) aren't going to work very well?

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

Re: Block Universes

[LizR]

If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c
to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them?
Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
 


On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:


> The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency.
>

>>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, but 
>>it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity like 
>>energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody invented a 
>>gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would not cut in half 
>>the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would fly more often and 
>>airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger more comfortable seats. 

That is a failure of the markets. If energy efficiency marginally lowers the 
rate of consumption of fossil (and other) energy resources thus increasing the 
available current supply -- because we almost exclusively rely on these short 
term market price signals to determine consumption/production -- demand will 
tend to rise. This is well known paradoxically in effect punishing virtue 
and rewarding a self centered I-don't-give-a-damn mentality of consuming every 
resource as fast as possible.
Over the long term this will lead to our species discovering what the meaning 
of going over a cliff really is in the hardest of hard terms -- up to and 
including species extinction.
Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed and 
taxed heavily -- IMO. This is the other side of encouraging conserving these 
critical and non-renewable resources. Take phosphate for example -- the world 
is running out of the economically recoverable sources -- mined principally 
from just three sources: in Morocco (land seized by Morocco actually) , 
Florida, and if I recall somewhere in Russia. There is no incentive to conserve 
this vital resource and global supplies seem to have already peaked. 
Phosphorous is a critical ingredient of fertilizers.
Relying on market signals alone to determine how -- and at what pace -- finite 
resources are consumed is a recipe for disaster. The market will encourage us 
to burn through these resources as fast as we can, which is precisely what our 
species is doing.
Not the wisest course of action though, and a clear example of how the market 
mechanism is sending our civilization over the cliff.



>>By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to 
>>conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to  
>>conserve angular momentum?    

Is there any real point here; or is this a political rant freebie?
Chris

  John K Clark  

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

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed
> simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes.
>

But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocities are defined
relative to one frame are not equal when the velocities are defined
relative to a different frame. I already mentioned an example where if a
frame 1 has velocity v=0.1c relative to me and another frame 2 has velocity
v=0.15c relative to me, then the interval between them is 0.05c from my
perspective, and likewise if a frame 3 has velocity v=0.9c relative to me
and another frame 4 has velocity v=0.95c relative to me, then they have the
same interval of 0.05c from my perspective; but for another observer moving
at v=0.8c relative to me, frame 1 has a velocity of -0.761c and frame 2 has
a velocity of -0.739c (so the interval between 1 and 2 is 0.022 for this
observer), whereas frame 3 has a velocity of 0.357c and frame 4 has a
velocity of 0.625c (so the interval between 3 and 4 is 0.268c for this
observer, more than ten times larger than the interval between 1 and 2).
These velocities are calculated using the relativistic velocity formula at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html where u =
-0.8c is my velocity relative to the second observer, and v is the velocity
of any given frame 1,2,3, or 4 relative to me.

Point is, if your "intervals" are equal relative to one frame but unequal
relative to all other frames, then you are privileging a particular frame's
perspective from the start.



> Or you could equally integrate over the continuous functions.
>

As I said, the only way to do this is to use some sort of weight/measure
function, and a weight/measure function which is uniform when plotted
against velocity in one frame will be non-uniform when plotted against
velocity in other frames, so there doesn't seem to be a way of picking such
a function that doesn't privilege one frame from the start.



>
> Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view
> (at the standard intervals as above) gives and see how they cluster. Which
> I'm pretty sure will be around my result.
>

The will "cluster" around the judgment of whatever frame you choose to
privilege from the start, either by your definition of "equal intervals" or
by your weighting/measure function. So, using this to conclude anything
about the "actual" correlation would just be another piece of circular
reasoning.

Jesse




>
> You don't need to view the resulting graph from any frame as you seem to
> suggest, because the graph is OF the actual all frame view results.
>
> For every frame you simply calculate the apparent lack of simultaneity
> between two events Nonsiimultaneity=(t1-t2) and plot it relative to the
> simultaneity that my method claims is actual.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>>
>> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow
>> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster
>> around m
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:40:36 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Many thanks, Russell. Many thanks, Kim. 
>
> Best, 
>
> Bruno 
>
Is it ok to ask why the prize got revoked? Some kind of politics? 

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't
> represent my method OR results.
>
> In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and
> direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and
> direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B
> and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my
> result.
>
> Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same
> and they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D
> are the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is
> clearly transitive between all 4 parties.
>


You earlier agreed that if two observers are at rest relative to each
other, then if they synchronize clocks in their rest frame, their clocks
will also be synchronized in p-time from then on. In your post at
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg48404.htmlyou
responded to one of my questions in this way:

'Yes is the answer to your question "if two clocks are at rest relative to
one another and "synchronized" according to the definition of simultaneity
in their mutual rest frame, do you automatically assume this implies they
are synchronized in p-time?" '

You didn't say anything about their ages having to be equal, or about their
needing to have had identical acceleration histories before this. For
example, if I and some stranger named Jimbo are at rest relative to each
other in an inertial frame in flat SR spacetime (no gravity), and in this
frame my 37th birthday is simultaneous with Jimbo's 20th birthday, then if
I set my clock to T=0 on my 37th birthday and he sets his clock to T=0 on
his 20th birthday, isn't this sufficient to demonstrate that our clocks
will be synchronized in p-time from then on (provided we both remain at
rest in this frame), regardless of how either of us may have accelerated
*before* we came to rest in this frame? (assuming of course that I came to
rest before my 37th birthday, and Jimbo came to rest before his 20th)

Even if you somehow don't agree with this, I can easily fill in some
details about the past history of my example to give A/B and C/D
symmetrical accelerations, if you wish--see below.



>
> We don't know what t1 and t2 are because you haven't specified their
> acceleration histories or birth dates, but whatever they are the equation
> above will hold.
>

OK, I don't think it should be necessary to specify acceleration histories
or ages if you agree with my statement about me and Jimbo above, but if you
disagree with that statement I can give details about each pair's past
history, though it makes the example a bit more complicated.

Say that in the frame F where A and B are at rest during the period I
described, A and B were originally at rest at position x=12.5, with both
having the same ages, and let's say that their proper time clocks have been
set to read T = -18 years at the moment they were born (it is the custom in
their society to have their proper time clock tell how far from voting age
they are, so for example when they turn 15 their clock reads T=-3, when
they turn 28 their clock reads T=10, etc.). Then each of them
simultaneously began to accelerate in opposite directions with a fixed
proper acceleration of 1 light year/year^2, and after each had traveled a
distance of 6.25 light years from their starting position in this frame,
they began to decelerate (i.e. turn their rockets around and accelerate in
the opposite direction, lowering their speed in this frame) at the same
proper acceleration of 1 light year/year^2. After they each had traveled
another 6.25 light years and come to rest in this frame, they stopped
decelerating and simply remained at rest. Each of them will have then
traveled a distance of 12.5 light years from their original starting
position of x=12.5 light years, with A at position x=25 light years, and B
at position x=0 light years. Hopefully you agree that because their
accelerations are completely symmetrical in the frame where they were
originally at rest with the same ages, in this frame identical ages will
still be simultaneous after they finish the acceleration/deceleration phase
and come to rest. So, let's just say that they come to rest simultaneously
at t=-12 in this frame, and at this moment their clocks both read T=-12,
meaning they are both turning 6 at the moment they stop accelerating. After
this, their x(t) and T(t) functions are just as I described.

As for C and D, let's switch over to the frame F' where THEY are at rest
during the period I describe, whose coordinates I had previously labeled as
x' and t' (and given the Lorentz transformation equations for converting
from x,t to x',t'). Say that in frame F', they were both originally at rest
at position x'=7.5, again with both having the same ages, and both having
their proper time clocks read a time

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 5:48:20 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2014  Chris de Morsella  >wrote:
>
>  > With power stations you don't need to worry about the same factors 
>> (energy density etc) but you do need to worry about other things 
>>
>
> And one of those other things you need to worry about is dimwitted and 
> hypocritical environmentalists who don't want power stations of ANY sort 
> built, ANYWHERE regardless of if they are renewable or non-renewable:
>
> *At the urging of environmentalist groups Sen. Feinstein of California has 
> tried to put 500,000 acres of  solar drenched land in the Mojave desert off 
> limits to any solar development.
>
> *Environmentalists tried everything they could think of to block a 2.1 
> billion dollar solar plant in Ivanpah California.
>
> * The same people are trying to block a 680 million dollar solar plant in 
> Owens Valley.
>
> * They were successful in killing a solar power station in Fresno County 
> California that would have supplied enough greenhouse free energy to power 
> 75,000 homes. 
>
> * Environmentalists are trying their best to stop Obama from extending 
> permits to build wind farms from 5 years to 30 because they kill little 
> birdies.
>
> *And to quote directly from their website:
>
> "The Sierra Club opposes geothermal leasing or development in the 
> following areas:
>
>1. Lands included in or adjacent to federal, state, or local park 
>systems or in wildlife refuges and management areas;
>2. Areas known to provide habitat for rare or endangered species;
>3. Areas designated as valuable for archaeological remains;
>4. Units of the National Wilderness preservation System; 
>5. Units of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System;
>6. Units of the National Trails System;
>7. Areas reserved by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 
>Agriculture for ecological, scenic, natural, wildlife, geological, 
>educational, historical, or scientific value, including Primitive Areas, 
>Roadless Areas, Natural Areas, and Pioneer Areas;
>8. Areas of de facto wilderness under study by the Secretary of the 
>Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture for reservation as part of one of 
>the preservation systems listed above; and
>9. Areas of de facto wilderness which are the subject of intensive 
>study by recognized citizen groups or coalitions, resulting in formal 
>proposals to the agencies and/or Congress for reservation as part of one 
> of 
>the preservation systems listed above."
>
>
> As I said the prefers solution to the energy crises according to some is 
> to freeze to death in the dark.
>
>  John K Cla
>
 
Hi John - you said somewhere you weren't bothered about the 0.8C rise to 
dateI didn't catch whether you are concerned about the projections by 
2100? 
 
Where do you stand on the quality of climate science, more generally?

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 06:45, Gabriel Bodeen  wrote:

> Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you
> what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're
> looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.
>
> binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
> binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
> binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
> binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
> binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
> binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006
>
> Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.
>
> binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
> binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
> binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
> binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
> binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747
>
> Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing
> number of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any
> exact proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip
> the coin more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to
> cluster more and more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when
> you do two million flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come
> up exactly 50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between
> 49.95% and 50.05%.
>

Thank you, that's exactly what I was attempting to say in my cack-handed
way. (And it is almost certainly what Max intended to say.)

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

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>
>> > 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 performance tuner? Why   
>> > is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
>> > on the footprint issue? 
>>
>>
>> A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 
>>
>> And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
>> consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
>> the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 
>>
>> I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
>> suggest the following answer. 
>>
>> Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
>> an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
>> person, a first person notion. 
>>
>  
> Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
> intrinsic of computation?
>
>
> You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
> Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
> time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
> It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
> consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
> it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it "affirmatively", we do it 
> because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
> are "invoking God" implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
> is a theology. 
>
 
Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. I was very sure, but I'm too 
lazy to go look, since intuitively I do totally trust your word. However, 
like me you may be a bit mad, in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be 
sure to come get you! 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, se

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > 
> > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> >> 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? 
>
> Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
> as I experience 
> it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
> perceptions and 
> memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
> for this is that 
> in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
> much to remember 
> in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
> the events in 
> order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
> way I would 
> design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
> would entail 
> that it would be conscious. 
>
>
> >> , 
> >> 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 performance 
> tuner? Why is even a 
> >> chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the 
> footprint issue? 
>
> ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occaring in 
> computers?  Why 
> would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you 
> need a theory of 
> consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. 
>
> Brent 
>
 
Hi Brent - I don't care because I don't think it's true. But if I thought 
it was, or might be, I would care. 
 
But whether consciousness is 'how it feels like to be processed' or not, I 
still find it hard to understand why no work has been done on the 
'footprint' issues, as illustrated above. Surely that's a legitimate line 
of enquiry? In your opinion, for example, Turing Test aside, what other 
ways might consciousness look different in terms of hardware signature? 
 
Assuming you buy that conventional hardware could run consciousness with 
the right software.
 
 

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

Re: Block Universes

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY
> causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age
> rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them
> when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.
>

Having your worldlines be different lengths in spacetime will also cause
differences in actual age, as Brent has explained (with diagrams).

Consistently ignoring this point and others like it is one reason most
people here consider you a troll, so please try to address 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

[LizR]

On 6 March 2014 04:39, John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
> > The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency.
>>
>
> I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be,
> but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity
> like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it.
>

I can't say that I do. We mainly use the same types of appliances we did 10
years ago, some of which are now more energy efficient (e.g. light bulbs
use a lot less power now). This doesn't make any noticeable difference to
our bills, though, because the biggie is hot water, which hasn't changed
efficiency at all.

However, there is apparently a world-wide (or at least western world wide)
epidemic of kids not learning to drive, even though old bangers are still
available at affordable prices for teens. People will only use more stuff
if it's pushed at them relentlessly by advertisers, and even then they
won't if it's perceived as uncool or in the case of cars, bad for the
environment.

Of course try telling that to "The Great Consumer" and you will get laughed
at, because they seem to mostly have a religious belief in free market
capitalism, despite there never having been such a thing (just as there has
never been Communism). But people aren't so easy to capture in economic
models. Just when you think you've infantilised an entire culture and
everyone is just "me me me more more more!" they may just turn around and
surprise you.

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes 
that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate 
changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when 
they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.

Relativity agrees on this when the parties MEET. All my method does is to 
give a method to calculate these real actual changes BEFORE they meet, when 
the parties are still separated or in relative motion or acceleration or 
gravitation.

This is incredibly simple to understand if you can just escape the notion 
that all VIEWS of an age relationship are somehow the same as the ACTUAL 
relationship itself. The views DO differ and these VIEWS ARE VALID VIEWS, 
but they don't affect the actual RELATIONSHIP THEY ARE VIEWING which is 
what my method calculates.

Again, this is a difference in INTERPRETATIONS of relativity. It does NOT 
contradict the equations of relativity itself. It simply uses the one that 
describes the actual relationship rather than ones that describe VIEWS of 
that relationship.

Aren't you at least able to understand what I'm saying even if you don't 
agree with it? I see no evidence you are even able to do that

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>
> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow 
> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster 
> around m
>
> ...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed 
simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. Or you 
could equally integrate over the continuous functions. 

Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view 
(at the standard intervals as above) gives and see how they cluster. Which 
I'm pretty sure will be around my result.

You don't need to view the resulting graph from any frame as you seem to 
suggest, because the graph is OF the actual all frame view results.

For every frame you simply calculate the apparent lack of simultaneity 
between two events Nonsiimultaneity=(t1-t2) and plot it relative to the 
simultaneity that my method claims is actual.

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:13:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>
> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow 
> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster 
> around m
>
> ...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't 
represent my method OR results.

In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and 
direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and 
direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at different velocities, AND where B 
and C happen to pass each other at the same point in spacetime here is my 
result.

Assuming the acceleration/gravitation histories of A and B are the same and 
they are twins; AND the acceleration/gravitation histories of C and D are 
the same and they are twins, then A(t1)=B(t1)=C(t2)=D(t2) which is clearly 
transitive between all 4 parties.

We don't know what t1 and t2 are because you haven't specified their 
acceleration histories or birth dates, but whatever they are the equation 
above will hold.

The problem is that your careful analysis simply DOES NOT use MY method 
which depends on the actual real physical causes (acceleration histories) 
to deternine 1:1 age correlations between any two observers. It uses YOUR 
method to prove the standard lack of simultaneity between VIEWS of pairs of 
actual physical events. This is a WELL KNOWN result of relativity WITH 
WHICH I AGREE!

But for the nth time, my method concentrates on the ACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, 
rather than VIEWS of that actual relationship.

This is a simple, well accepted logical distinction which most certainly 
applies here to the ACTUAL age correlations of people..

If a man and a wife love each other that is a real actual physical 
relationship. The fact that someone else thinks they don't love each other 
may well be his real VIEW, but it does NOT change or affect the ACTUAL love 
between the man and his wife.

No matter how many times I state this it doesn't seem to sink in

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:36:10 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any 
> contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
>
>
> No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that 
> different pairs of readings are simultaneous using ASSUMPTION 2. If you 
> agreed with those, I would show that several further pairs of readings must 
> also be judged simultaneous in p-time using ASSUMPTION 1, and then all 
> these individual simultaneity judgments would together lead to a 
> contradiction via the transitivity assumption, ASSUMPTION 3. I already laid 
> this out in the original Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart post, but since you 
> apparently didn't understand that post I wanted to go over everything more 
> carefully with the exact x(t) and T(t) functions given, and every point 
> about simultaneity stated more carefully.
>
> I thought you would be more likely to answer if I just gave you two 
> statements to look over and verify rather than a large collection of them, 
> but if you are going to stubbornly refuse to answer the opening questions 
> until I lay out the whole argument, here it is in full: ...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
>
> What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow
> weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster
> around my results for any distance and motion difference pairs.
>

Too vague. What does "all views considered together" mean mathematically,
if not a weighted average using some specific weighting function?



> In other words there would be a lot more views that were close to my
> solution, than views that were far from my solution.
>

How do you count "more" when there are a continuous infinity of frame's
views? The only way to "count" different subsets of an infinite set is
using some sort of "measure" function (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics) ), which is equivalent
to a weighting function--whatever you choose to call it, the idea would be
that if you want to compare the "number" or "weight" of frames with
velocity between v1 and v2 (the velocities defined relative to some other
specific frame, of course) vs. the "number" or "weight" with velocity
between v3 and v4, you use a measure/weight function W(v) which gives a
value for every specific frame velocity v, and you integrate the function
W(v) from v1 to v2, and compare the result to integrating W(v) between v3
and v4 (and if you want to do a "weighted average" of some specific
quantity Q(v) that varies from one frame to another, like the amount by
which two clocks are out-of-sync, you would integrate Q(v)*W(v) over the
frame velocity interval over which you want the weighted average of Q).




> And that we can see this because, as you yourself pointed out, as distance
> separation and relative motion differences decrease all other frame views
> DO tend to converge on my results.
>
> Thus the aggregate WEIGHT OF ALL VIEWS tends to converge on my solution,
> which is what I meant to say. Sort of like a Bell curve distribution with a
> point at top representing my solution
>
> Would you agree to that?
>


In the case of two clocks at rest and synchronized in a common frame, the
only "convergence" I think we agree on is if you consider a series of cases
where the distance between the two clocks approaches 0, or where the
velocity of the frame whose opinion you're considering relative to the rest
frame of the two clocks approaches 0 (which may be what you meant by "as
distance separation and relative motion differences decrease all other
frame views DO tend to converge on my results"). If you are talking about a
FIXED value for the distance between two clocks in their rest frame, and
doing a weighted average of larger and larger sets of different frame's
opinions about the time difference between the two clocks (eventually
including frames with a very large velocity relative to the clocks), then
what value this average would "converge" to would depend entirely on the
weighting function. As I said a weighting function that looks "uniform" in
one frame (equal velocity intervals have equal weight when you integrate
over the integral) will look non-uniform in other frames, so I can't see a
way to define a weighting function that doesn't privilege one frame at the
outset.

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: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.

What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, 
but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my 
results for any distance and motion difference pairs. In other words there 
would be a lot more views that were close to my solution, than views that 
were far from my solution. And that we can see this because, as you 
yourself pointed out, as distance separation and relative motion 
differences decrease all other frame views DO tend to converge on my 
results.

Thus the aggregate WEIGHT OF ALL VIEWS tends to converge on my solution, 
which is what I meant to say. Sort of like a Bell curve distribution with a 
point at top representing my solution

Would you agree to that?

Edgar

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:00:19 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Here's another point for you to ponder:
>>
>> You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the 
>> weighted mean of all frame views is?
>>
>
> Weighted how? I can't see any "weighing" that doesn't itself depend on 
> privileging one frame over others. For example, suppose I label frames 
> using velocity relative to my rest frame, and use a uniform distribution on 
> velocity values as my weight function, which implies that the collection of 
> frames with velocities between 0.1c and 0.1c + dV will have the same total 
> weight as the collection of frames with velocities between 0.9c and 0.9c + 
> dV, since these are equal-sized velocity intervals (for example, if 
> dV=0.05c then we are looking at the frames from 0.1c to 0.15c, and the 
> frames from 0.9c to 0.95c). But if we look at all the frames in these two 
> intervals, and translate from their velocities relative to ME to their 
> velocities relative to another frame B that is moving at say 0.8c relative 
> to me, then these two bunches of frames do NOT occupy equal-sized velocity 
> intervals when we look at their velocities relative to frame B (an interval 
> from 0.1c to 0.15c in my frame translates to the interval from -0.761c to 
> -0.739c in B's frame, while an interval of 0.9c to 0.95c in my frame 
> translates to an interval from 0.357c to 0.625c in B's frame). So if we 
> "weigh" them equally using MY velocity labels, that would translate to an 
> unequal weighing relative to B's velocity labels, so we are privileging my 
> frame's definitions over the definitions of other frames like B.
>
>
>  
>
>> I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from 
>> your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as separation and 
>> relative motion diminishes, so I strongly suspect it converges towards my 
>> solution in all cases.
>>
>> Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my 
>> solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though 
>> I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this 
>> correlation...
>>
>> In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction 
>> representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If 
>> we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the 
>> actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their 
>> weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution?
>>
>
> This doesn't really help your case unless you can find a "weight" function 
> for the continuous infinity of different possible frames that doesn't 
> itself privilege one frame's definitions from the start.
>
> 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: Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Mar 2014, at 17:09, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark   
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes  
 wrote:


> If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count  
as mathematics?


Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're getting close to that  
point. When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem it took  
another world class mathematician nearly a full year to understand  
it and say it was correct. If I had a valid proof of the Riemann  
Hypothesis but would take as much brainpower for you to understand  
it as it took for me to write it is that really a proof, would there  
be any reason you should to bother to look at it? You might as well  
forget about me and start working on it from scratch.


True, but as you usually say, reality doesn't care... It is already  
the case for science that, for one to have a good general  
understanding on how things work, one has to trust numerous  
experiments and proofs that one cannot possibly have the time to  
verify.


A somewhat related issue is the failure so far to build a machine  
with human-level intelligence. One possibility is that the necessary  
algorithms are just too complex for a human brain to grasp. But  
then, maybe we can evolve them artificially. In which case we will  
end up creating something that we have no hope of understanding.


Maybe we're hitting an explanatory wall...


There is one at the start. We live on the border of it. It can be a  
bit between boring and frightening. But any "other person" by itself  
is an explanatory wall,





I'll let you know how my intelligence-augmentation experiments go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation

:)



Artificial artificial paradise. Take care :)

Bruno




Cheers,
Telmo.


  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.


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

[Gabriel Bodeen]

Brent was right but the explanation could use some examples to show you 
what's happening.  The strangeness that you noticed occurs because you're 
looking at cases where the proportion is *exactly* 50%.  

binopdf(2,4,0.5)=0.375
binopdf(3,6,0.5)=0.3125
binopdf(4,8,0.5)=0.2374
binopdf(8,16,0.5)=0.1964
binopdf(1000,2000,0.5)=0.0178
binopdf(1e6,2e6,0.5)=0.0006

Instead let's look at cases which are in some range close to 50%.

binocdf(5,8,0.5)-binocdf(3,8,0.5)=0.4922
binocdf(10,16,0.5)-binocdf(6,16,0.5)=0.6677
binocdf(520,1000,0.5)-binocdf(480,1000,0.5)=0.7939
binocdf(1001000,2e6,0.5)-binocdf(999000,2e6,0.5)=0.8427
binocdf(15,2e9,0.5)-binocdf(5,2e9,0.5)=0.9747

Basically, as you flip a coin more and more times, you get a growing number 
of distinct proportions of heads and tails that can come up, so any exact 
proportion becomes less likely.  But at the same time, as you flip the coin 
more and more times, the distribution of proportions starts to cluster more 
and more tightly around the expected value.  So for tests when you do two 
million flips of a fair coin, only about 0.06% of the tests come up exactly 
50% heads and 50% tails, but 84.27% of the tests come up between 49.95% and 
50.05%.

-Gabe

On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:36:11 AM UTC-6, chris peck wrote:
>
> *>>  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.*
>
>
> There's something strikes me as very strange about this idea.
>
> Tegmark's method is just a means of writing down binary sequences.
>
> Being strict, already with binary sequences just 4 digits long, only 37.5% 
> of those contain half zeros. This drops the longer the sequences get. So, 
> with sequences 6 digits long, only 31.25% contain half zeros. With 
> sequences 8 digits long only 27% and with 16 digits only about 19%. 
>
> If his experiment continued for a year, (365 digits) many people would 
> find that either room 1 or room 0 was dominating strongly. For these people 
> a change in room would seem very odd, a glitch in the matrix that wouldn't 
> be of any great concern vis a vis prediction once 'normality' kicked back 
> in the following night. For others, a change in room would occur at regular 
> intervals and would seem very predictable. There would be the guy who 
> changed room every night. There would be all the guys whose room changed 
> every night except for the one time when it stayed the same. A little 
> glitch is all.
>
> In truth, the longer you continued the game and the more people got 
> involved the less chance a person would have of finding room assignment 
> random at all. There would be increasingly few people willing to bet 50/50 
> on a particular room assignment.
>
> --
> Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 17:13:23 +1300
> Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3
> From: liz...@gmail.com 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>
> "Hello, dear, looking for a bit of multi-sense realism?"
>
> On 2 March 2014 16:35, > wrote:
>
>
> heh heh heh I love this place. It's like walking through an eccentric 
> street market where traders call out their wares 
>  
> "GETCHYOUR P-TIME  2 for 1 logico-computational really real structure 
> today only"
>  
> "Assuming comp only, that's right comp only. Theology but done like 
> science. Madam you are ugly but I will be sober in the morning. You there, 
> you reek of not-comp, get lost. Ah sir, did you like the dreams? Same 
> again?"
>  
> "GETCHOR P-TIME..,."
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  

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

Re: Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:10 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> > If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
>> mathematics?
>>
>
> Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're getting close to that point.
> When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem it took another world class
> mathematician nearly a full year to understand it and say it was correct.
> If I had a valid proof of the Riemann Hypothesis but would take as much
> brainpower for you to understand it as it took for me to write it is that
> really a proof, would there be any reason you should to bother to look at
> it? You might as well forget about me and start working on it from
> scratch.
>

True, but as you usually say, reality doesn't care... It is already the
case for science that, for one to have a good general understanding on how
things work, one has to trust numerous experiments and proofs that one
cannot possibly have the time to verify.

A somewhat related issue is the failure so far to build a machine with
human-level intelligence. One possibility is that the necessary algorithms
are just too complex for a human brain to grasp. But then, maybe we can
evolve them artificially. In which case we will end up creating something
that we have no hope of understanding.

Maybe we're hitting an explanatory wall...

I'll let you know how my intelligence-augmentation experiments go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation

:)

Cheers,
Telmo.


>
>   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 Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Here's another point for you to ponder:
>
> You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the
> weighted mean of all frame views is?
>

Weighted how? I can't see any "weighing" that doesn't itself depend on
privileging one frame over others. For example, suppose I label frames
using velocity relative to my rest frame, and use a uniform distribution on
velocity values as my weight function, which implies that the collection of
frames with velocities between 0.1c and 0.1c + dV will have the same total
weight as the collection of frames with velocities between 0.9c and 0.9c +
dV, since these are equal-sized velocity intervals (for example, if
dV=0.05c then we are looking at the frames from 0.1c to 0.15c, and the
frames from 0.9c to 0.95c). But if we look at all the frames in these two
intervals, and translate from their velocities relative to ME to their
velocities relative to another frame B that is moving at say 0.8c relative
to me, then these two bunches of frames do NOT occupy equal-sized velocity
intervals when we look at their velocities relative to frame B (an interval
from 0.1c to 0.15c in my frame translates to the interval from -0.761c to
-0.739c in B's frame, while an interval of 0.9c to 0.95c in my frame
translates to an interval from 0.357c to 0.625c in B's frame). So if we
"weigh" them equally using MY velocity labels, that would translate to an
unequal weighing relative to B's velocity labels, so we are privileging my
frame's definitions over the definitions of other frames like B.




> I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from
> your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as separation and
> relative motion diminishes, so I strongly suspect it converges towards my
> solution in all cases.
>
> Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my
> solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though
> I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this
> correlation...
>
> In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction
> representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If
> we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the
> actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their
> weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution?
>

This doesn't really help your case unless you can find a "weight" function
for the continuous infinity of different possible frames that doesn't
itself privilege one frame's definitions from the start.

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

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:05 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
> > But there's no rule that there have to be 7 billion people (and going to
> 9).


It's not a rule it's a fact that there are already 7 billion people on this
small globe and the number of individuals who have volunteered to make that
number one less for the good of the environment is rather small. And just
like most people I have nothing personally against the Prairie Mole
Cricket, but if it comes down to a decision between him and me and only one
of us can stay then I choose me.

 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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Richard Ruquist]

On 3/5/14, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 05 Mar 2014, at 01:23, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I just downloaded it from Amazon. Let us see what it can teach me? I
>> won't get to reading it for a couple of days, due to work duties.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: LizR 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: 04-Mar-2014 19:04:29 +
>> Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from
>> Kindle store
>>
>> On 5 March 2014 06:29, Telmo Menezes  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=UTF8&qid=1393954155&sr=8-1&keywords=the+secret+of+the+amoeba
>>
>> Wow! Great minds really do think alike.

Same here. But: not the great minds part; rather the book reading sector.
Richard

>
>
> Oops! I am sorry for Paul McCartney. Thanks for telling me spudboy
> and  Telmo. To be sure I have given much more explanation in this
> list, but it will certainly be a good summary, and it explains the
> motivation coming from biology.
>
> 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.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency.
>

I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, but
it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity like
energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody invented a
gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would not cut in
half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would fly more
often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger more
comfortable seats.

By the way, have you noticed that politicians are always urging us to
conserve energy but they don't seem to find it necessary to command us to
conserve angular momentum?

  John K Clark

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any
> contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
>

No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that
different pairs of readings are simultaneous using ASSUMPTION 2. If you
agreed with those, I would show that several further pairs of readings must
also be judged simultaneous in p-time using ASSUMPTION 1, and then all
these individual simultaneity judgments would together lead to a
contradiction via the transitivity assumption, ASSUMPTION 3. I already laid
this out in the original Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart post, but since you
apparently didn't understand that post I wanted to go over everything more
carefully with the exact x(t) and T(t) functions given, and every point
about simultaneity stated more carefully.

I thought you would be more likely to answer if I just gave you two
statements to look over and verify rather than a large collection of them,
but if you are going to stubbornly refuse to answer the opening questions
until I lay out the whole argument, here it is in full:

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

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

STATEMENT 1. 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 2 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?

STATEMENT 2. 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 2 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?

STATEMENT 3. At t=0 in this frame, both A and B have a proper time of T=0;
these readings are simultaneous in this frame. Since A and B are both at
rest in this frame, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of A's proper time
clock reading T=0 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of B's proper
time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree?

STATEMENT 4. C's worldline passes through the point x=0, t=0, and at this
point C's proper time clock reads T=0. D's worldline passes through the
point  x=25, t=20, and at this point D's proper time clock reads T=0. These
events are not simultaneous in this frame, but using the Lorentz
transformation we can see that they ARE simultaneous in the frame where C
and D are at rest. Therefore, by ASSUMPTION 1 above, the event of C's
proper time clock reading T=0 is simultaneous in p-time with the event of
D's proper time clock reading T=0. Agree or disagree?

Note: This statement is perhaps the subtlest if you aren't too familiar
with the math of SR--in case you didn't know, the Lorentz transformation is
used when we know the coordinates x,t of an event in one inertial frame,
and we want to find the coordinates x',t' of the SAME event in a second
inertial frame which is moving at speed v relative to the first (a good
intro to various aspects of SR including the Lorentz transform can be found
at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity ). Assuming that the
spatial origins of the two frames coincide when t=0 in the first frame and
t'=0 in the second, and assuming that the first frame subsequently sees the
origin of the second frame moving at speed v along the first frame's
x-axis, the transformation equations are:

x' = gamma*(x - v*t)
t' = gamma*(t - (v*x)/c^2 )

Where gamma is the commonly-used relativistic factor 1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2).
So with v=0.8c in this example, gamma works out to 1/sqrt(1 - 0.64) =
1/sqrt(0.36) = 1/0.6, a

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

Chris, its damned sexy, if it it superabundant, affordable, and gives this even 
at 3% efficiency. Look to using molten salt for storing wind and sun power for 
nighttime and winter. Heats released for thermionic conversion and we have 
electricity all the time. Then there's the infra-read voltaic cell, recently 
invented (last month) that gives electricity all the time, from the sun, and 
whatever the Earth radiates from geothermal heat. Nifty, but not ready for 
prime time. So cheap and rugged is sexy ;-)



-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 11:38 pm
Subject: 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,  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.

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

well, its a full article unlike their teaser articles to get us to subscribe. 
It has a pdf link to the paper by the scientist. So I am guessing its the real 
deal. Will it be pursued? Well, only if those in power see advantage, or 
necessity. You know how I see on where we all stand in the world. But its there 
if someone wants it.  



-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 5 March 2014 09:56,   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.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Mar 2014, at 01:23, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I just downloaded it from Amazon. Let us see what it can teach me? I  
won't get to reading it for a couple of days, due to work duties.


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: 04-Mar-2014 19:04:29 +
Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from  
Kindle store


On 5 March 2014 06:29, Telmo Menezes  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=UTF8&qid=1393954155&sr=8-1&keywords=the+secret+of+the+amoeba

Wow! Great minds really do think alike.



Oops! I am sorry for Paul McCartney. Thanks for telling me spudboy  
and  Telmo. To be sure I have given much more explanation in this  
list, but it will certainly be a good summary, and it explains the  
motivation coming from biology.


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.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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?

[Bruno Marchal]

Edgar,


On 05 Mar 2014, at 14:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote:




Well, I guess for someone who thinks "plants love music" and that  
the basic postulates of arithmetic somehow magically generates the  
entire universe including the flow of time,


Just tell me what you don't understand in the reasoning.

At least I tell you what I assume, and expose the derivation, so you  
can tell what it is that you are missing.


I have not that chance. I still don't know what are your assumptions.



it seems logical to claim that Edgar does't answer questions without  
actually counting the number of questions I have and haven't  
answered compared to the others on this group.


I was asking "what do you mean by "computational"".

You still avoid this issue, despite it seems to be used at the start  
in your "theory".






If you had any understanding of empirical evidence and scientific  
method you would quickly arrive at the correct conclusion that none  
of these 3 postulates are true. But I won't be holding my breath  
waiting for that to happen!


Which is again an insult. So instead of taking the opportunity to  
clarify your assumption, you reply by insulting. I feel sorry, but you  
do confirm the "troll theory".


Bruno





Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:32:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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
c...

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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

[Craig Weinberg]

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:20:01 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> 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. 
>

What other view are you saying I am 'adding' the 1-p to?
 

>
>
>
> > We were not assuming the 3p view at the start though, 
>
> That is why your position is akin to solipsism. 
>

Not solipsism, distributed holipsism. Solipsism removes the distance 
between here/now and there/then. Holipsism proposes that 'there and then' 
is the distance-diffracted presence of 'here and now'
 

>
>
>
>
> > 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? 
>

What you call Bp: Sense, or aesthetic encounter/presence/re-acquaintance.
 

>
>
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >> 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. 
>

No, I'm not saying that truth is an ad hoc fantasy of a single being, I'm 
saying that truth qualities relate to the function and organizational 
aspects of sense. Truth is about the tension between eternity, history, and 
now, not a sterile plaque on the wall which dictates the universe 
mechanically. UDA is a form of nilipsism.
 

>
>
>
> > 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. 
>

It is independent of us, but not of independent of sense. That should be 
something on which we can agree, except that because sense is 
participatory, we are free to invert the local and the absolute (and indeed 
we need to do that to survive within our body's environment). As long as we 
only use science for engineering purposes, the we should stick with the 
empirical, nilipsistic view. When we want to understand deeply, however, 
and use science to discover consciousness and qualities of life, then we 
should augment the local view and incorporate the pansensitive perspective 
as well.
 

>
> 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. 
>

This is the weird part that we've been over before already many times.

If we are both machines, and we have opposite theories of computationalism, 
how can you claim that my view and not yours is the machine's 1- view? 
Aren't you being racist, stereotyping the machine in a paternalistic way 
while you yourself remain omniscient and meta-mechanical?

I agree that my conjecture cannot refute compatibilism within the frame of 
logic, but part of my conjecture is that logic cannot capture sense at all, 
since it is the effort to rigidly automate sense that is already there. 
Logic is a contraction of sense, no

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

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Well, I guess for someone who thinks "plants love music" and that the basic 
postulates of arithmetic somehow magically generates the entire universe 
including the flow of time, it seems logical to claim that Edgar does't 
answer questions without actually counting the number of questions I have 
and haven't answered compared to the others on this group.

If you had any understanding of empirical evidence and scientific method 
you would quickly arrive at the correct conclusion that none of these 3 
postulates are true. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to 
happen!

Edgar



On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 2:32:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> 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   
> c...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

Here's another point for you to ponder:

You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the 
weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges 
towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does 
converge to my solution as separation and relative motion diminishes, so I 
strongly suspect it converges towards my solution in all cases.

Correct? And if so I would argue that this also tends to validate my 
solution as the actual correct 1:1 correlation of proper ages, even though 
I agree completely that all observers cannot direct observe this 
correlation...

In fact this is tantalizingly similar to the notion of a wavefunction 
representing the probabilities of all possible locations of a particle. If 
we take all possible frame views as a continuous 'wavefunction' of the 
actual age correlation can we begin to assign probabilities based on their 
weighted mean, and if so isn't that going to be my solution?

Edgar


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>
>
> 
> ...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any 
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?

But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method 
because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame 
views of the parties of their OWN age relationships.

So whatever proof you think you have, it is not a proof about my method.

So, in spite of what you claim you just seem to be trying to prove there is 
no simultaneity of VIEWS of age relationships rather than addressing the 
ACTUAL age relationships of the parties themselves which is my whole point.

Edgar

.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 8:03:57 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > 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

[LizR]

Yeah, we could improve energy efficiency drastically - well, when I say
"we" some countries have done better than others at this. NZ could do with
lots more cheap double glazing, for example, and insulation. New York
apartment blocks could do to not run on diesel. And so on, and so forth.
But retrofitting everything isn't so easy...


On 5 March 2014 17:38, Chris de Morsella  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *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,  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.
>

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 05 Mar 2014, at 01:36, LizR wrote:


On 5 March 2014 04:18, Bruno Marchal  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.


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!


Hmm.

You have to show two things:

1) R is transitive  ->  (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A

and

2) (W,R) respects []A -> [][]A->   R is transitive

Let us look at "1)". To show that   "R is transitive  ->  (W,R)  
respects []A -> [][]A", you might try to derive a contradiction from

R is transitive, and (W,R) does not respect []A -> [][]A.

What does it mean that (W,R) does not respect a formula?  It can only  
mean that in some (W,R,V) there is world alpha where that formula is  
false.
To say that "[]A->[][]A" is false in alpha means only that []A is true  
in that world and that [][]A is false in that world.


I let you or Brent continue, or anyone else. I don't want to spoil the  
pleasure of finding the contradiction. Then we can discuss the "2)".


It is almost more easy to find this by yourself than reading the  
solution, and then searching the solution is part of the needed  
training to be sure you put the right sense on the matter.


Keep in mind the semantic definitions. We assume some illuminated  
(W,R,V)


Atomic proposition (like the initial p, q, r, ...) is true in a world  
alpha , iff  V(p) = 1 for that word alpha.

Classical propositional tautologies are true in all worlds.
[]A is true at world alpha iff A is true in all worlds accessible from  
alpha.


(W,R,V) satisfies a formula if that formula is true in all worlds in  
W  (with its R and V, of course).
(W,R) respects a formula if that formula is satisfied for all V. So  
the formula is true in all worlds of W, whatever the valuation V is.


Courage!

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.