Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 19:23, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:
>>
>>>  Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
>>> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
>>> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>>>
>>> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
>>> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
>>> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
>>> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
>>> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
>>> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>>>
>>
>>  This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
>> theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
>> complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
>> conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
>> available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
>> normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
>> that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
>> metaphysical assumption.
>>
>>
>>  Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty
>> millenia or so before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was
>> *obvious* that everything on Earth tended to run down and come to rest,
>> *its natural state*.
>>
>>
> In other words, science has made progress.
>
> Just don't get too cocky.
>
>
I don't think you need to worry about that.

:-)




"And If a double decker bus crashes into us
To die by your side is such a heavenly way to die..."

-- The Smiths

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[meekerdb]

On 3/8/2014 9:53 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:

Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.


This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue 
theory (I
think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary complication 
apparently
simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy conserved isn't *just* a 
human
choice, it's also the simplest choice available. Or at least it appears to 
be.
Surely this is a constraint we normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and 
most
reasonable assumption is that that is how the universe actually works, 
although
admittedly this is a metaphysical assumption.


Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty millenia 
or so
before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was *obvious* that 
everything on
Earth tended to run down and come to rest, *its natural state*.

In other words, science has made progress.



Just don't get too cocky.

Brent

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 18:51, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
>>  Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
>> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
>> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>>
>> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
>> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
>> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
>> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
>> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
>> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>>
>
>  This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
> theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
> complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
> conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
> available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
> normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
> that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
> metaphysical assumption.
>
>
> Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty
> millenia or so before Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was
> *obvious* that everything on Earth tended to run down and come to rest,
> *its natural state*.
>
>
In other words, science has made progress.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[meekerdb]

On 3/8/2014 9:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish > wrote:


Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.


This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue theory (I think 
it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary complication apparently simply for 
the sake of it. A theory with energy conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also 
the simplest choice available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint 
we normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is that that 
is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a metaphysical assumption.


Well sure, it seems like the simplest choice *now*, but for thirty millenia or so before 
Newton, Carnot, Gibbs, Boltzman, et al, it was *obvious* that everything on Earth tended 
to run down and come to rest, *its natural state*.


Brent

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 16:52, Russell Standish  wrote:

> Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
> discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
> it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.
>
> In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
> our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
> theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
> theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
> silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
> to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.
>

This seems to fall foul of David Deutsch's analysis of the bleen/grue
theory (I think it's called). That is, it's positing an unnecessary
complication apparently simply for the sake of it. A theory with energy
conserved isn't *just* a human choice, it's also the simplest choice
available. Or at least it appears to be. Surely this is a constraint we
normally use (Occam) ? And the simplest and most reasonable assumption is
that that is how the universe actually works, although admittedly this is a
metaphysical assumption.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:10:25AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
> 
> You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
> depend on "how humans see the world"?
> 
> If so I disagree,
> 
> Edgar
> 

Yes. See Noether's theorem, and particularly Victor Stenger's
discussion thereof, which is far better than anything I've written on
it. Brent has posted quite a bit on this.

In summary, conservation of energy is due to the time invariance of
our physical theories, which is a constraint we have chosen for our
theories. We could choose a non-time invariant theory, and such a
theory would not have an energy conservation law. It may be a rather
silly thing to do, but just like one can use Ptolemy's epicylce theory
to compute the positions of the planets, it is certainly possible.

Cheers

-- 


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


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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 12:53, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
>> arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
>>
>>  I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
>>
>>
>> But we don't know that it exists.  ISTM that rejecting the possibility of
>> randomness in the world is just dogma.  Of course we can study and try to
>> understand and minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to
>> simply rule it out because we don't like it; especially by hyposthesizing
>> an unobservable and untestable everythingism.  I like your theory, but not
>> because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because it seems to
>> address the mind-body problem.
>>
>>
> It's hard to imagine a mechanism for randomness, especially one that
> doesn't involve hidden variables. Any suggestions?
>
>
> To me, a mechanism for intrinsic randomness sounds like a contradiction.
>
>
Exactly.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:53 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
>> arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
>>
>>  I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
>>
>>
>> But we don't know that it exists.  ISTM that rejecting the possibility of
>> randomness in the world is just dogma.  Of course we can study and try to
>> understand and minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to
>> simply rule it out because we don't like it; especially by hyposthesizing
>> an unobservable and untestable everythingism.  I like your theory, but not
>> because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because it seems to
>> address the mind-body problem.
>>
>>
> It's hard to imagine a mechanism for randomness, especially one that
> doesn't involve hidden variables. Any suggestions?
>
>
> To me, a mechanism for intrinsic randomness sounds like a contradiction.
>

Dovetailing on the real numbers etc. It blows the mind, but an arithmetic
UD would have to (both blow the mind and dovetail on the reals). So this
would be like asking why a function functions? Funcy, but I'm not sure :-)
PGC


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

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

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

[Platonist Guitar Cowboy]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Just want to let everyone know that the English translation of Buno
> Marchal's "The Amoeba's Secret" is now available from Amazon's Kindle
> store. See http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRLEKPA
>
>
> The Amoeba's Secret was written when Bruno received the
> prestigious Prix Le Monde de la Recherche Universitaire for his PhD
> thesis, only for the prize to be mysteriously revoked, and the book
> not published. The original French version exists only as a manuscript
> available from Bruno's website.
>
> The Amoeba's Secret remains one of clearest explanations of Bruno's
> UDA and AUDA arguments, and provides a lot of historical background
> motivating him to formulate and study these issues in this way. Now,
> after about 4 years of effort, Kim Jones and I have finally finished
> the translation of this book into English.
>
> For those of you who prefer their books hard, the paperback version
> will probably be available towards the end of March. I need to see a
> physical copy of what Amazon produces before approving it for
> general sale. I have jigged things so that hard copy purchases are
> entitled to a free Kindle version fo the book, so you can have the
> best of both worlds.
>

Great job by you guys, congratulations!

Didn't get to reply timely, but please... time?!

I'll have to not buy it, just to restore correctness for there to be some
dissent, which is dumb, because I want it.

Sometimes sacrifice is the best next move.

Glad to be of service, gentlemen. PGC


>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Fabric of Alternate Reality" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[meekerdb]

On 3/8/2014 3:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic 
(like
x+0=x, etc.).

I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.

But we don't know that it exists.  ISTM that rejecting the possibility of 
randomness
in the world is just dogma. Of course we can study and try to understand and
minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to simply rule it 
out
because we don't like it; especially by hyposthesizing an unobservable and
untestable everythingism.  I like your theory, but not because it avoids 
randomness
(as Everett does too), but because it seems to address the mind-body 
problem.

It's hard to imagine a mechanism for randomness, especially one that doesn't involve 
hidden variables. Any suggestions?


To me, a mechanism for intrinsic randomness sounds like a contradiction.

Brent

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 11:06,  wrote:

> Well, your comment,  (the Duck Dynasty thing) is an earmark of the wannabe
> Stalinists, who pursue policy not because it makes sense, or that its
> cognitive, but rather, that it fits the ideology/faith. Science is a
> method, not a faith, and solar power, needs to be a potential solution, and
> not an act of supplication. I wasn't being emotional and not even
> now.  What you've stated before is just an earmark of what passes for
> public policy, nowadays.
>
> The Koch brothers mantra, with which  you pin me with,  is as pleasant as
> the George Soros puppets, that I identify the neo-Stalinists with,
>  (ideology: The Super Rich and Party Members Rule). In fact, the stalinoids
> have developed sweaty, naughty parts, now that the Koch's have adapted
> George Soros's and Saul Alinsky tactics for themselves. Its a blade that
> slices both ways, like a bowie knife. A+B=B+A sort of things. Last, enough
> of the regular people of the world, because the IPCC predictions have
> failed, are disbelieving more and more, in AGW. My view is that throwing up
> pollution and particulates can be good for us, but probably not a good
> reason to let the stalinoids "help us" by putting their boots on our
> collective necks.
>

So you think anyone who wants cleaner energy is a Stalinist...?

Did anyone mention that Hitler liked to turn people he didn't like into air
pollution (remember the line in "Heimat" about certain people "going up the
chimney" - the kids who overheard it probably thought it was a weird
reference to Santa).

So in a nutshell you're pro-Hitler, and your opponents are pro-Stalin.
Phew. I'm glad we've sorted that out without resorting to any *ad
hominem*nonsense.

My advice to you is, don't try to invade Moscow.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 08:50, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in
> arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).
>
> I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.
>
>
> But we don't know that it exists.  ISTM that rejecting the possibility of
> randomness in the world is just dogma.  Of course we can study and try to
> understand and minimize randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to
> simply rule it out because we don't like it; especially by hyposthesizing
> an unobservable and untestable everythingism.  I like your theory, but not
> because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because it seems to
> address the mind-body problem.
>
>
It's hard to imagine a mechanism for randomness, especially one that
doesn't involve hidden variables. Any suggestions?

(Of course not being able to imagine something doesn't rule it 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/d/optout.

Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

[LizR]

Happiness isn't a meaning. He should have said "the pursuit of happiness"
or something to at least be in the ballpark of giving something that could
be construed as a meaning. You might as well say few organisms strive for
death, so life is the meaning of life (which would probably be more
accurate, actually).


On 9 March 2014 12:18, Kim Jones  wrote:

> Hang about. The jolly old joyful Dalai Lama is correct. The meaning of
> life is happiness. Is there any point disagreeing with that? I mean, which
> life forms strive for sadness?
>
> Kim
>
> Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL
>
> Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
>  kmjco...@icloud.com
> Mobile: 0450 963 719
> Phone:  02 93894239
> Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com
>
>
> *"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain*
>
>
>
> On 8 Mar 2014, at 11:56 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:08:39 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I feel there's a category error here somewhere...
>>
>> I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of "Brave New World" ?
>>
>
> I think he'd make another killing out of it, on the LA lunch circuit . I
> don't really buy that guy. Don't see a lot in the eye.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: 15 works of art depicting women in science

[LizR]

However I do feel the omission of Valentina Tereshkova, the first woman to
orbit the Earth, and the inclusion of two far lesser lights in the history
of astronautics, shows the sort of parochialism someone was complaining
about recently, which the USA seems a bit prone to. Next they'll be
claiming they "won the space race".

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

Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

[Kim Jones]

Hang about. The jolly old joyful Dalai Lama is correct. The meaning of life is 
happiness. Is there any point disagreeing with that? I mean, which life forms 
strive for sadness?

Kim

Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL

Email:   kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 kmjco...@icloud.com
Mobile: 0450 963 719
Phone:  02 93894239
Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com


"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain

 

> On 8 Mar 2014, at 11:56 am, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:08:39 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>> I feel there's a category error here somewhere...
>> 
>> I wonder what the Dalai Lama would make of "Brave New World" ?
>  
> I think he'd make another killing out of it, on the LA lunch circuit . I 
> don't really buy that guy. Don't see a lot in the eye.
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

Well, your comment,  (the Duck Dynasty thing) is an earmark of the wannabe 
Stalinists, who pursue policy not because it makes sense, or that its 
cognitive, but rather, that it fits the ideology/faith. Science is a method, 
not a faith, and solar power, needs to be a potential solution, and not an act 
of supplication. I wasn't being emotional and not even now.  What you've stated 
before is just an earmark of what passes for public policy, nowadays. 

The Koch brothers mantra, with which  you pin me with,  is as pleasant as the 
George Soros puppets, that I identify the neo-Stalinists with,  (ideology: The 
Super Rich and Party Members Rule). In fact, the stalinoids have developed 
sweaty, naughty parts, now that the Koch's have adapted George Soros's and Saul 
Alinsky tactics for themselves. Its a blade that slices both ways, like a bowie 
knife. A+B=B+A sort of things. Last, enough of the regular people of the world, 
because the IPCC predictions have failed, are disbelieving more and more, in 
AGW. My view is that throwing up pollution and particulates can be good for us, 
but probably not a good reason to let the stalinoids "help us" by putting their 
boots on our collective necks. 


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 8, 2014 12:50 pm
Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



 

>>If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Or, if the 
>>climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed by the 
>>IPCC, then all we have to do is wait?  
Come on spudboy – or whatever your real name is – do you really believe your 
own emotional outburst? It’s a managed “free” country and you are free to utter 
whatever nonsense you choose. Go ahead an believe the world is flat for all I 
care; or that some bearded Duck Dynasty looking Patriarch sitting on a cloud in 
the sky made the Universe in six days some 6000 years ago. If you want to be an 
idiot – go right ahead.
But when you utter idiocy you should expect it to be challenged and – even 
brutally deconstructed. If you can’t take it then don’t dish it out, is my 
advice.
If this emotional outburst, is the extent of your reply, it is clear you have 
nothing of substance to say in response to my point by point deconstruction of 
all the silly sound bites you have swallowed hook line and sinker from your Tea 
Party (Koch brother funded) sources.
Grow up buddy.
Chris
 



 

 

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

 


extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;



 


>>Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events 
>>cause extinctions, not averages. 

Spudboy – or whatever your real name is; perhaps you don’t realize it but 
everything is caused by events – so that is a meaningless statement. Every 
year, since the dawn of life on earth species have been going extinct and 
species have been coming into existence. Perhaps you are not aware of just how 
many species of life exist on this planet. There is nothing artificial, nor 
unusual about graphing the rate of extinction over time… all manner of 
phenomena are graphed over a time axis. That you find this strange and even 
more seem to be implying that it is some kind of trick by evil greens really 
makes me question your most basic understanding of math and statistics.

 

>>It's akin to saying of we added all the average dick lengths on Earth, it'd 
>>reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An interesting topic, but unhelpful. 

Wrong! The rate of extinction – which is the number of species going extinct in 
a given unit of time can be graphed so that we can compare past rates with the 
current rate – which is 10,000 times what the rate has been on average (as far 
as we can tell from studying the geologic, fossil and DNA records) 

That you see no value in having a yardstick seems more likely due to the 
ideological blinders you have covered your eyes with than with anything else. 
It is either that or you are surprisingly ignorant of some very basic math. I 
recommend you learn more about statistics and how it works before making silly 
declarations like you just did.

 

>>Estimates of resources magically increase when money is involved. The shale 
>>gas that was paltry in the US 10 years ago is now something the Greens scream 
>>about, and Obama fears, (that's ideology for you). 

Again you do not know what you are talking about… you are sadly misinformed. I 
could argue it with you, but I do not even think you could understand the 
evidence given your poor display of understanding of basic statistics…. So why 
bother. Suffice to say that the Shale gas and oil plays, besides doing great 
and irreparable harm to our earth are in fact just bubbles that will soon burst 
(and in fact already show signs of doing just that) – it is all spin, PR and 
BS, pulling in all that sucker mo

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 06:43, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:38 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> > And 600 million years ago solar radiance was about 4% less
>>
>
> And during the Carboniferous era 359 million years ago the solar radiation
> was about 3% less than it is now but that didn't stop the average
> temperature on Earth being a massive 18  degrees warmer than now. And
> during the early Carboniferous there was 1500 ppm of carbon dioxide in
> the air, about a third what it was during the Ordovician which was in a
> huge ice age. And during the late Carboniferous there was only 350 ppm,
> slightly less than what it is today, and yet it was still hot as hell.
> Apparently climate is just a tad more complicated than what some would have
> you believe.
>

...is not an argument that everything will be just fine if we simply ignore
the effects of pollution.

>
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 06:02, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/7/2014 10:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> > Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system"
>> if as you admit the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well
>> evolved free market?
>>
>
>  There is no disputing matters of taste so you could say if you wished
> that markets, and therefore people, shouldn't have too much freedom; but
> you can't say that the Black Market isn't a free market.
>
> So it's just your taste that says that a market where monopolies are
> enforced by murder is free?
>
>
It could be, surely? The definition is that trade occurs without
restriction, I believe. How that is enforced isn't part of the description
- however it appears to be the case that free market capitalism leads to
monopoly capitalism, as I'm told that pesky old economist Karl Marx
predicted. He had to wait a century or so to be vindicated, with a lot of
nonsense about states calling themselves communist and so on discrediting
his ideas in the eyes of those who couldn't be bothered looking past the
labels, but he got there in the end.

Yes, free markets leads to monopolies, and monopolies enforce their control
of the markets by murder. Even legal ones do, if you look beneath the
surface (although the free trade evangelists would prefer that there were
no governments, in which case there would be no such thing as a legal or
illegal corporation, it would just be a free for all in which murder would
no doubt become the order of the day. See the works of Frederik Pohl and CM
Cornbluth for some interesting examples of how this may play out.) But
anyway, this is how evolution works, when applied to economics.  Which is
the main argument for free trade - "it works, and we couldn't do possibly
better."

And we all know that humans can't do better than evolution, don't we, she
asked rhetorically (while wearing glasses and only being alive due to
antibiotics and keyhole surgery...)

Trouble is, finding a viable alternative that everyone can agree IS better.
I won't be asking Kim Stanley Robinson any time soon.

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

Re: The way the future was

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 00:18,  wrote:

>
> this is what the Clash predicted
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk
>
> I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how
> good it is. Good vocals
>

What on earth do you mean? Of course punk is good (I think of the Clash as
one of the less good examples myself, London Calling is definitely so-so
imho). Siouxsie and the Banshees (listen to "Once upon a time" for the best
tracks), the Pretenders (especially their first album), Ian Dury and the
Blockheads, the Stranglers, the Go-gos, X-ray spex ... to name but a few
... all good musicians liberated by the "new wave" ... or going back
earlier we have the Velvet Underground, arguably the proto-punks (or maybe
proto-Goths...or indeed
proto-almost-everything-that-the-Beatles-weren't-proto), not to mention the
wonderful Iggy Pop and I guess Blondie and Sonic Youth, to take two ends of
the spectrum. And the Flaming Lips. And then you can look at all the bands
and individuals influenced by punk, from Grunge to House to Grindcore to
Black Metal to whatever the kids are listening to now (Lorde, mainly, it
seems, who went to the same school as my son :)

Although I have very little good to say about Malcolm McLaren he did
arguably launch a whole new musical experience with the Sex Pistols, a type
of music which had until then only been underground (Rezillos? B52s?) but
bubbled to the surface when Rotten et al appeared on prime time TV swearing
away. The world was never the same.

Happy days!


> Being different, dressing different, making your own music, writing your
> own lyrics. It's something kids marv el ad,t when a band does it today. It
> was the norm back in the day. A lucky time that way. Black music was
> something to marvel at, so diverse, so experimental, so leading the way. It
> just vanished , I hope it comes back one day. Simon Cowell says the average
> quality is higher than ever, but a sausage factory does that
>

Yes indeed. But I see that spark in Lorde and even dear Lady Gaga. To quote
Lorde, not verbatim, She had to do a photoshoot (being famous now and all
that) and the photographer kept saying 'Smile!' and after a while she said,
'I got here because I did my own thing, and I'm not smiling because you
tell me to!' - and she didn't, and we have photos to prove it.

PS And she's on the cover of "Rolling Stone" wearing a "Cramps"
T-shirt! That girl is definitely my hero now, even if I didn't like her
music - I thought the Cramps were only for weirdos like me. (In a couple of
years she WILL be playing Morticia Addams, either on film or in real life.)


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

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it
> seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of
> every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct?
>

No, it's in terms of coordinate time in C's rest frame. "C's proper time"
can only be defined between pairs of events on C's own worldline. Of course
if C is inertial as in this example, then the coordinate time of events on
C's worldline is the same as the proper time between those events, but it
doesn't make sense to talk about "C's proper time" between events that are
NOT on C's worldline.



>
> But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper
> times between A and C with your method?
>
> And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE?
>

You can of course define a correlation in proper times of separated clocks
A and B if you specify what frame's definition of simultaneity you want to
use. Then you can find a pair of events a1 and b1 that are simultaneous in
this frame, and a pair of events a2 and b2 that are simultaneous in this
frame, and compare the proper time on A's worldline between a1 and a2 with
the proper time on B's worldline between b1 and b2. But this sort of
correlation will differ depending on what frame you choose (because the
simultaneous events will differ), and what can't be done is find any basis
in relativity for saying that one frame's correlation represents the "real"
correlation while other frames' do not.

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/d/optout.

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[LizR]

On 9 March 2014 00:32, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you.
>> You have my greatest sympathies. (I too have been susceptible to
>> manipulation, as I am rather shy and awkward in person, so I speak from
>> experience.)
>>
>
> Liz, people with rich internal lives tend to come off as shy and awkward.
> In the end, maybe the manipulators deserve our pity more than anything
> else. I suspect that most of what they do is out of fear. They are stuck in
> an existence ruled by status anxiety. I don't envy that...
>

Fear and envy, yes. I have never envied them.

>
> Have a nice weekend!
>

You too.

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

Re: 15 works of art depicting women in science

[LizR]

On 8 March 2014 23:39, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

> There is no Monkey day in the UN agenda ?
>
>
> https://www.google.es/search?q=monkeys+space&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lvIaU8TDCcL_ygObkICgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=667
>
> I think that these heroes deserve some rights too. Some of them are
> female monkeys by the way.
>
Not to mention Laika, the first animal to orbit the Earth.

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it 
seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of 
every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct?

But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper times 
between A and C with your method?

And isn't that what you keep telling me CAN'T BE DONE?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
> not, we are trying to find the truth
>
>
> I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of 
> agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was 
> expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious 
> you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of 
> "lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't 
> deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:
>
> "in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works 
> with spatial lengths"
>
> or:
>
> "in spatial terms a stra
> ...

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to
> calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using
> your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will
> be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel further
> in space to get from t1 to t2 and consequently must also travel less far in
> time. Correct?
>

It's true in C's rest frame that A travels a greater distance than B, but
this needn't be true if you used a different frame. For example, if you
analyze the problem using an inertial frame D in which A is at rest during
the first blue leg of his trip, then A and B should travel the same
distance between departing and reuniting, because neither ever turns around
and travels in the "wrong" direction in this frame, they are both always at
rest in this frame or traveling in the -x direction towards the position in
this frame where they will reunite. So if you imagine that A and B are cars
that are driving along a piece of flat ground at rest in frame D, and both
start out with odometers reading 0 when A first departs from B, then A and
B's odometer will show the same reading when they reunite, since they have
both traveled in a consistent direction (but varying speed) along the same
straight road between the position in frame D where they departed and the
position where they reunited.




>
>
> To confirm, consider a simplified twin example with only straight lines so
> we can ignore accelerations. A remains at rest with a straight vertical
> line from t1 to t3. B travels away from t1 in a straight oblique line,
> reverses direction midpoint (call this t2) and travels in a straight
> oblique line back to t3.
>
> The two halves of B's trip are symmetric (have the same velocities away
> from and back towards A) therefore B's proper time, calculated by A, will
> be = 2 x sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2).  In other words we have to
> multiply by 2 to get the proper time of B for the entire trip. Correct?
>

Yes, that's correct.


>
>
> OK, now consider another case with A and B just moving with constant
> relative motion and their world lines crossing at t1 and then diverging.
> There is NO acceleration.
>
> In this case using the Lorentz transform both A and B will observe each
> other's time running slow relative to their own. And using your formula
> above both A and B will also observe each other's proper times SLOWED
> RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN.
>
> But doesn't this mean that since A and B get different results about each
> other's proper times that this method of calculating proper times is NOT
> INVARIANT, and thus is not actually calculating proper times which you say
> are invariant?
>


The method gives an invariant answer for the proper time between any two
specific events on an inertial worldline, events which are known to have
coordinates (x1,t1) and (x2,t2) in whatever frame you're using.  But in
your example, they haven't agreed on a specific pair of points on each
worldline to calculate the proper time between. Suppose their worldlines
cross at the moment of their births, when they are both 0 years old, and
subsequently they move apart with arelative velocity of 0.6c so the time
dilation factor is 0.8c. If A wants to use his own rest frame to predict
how old B will be "at the same moment" that A turns 20, he is picking the
event b1 on B's worldline that is SIMULTANEOUS IN A's REST FRAME with A
turning 20, and calculate the proper time between the event of B's birth
and b1, which is 16. On the other hand, if B wants to use his own rest
frame to predict how old he'll be at the "same moment" that A turns 20, he
must pick the event b2 on B's worldline that is SIMULTANEOUS IN B'S REST
FRAME with A turning 20, and calculate the proper time between B's birth
and b2, which is 25. Both frames agree that the proper time between B's
birth and b1 is 16, and that the proper time between B's birth and b2 is
25, they just disagree about whether b1 or b2 is simultaneous with A
turning 20. So that's why they disagree about whether A is older or younger
than B at any specified point on A's worldline, like A turning 20 (and of
course the logic works the same if you specify a point on B's worldline and
ask about A's age "at the same moment"). Of course, this sort of ambiguity
about what events to choose doesn't arise in a twin-paradox type scenario
where the twins depart from each other at one specific point on their
worldlines, and reunite at some other specific point on their worldlines.

If you want further evidence that the method gives an invariant answer, you
can use the Lorentz transformation to check that this is so. Pick two
events on the worldline of an inertial clock of arbitrary velocity in the
frame you're using, and assume that the spacetime origin is chosen so that
the first event is labeled with coordinates x1=0, t1=0. Then the second
event can be anyt

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[meekerdb]

On 3/8/2014 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in arithmetic (like x+0=x, 
etc.).


I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.


But we don't know that it exists.  ISTM that rejecting the possibility of randomness in 
the world is just dogma.  Of course we can study and try to understand and minimize 
randomness is our theories - but I see no reason to simply rule it out because we don't 
like it; especially by hyposthesizing an unobservable and untestable everythingism.  I 
like your theory, but not because it avoids randomness (as Everett does too), but because 
it seems to address the mind-body problem.


Brent

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

Re: Block Universes

[Edgar L. Owen]

Jesse,

OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to 
calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using 
your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will 
be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel further 
in space to get from t1 to t2 and consequently must also travel less far in 
time. Correct?


To confirm, consider a simplified twin example with only straight lines so 
we can ignore accelerations. A remains at rest with a straight vertical 
line from t1 to t3. B travels away from t1 in a straight oblique line, 
reverses direction midpoint (call this t2) and travels in a straight 
oblique line back to t3.

The two halves of B's trip are symmetric (have the same velocities away 
from and back towards A) therefore B's proper time, calculated by A, will 
be = 2 x sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2).  In other words we have to 
multiply by 2 to get the proper time of B for the entire trip. Correct?


OK, now consider another case with A and B just moving with constant 
relative motion and their world lines crossing at t1 and then diverging. 
There is NO acceleration.

In this case using the Lorentz transform both A and B will observe each 
other's time running slow relative to their own. And using your formula 
above both A and B will also observe each other's proper times SLOWED 
RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN.

But doesn't this mean that since A and B get different results about each 
other's proper times that this method of calculating proper times is NOT 
INVARIANT, and thus is not actually calculating proper times which you say 
are invariant?

I agree that this method correctly calculates how A and B observe each 
other's clock times, but not sure that's the same as the other's actual 
proper times.

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 9:31:24 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world 
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) 
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? 
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we 
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm 
> not, we are trying to find the truth
>
>
> I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of 
> agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was 
> expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious 
> you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of 
> "lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't 
> deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:
>
> "in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works 
> with spatial lengths"
>
> or:
>
> "in spatial terms a straight li
> ...

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

>
>
>> >>If most people can use less energy, and most people want to use less
>> energy, then why don't most people use less energy; why isn't energy
>> consumption going down?
>>
> > Perhaps the fact that in just one year 2012, more than $500 Billion was
> spent globally on advertising of one form or another,
>
So you concede my point, most people do not want to use less energy. So
regarding your proposed solution of placing a enormous tax on energy I
repeat my question, if people won't voluntarily use less energy why would
they vote for politicians who make them?

>  materialism has been drenching our mind space
>
OK, but you almost make it sound like materialism is a bad thing.

>>And without cheap energy how are we going to fix nitrogen from the air to
> fertilize the plants that 7 billion people eat.
>
> > Permaculture has demonstrated high yield sustainable practice.
>
Point me to a farm which uses practices that can be scaled up enough to
feed 7 billion people that is not labor intensive, doesn't use insecticides
or herbicides or artificial fertilizer or fossil fuel to harvest crops and
get the food to the places where people live.

> agriculture is going to have to get off of its petro-chemical addiction;
> a terrible addiction that has led to wide spread mono-cropping (a
> biologically insane practice)
>
This terrible insane addiction is keeping 7 billion people alive.


> > Every single sector of modern life depends on petroleum products
>
Yes and environmentalists say we should stop doing that yesterday, and if
we take their advice people are going to die, lots and lots of people.

> Global oil production has peaked; the argument about it is over.
>
I don't think so, in 2006 the world produced 71,846,100 barrels of oil a
day, in 2011 it produced 72,888,600. And in the USA the situation is much
more dramatic, oil production rose more than half a million barrels per day
between 2007 and 2011 to the highest level in 15 years and in 2012 oil
production increased by 760,000 barrels a day, the largest yearly increase
since records about oil production started in 1859.

In natural gas liquids things are just as dramatic, production in the USA
reached a new all time record of 2.18 million barrels per day in 2011, an
increase of 400,000 barrels per day since 2007.

> what do we burn when we are done burning through the Soviet bomb uranium
> we got?
>
Switch to Thorium.  It would only take 2000 tons of Thorium to equal the
energy in 6 billion tons of coal that the world uses each year. There is
120 TRILLION tons of Thorium in the earth's crust and if the world needs 10
times as much energy as we get from just coal then we will run out of
Thorium in the crust of this planet in 6 billion years.

> Coal reserves are being slashed
>
Yawn, they've been saying that for well over 150 years.

And how are we going to fuel the farm equipment to harvest the crops? And
>> how are we going to refrigerate them? And how are we going to transport the
>> food from the farms to the cities where most of the people live?
>>
> Again... we won't. Welcome to collapse.
>
A unusual combination of smugness and hopelessness is one of the less
endearing behavior patterns of the common tree hugging environmentalist.
Chris I have the distinct impression that if you don't see humanity hurting
very baddy pretty damn soon as just punishment for previous profligate ways
in a sort of half-assed morality play you will be severely disappointed.
Reminds me of preachers who babble on about how we're all sinners destined
for eternal hellfire, and to fundamentalist Christians who really look
forward to judgement day and the end of the world; that's why they scare
the hell out of me when they achieve positions of power in government.

  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/d/optout.

RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Chris de Morsella]

 

>>If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Or, if the 
>>climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed by the 
>>IPCC, then all we have to do is wait?  

Come on spudboy – or whatever your real name is – do you really believe your 
own emotional outburst? It’s a managed “free” country and you are free to utter 
whatever nonsense you choose. Go ahead an believe the world is flat for all I 
care; or that some bearded Duck Dynasty looking Patriarch sitting on a cloud in 
the sky made the Universe in six days some 6000 years ago. If you want to be an 
idiot – go right ahead.

But when you utter idiocy you should expect it to be challenged and – even 
brutally deconstructed. If you can’t take it then don’t dish it out, is my 
advice.

If this emotional outburst, is the extent of your reply, it is clear you have 
nothing of substance to say in response to my point by point deconstruction of 
all the silly sound bites you have swallowed hook line and sinker from your Tea 
Party (Koch brother funded) sources.

Grow up buddy.

Chris

 

 

 

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

 

extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;

 

>>Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events 
>>cause extinctions, not averages. 

Spudboy – or whatever your real name is; perhaps you don’t realize it but 
everything is caused by events – so that is a meaningless statement. Every 
year, since the dawn of life on earth species have been going extinct and 
species have been coming into existence. Perhaps you are not aware of just how 
many species of life exist on this planet. There is nothing artificial, nor 
unusual about graphing the rate of extinction over time… all manner of 
phenomena are graphed over a time axis. That you find this strange and even 
more seem to be implying that it is some kind of trick by evil greens really 
makes me question your most basic understanding of math and statistics.

 

>>It's akin to saying of we added all the average dick lengths on Earth, it'd 
>>reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An interesting topic, but unhelpful. 

Wrong! The rate of extinction – which is the number of species going extinct in 
a given unit of time can be graphed so that we can compare past rates with the 
current rate – which is 10,000 times what the rate has been on average (as far 
as we can tell from studying the geologic, fossil and DNA records) 

That you see no value in having a yardstick seems more likely due to the 
ideological blinders you have covered your eyes with than with anything else. 
It is either that or you are surprisingly ignorant of some very basic math. I 
recommend you learn more about statistics and how it works before making silly 
declarations like you just did.

 

>>Estimates of resources magically increase when money is involved. The shale 
>>gas that was paltry in the US 10 years ago is now something the Greens scream 
>>about, and Obama fears, (that's ideology for you). 

Again you do not know what you are talking about… you are sadly misinformed. I 
could argue it with you, but I do not even think you could understand the 
evidence given your poor display of understanding of basic statistics…. So why 
bother. Suffice to say that the Shale gas and oil plays, besides doing great 
and irreparable harm to our earth are in fact just bubbles that will soon burst 
(and in fact already show signs of doing just that) – it is all spin, PR and 
BS, pulling in all that sucker money – the essence of any bubble. The insiders 
are making huge killings no doubt, and they are probably already pulling their 
money now if they have not already. The drillers made a killing for a few 
years, some people made good salaries, again for a while.

But if anyone – who understands numbers and statistics (which I fear may 
exclude you) – carefully examines certain key metrics such as rates od decline; 
how many years of peak well production before the decline sets in; capital cost 
per unit of product; energy return on energy invested (EROI) – for all the 
formations, but especially for the most mature formation – the Eagle-Ford in 
Texas. What one will discover – if one looks and I do challenge you to look – 
is that the boom is unsustainable and that after investing huge numbers of 
billions of dollars in what are capital sinkholes that the long term payback 
for that capital will never occur, because the assumptions for fracked gas and 
shale oil were exceedingly optimistic – based on historic production data from 
traditional gas & oil fields. Fracked fields begin going into depletion very 
rapidly – and wells need to be re-fracked as well (which changes the economics 
considerably) And when decline sets in the rate of decline is much higher than 
it is for traditional fields.

Again I challenge anyone to lo

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:38 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

> And 600 million years ago solar radiance was about 4% less
>

And during the Carboniferous era 359 million years ago the solar radiation
was about 3% less than it is now but that didn't stop the average
temperature on Earth being a massive 18  degrees warmer than now. And
during the early Carboniferous there was 1500 ppm of carbon dioxide in the
air, about a third what it was during the Ordovician which was in a huge
ice age. And during the late Carboniferous there was only 350 ppm, slightly
less than what it is today, and yet it was still hot as hell. Apparently
climate is just a tad more complicated than what some would have you
believe.

> Notice that the models respond to the increased aerosols from volcanoes.
>

It's interesting you mentioned volcanoes particularly Penatubo because  Mt
Pinatubo in 1991 became the best studied large volcanic eruption in
history, it put more sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere than any volcano
since Krakatoa in 1883. Because of this Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief
technical officer at Microsoft, wants to build an artificial volcano.

There is no longer any dispute that stratospheric sulfur dioxide leads to
more diffuse sunlight, a decrease in the ozone layer, and a general cooling
of the planet. What was astonishing was how little stratospheric sulfur
dioxide was needed. If you injected it in the arctic where it would be
about 4 times more effective, about 100,000 tons a year would reverse
global warming in the northern hemisphere. That works out to 34 gallons per
minute, a bit more than what a standard garden hose could deliver but much
less than a fire hose. We already spew out over 200,000,000 tons of sulphur
dioxide into the atmosphere each year, but all of that is in the lower
troposphere where it has little or no cooling effect, the additional
100,000 tons is a drop in the bucket if you're looking at the tonnage, but
it's in the stratosphere where its vastly more effective.

Myhrvold wasn't suggesting anything as ambitious as a space elevator, just
a light hose about 2 inches in diameter going up about 18 miles. In one
design he burns sulfur to make sulfur dioxide, he then liquefies it and
injects it into the stratosphere with a hose supported every 500 to 1000
feet with helium balloons. Myhrvold thinks this design would cost about 150
million dollars to build and about 100 million a year to operate. In
another design that would probably be even cheaper he just slips a sleeve
over the smokestack of any existing small to midsize coal power plant in
the higher latitudes and uses the hot exhaust to fill hot air balloons to
support the hose.

If Myhrvold's cost estimate are correct that means it would take 50 million
dollars less to cure global warming than it cost Al Gore to just advertise
the evils of climate change. But even if Myhrvold's estimate is ten times
or a hundred times too low it hardly matters, it's still chump change. In a
report to the British government economist Nicholas Stern said that to
reduce carbon emissions enough to stabilize global warming by the end of
this century we would need to spend 1.5% of global GDP each year, that
works out to 1.2 trillion (trillion with a t) dollars EACH YEAR.

One great thing about Myhrvold's idea is that you're not doing anything
irreparable, if for whatever reason you want to stop you just turn a valve
on a hose and in about a year all the sulfur dioxide you injected will
settle out of the atmosphere. And Myhrvold isn't the only fan of this idea,
Paul Crutzen won a Nobel prize for his work on ozone depletion, in 2006 he
said efforts to solve the problem by reducing greenhouse gases were doomed
to be "grossly unsuccessful" and that an injection of sulfur in the
stratosphere "is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature
rises and counteract other climatic effects". Crutzen acknowledged that it
would reduce the ozone layer but the change would be small and the the
benefit would be much greater than the harm.

And by the way, diffuse sunlight, another of the allegedly dreadful things
associated with sulfur dioxide high up in the atmosphere, well..., plant
photosynthesis is more efficient under diffuse light. Plants grow better in
air with lots of CO2 in it too, but that's another story.

 >> If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're
>> uncertain about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that.
>
>
>  > Since "climate" refers to long-term averages of weather, that's
> fallacious on several points.  First, it assumes "uncertainty" is
> dichotomous.
>

Correct, I assume the makers of long term climate models know what they're
talking about or they do not.

> Second, it assumes clouds are determinative of climate.
>

Correct again because clouds can put a brake on the energy required to run
the entire weather show.

>>> It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing.
>>
>>
>>  >> Plenty clear? During the Carb

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:56 AM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> > Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system" if as you
>> admit the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved free
>> market?
>>
>
> There is no disputing matters of taste so you could say if you wished that
> markets, and therefore people, shouldn't have too much freedom; but you
> can't say that the Black Market isn't a free market.
>

There is a black market in pharmaceutical drugs as well as one in illegal
drugs, would you say "you can't say that the Black market isn't a free
market" in this case too? Or is the crime of violating a company's
intellectual property rights sufficient to disqualify something from being
a "free market", unlike the crime of violating laws about what drugs are
allowed to be used at all?

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/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[meekerdb]

On 3/7/2014 10:56 PM, John Clark wrote:


> Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system" if as you 
admit the
transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved free market?


There is no disputing matters of taste so you could say if you wished that markets, and 
therefore people, shouldn't have too much freedom; but you can't say that the Black 
Market isn't a free market.


So it's just your taste that says that a market where monopolies are enforced by murder is 
free?


Brent

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 6:16:16 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb 
> > wrote:
>
> > There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming 
> caused by increased CO2 
>
>
> If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying 
> the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era 
> there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 
> today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact  
> during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far 
> more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm.
>
 
Hi John, that was nearly half a billion years ago. Go back a couple or 
three billion and the Co2 level was 20 times more than today. The Sun has 
been getting hotter over the same period. More than 20 percent hotter today 
than when co2 was 20 times denser in the atmosphere. 
 
The climate has remained roughly stable over the same period. If it was 
just the iSun getting warmer nothi ng else, the climate should have going 
out of control a long time ago. But the co2 has reduced at roughly the rate 
necessary to balance the warming Sun, keeping the climate roughly constant. 
 
So that's your explanation. The numbers add up tight, and just right,. 
Question to you. What is in your head that you think 10,000 or more climate 
scientists, over 2 decades min of intensive research, would leave 
something  much higher co2 in the past just sitting there totally 
contradicting their best understanding? 
 
Who told you about the much co2 in the past? I will have originated with 
climate science. 

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
> And B's worldline consists of the following five segments:
>
> Segment 1 (blue): Remaining at rest in C's frame, from t=1999 to t=2009
> Segment 2 (red): ACCELERATION 1 from t=2009 to t=2011
> Segment 3 (blue): Moving inertially at 0.6c in the +x direction, from
> t=2011 to t=2013
> Segment 4 (red): ACCELERATION 2 from t=2013 to t=2017
> Segment 5 (blue): Moving inertially at 0.6c in the -x direction, from
> t=2017 to t=2019
> Segment 6 (red): ACCELERATION 3 from t=2019 to t=2019
>

Correction--that last line for B's worldline should read

Segment 6 (red): ACCELERATION 3 from t=2019 to t=2021

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

Re: Block Universes

[Jesse Mazer]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world
> line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer)
> because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting?
> Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree when we
> actually do agree. Remember we are not counting points here, at least I'm
> not, we are trying to find the truth
>

I'm not "resistant" in general, I have said "I agree" to a number of
agree/disagree questions you asked in the past. But in this one case I was
expressing irritation because from your question it seemed pretty obvious
you either hadn't read, or hadn't paid any attention to, my discussion of
"lengths" in the post you were responding to. If you really, really can't
deduce my opinion on this from statements like this:

"in terms of proper times C > B > A which is the opposite of how it works
with spatial lengths"

or:

"in spatial terms a straight line is the SHORTEST path between two points,
but in spacetime a straight (constant-velocity) worldline is the one with
the LARGEST proper time between points"

...then just tell me why you think these statements are ambiguous and I
will then tell you whether I "agree that A's world line is actually shorter
than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time
along it is less than C's from parting to meeting". But if reading those
statements does answer your question, then I would suggest that part of
"trying to find the truth" is actually reading through the responses you
get, not skimming/skipping over parts of it.



>
> First, note you don't actually have to calculate anything. A and C just
> compare clocks when they meet and that gives the actual world line lengths.
>

Sure, but I'm talking about the theoretical analysis.


>
> But, if you want to calculate to predict what that comparison will be,
> then you have to be careful to do it correctly.
>
> C can't just use the Pythagorean theorem on A's world line from his
> perspective on the x and y distances, he has to use it on the time
> dimension as well squareroot((y2-y1)^2 + (x2-x1)^2 - c(t2-t1)^2).
>

You have the right idea, although that formula (with c^2 rather than c)
actually calculates proper length on a spacelike interval, if you want
proper time on a timelike interval the equivalent formula would be
squareroot((t2-t1)^2 - (1/c)^2*(x2-x1)^2 - (1/c)^2*(y2-y1)^2). And since we
were talking about a 2D spacetime diagram where all motion was along a
single spatial axis, I dropped the y-coordinate, and as I mentioned I was
also assuming units where c=1, like years for time and light-years for
distance. That's why I just wrote the formula as sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 -
x1)^2).



> It is the subtraction of this time term that will reduce the length of the
> slanting blue lines of A and B to THEIR PROJECTIONS ON C'S OWN WORLDLINE.
>

That statement appears wrong, although you'd have to give me a definition
of what you mean by "projections on C's own worldline" for me to be sure.
It seems to me that by the normal definition of "projection", projecting
one of the slanted blue line segments onto the C's vertical worldline would
give a new segment parallel to the vertical axis, whose length is just
equal to the vertical separation between the ends of the original slanted
blue segment. If so, the length of that sort of "projection" is NOT equal
to the proper time of the original slanted blue segment, instead it's equal
to the coordinate time between its endpoints, in C's rest frame.

For example, looking at the diagram at
http://www.jessemazer.com/images/tripletparadox.jpg , let's say the bottom
blue segment on A's worldline begins in 2001 in C's rest frame, and ends in
2008, and it has a velocity of 0.6c. In that case, by the normal meaning of
"projection", projecting this segment onto C's vertical worldline would
just create a vertical segment that goes from 2001 to 2008, and thus has a
coordinate time of 7 years (and for any vertical segment of a worldline
parallel to the time coordinate axis, proper time is supposed to be equal
to coordinate time). But because of time dilation, the proper time along
the original blue segment (before it was "projected" to make it vertical)
is less than the coordinate time by a factor of sqrt(1 - (0.8c/c)^2) =
sqrt(1 - 0.64) = sqrt(0.36) = 0.6, so relativity says the correct proper
time along that original slanted blue segment is 7*0.6 = 4.2 years. Do you
agree or disagree with these numbers?




>
> I think that is what you are saying as well, but my point is that that
> NULLIFIES any effect on the length of the world lines by the SLANTING of
> the blue lines NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LENGTHS, and LEAVES ONLY the effects of
> the red curves.
>


No, you're simply wrong about this. Let's actually do a numerical example.
Suppose that both A and B go through the same sequence of 3 accelerati

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[spudboy100]

If only we all thought like you, the world would be fixed, eh? Or, if the 
climate change doesn't fit all the models, that have been proposed by the IPCC, 
then all we have to do is wait?  


-Original Message-
From: Chris de Morsella 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Mar 7, 2014 11:28 pm
Subject: RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



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

extinction rate is already 10,000 times the average background rate;


 

>>Chris, this is an artificial rate, as useless, except to Greens, as events 
>>cause extinctions, not averages. 
Spudboy – or whatever your real name is; perhaps you don’t realize it but 
everything is caused by events – so that is a meaningless statement. Every 
year, since the dawn of life on earth species have been going extinct and 
species have been coming into existence. Perhaps you are not aware of just how 
many species of life exist on this planet. There is nothing artificial, nor 
unusual about graphing the rate of extinction over time… all manner of 
phenomena are graphed over a time axis. That you find this strange and even 
more seem to be implying that it is some kind of trick by evil greens really 
makes me question your most basic understanding of math and statistics.
 
>>It's akin to saying of we added all the average dick lengths on Earth, it'd 
>>reach 2/3rds to the Moon. An interesting topic, but unhelpful. 
Wrong! The rate of extinction – which is the number of species going extinct in 
a given unit of time can be graphed so that we can compare past rates with the 
current rate – which is 10,000 times what the rate has been on average (as far 
as we can tell from studying the geologic, fossil and DNA records) 
That you see no value in having a yardstick seems more likely due to the 
ideological blinders you have covered your eyes with than with anything else. 
It is either that or you are surprisingly ignorant of some very basic math. I 
recommend you learn more about statistics and how it works before making silly 
declarations like you just did.
 
>>Estimates of resources magically increase when money is involved. The shale 
>>gas that was paltry in the US 10 years ago is now something the Greens scream 
>>about, and Obama fears, (that's ideology for you). 
Again you do not know what you are talking about… you are sadly misinformed. I 
could argue it with you, but I do not even think you could understand the 
evidence given your poor display of understanding of basic statistics…. So why 
bother. Suffice to say that the Shale gas and oil plays, besides doing great 
and irreparable harm to our earth are in fact just bubbles that will soon burst 
(and in fact already show signs of doing just that) – it is all spin, PR and 
BS, pulling in all that sucker money – the essence of any bubble. The insiders 
are making huge killings no doubt, and they are probably already pulling their 
money now if they have not already. The drillers made a killing for a few 
years, some people made good salaries, again for a while.
But if anyone – who understands numbers and statistics (which I fear may 
exclude you) – carefully examines certain key metrics such as rates od decline; 
how many years of peak well production before the decline sets in; capital cost 
per unit of product; energy return on energy invested (EROI) – for all the 
formations, but especially for the most mature formation – the Eagle-Ford in 
Texas. What one will discover – if one looks and I do challenge you to look – 
is that the boom is unsustainable and that after investing huge numbers of 
billions of dollars in what are capital sinkholes that the long term payback 
for that capital will never occur, because the assumptions for fracked gas and 
shale oil were exceedingly optimistic – based on historic production data from 
traditional gas & oil fields. Fracked fields begin going into depletion very 
rapidly – and wells need to be re-fracked as well (which changes the economics 
considerably) And when decline sets in the rate of decline is much higher than 
it is for traditional fields.
Again I challenge anyone to look for themselves. Recently there is growing 
evidence that there is a building pullback in the capital expenditure – at the 
upstream end of the project pipelines – so it takes years to play out. The 
return on capital expenditures or in finance jargon CAPEX – in terms of the 
market value of the produced product versus how much capital expenditures were 
needed in order to develop, refine and deliver the product are really very bad, 
and in general has been rapidly falling for all energy CAPEX as a rule… again 
you can look these things up.
So say whatever BS you have been fed to say – hey it’s a free country right? 
LOL – but the real world hard numbers tell a very different story from the 
politically useful fantasy you have been sold.
 
>>Its just that the Atlan

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Edgar L. Owen]

Ghibbsa,

I explain spin entanglement paradox this way:

When the particles are created their spins must already be equal and 
opposite orientations due to conservation. But this is true only in the 
mini spacetime which is defined by their conservation. That spacetime 
fragment is NOT LINKED to the spacetime alignments of the observer and 
laboratory. Thus because separate spacetimes can have no alignments with 
respect to each other, the spin alignment is still undetermined in the 
frame of the observer.

Only when the spin alignment of one particle is measured do these separate 
spacetimes merge through that common event and at this point they are 
automatically aligned so the spin orientations of both particles are 
aligned in the frame of the lab.

As soon as we understand that spacetime is not just a single universal 
common structure but actually consists of separate dynamic fragmentary 
spacetimes that need to be glued together by common events for alignments 
to resolve, then all quantum paradox is resolved because all quantum 
paradoxes seem paradoxical only with respect to the single common fixed 
universal spacetime MISTAKENLY ASSUMED.

All quantum randomness arises because there can be no deterministic rules 
to align completely separate spacetime fragments, thus nature must act 
randomly to align them..

Edgar

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:53:22 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>>
>> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in 
>> its logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically 
>> impossible thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, 
>> p-zombie discussion on this group.
>>
>> First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces 
>> clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that 
>> does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it 
>> doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change 
>> randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem 
>> random, it's quantum level events.
>>
>> If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already 
>> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by 
>> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no 
>> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature 
>> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>>
>> But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only 
>> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>  
>  
> Edgar, so how do you explain things like the two slit experiment and 
> entanglement with this theory?
>

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Bruno,

Yes, of course I agree the physical universe is not primitive. How many 
times do I have to say that it arises from computational space before it 
registers with you?

I've also said over and over that the "physical universe" as we imagine it 
is NOT "out there". The physical universe as we imagine it is IN THERE, in 
our minds. It's how we internally represent the logico-mathematical 
universe which is what is 'out there' but which we are also local parts of 
in computational space.

I have no idea what you mean by "numbers indexical personal views".

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 3:46:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of empirical 
> observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science whose 
> accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based upon it 
> would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously some 
> actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter how 
> minds work...
>
>
> But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not primitive, 
> and arise from the "computational space".
>
> Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis, etc.), 
> then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of " primitively real 
> universe" come from. Both time and space, and energy, comes from numbers 
> indexical personal views. You might follow the current explanation or read 
> the papers. It makes computationalism testable (and partially tested).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>> That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>   
>>  The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or more 
>> modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a hypothesis which we 
>> use to account for the apparent regularities in our observations. You can't 
>> throw out a hypothesis on the basis that we can't observe its components 
>> directly because we don't observe any of reality directly, so on that basis 
>> you end up with solipsism.
>>
>>  
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are 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/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are 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/d/optout.
>
>
> 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 t

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

[Edgar L. Owen]

John,

I don't know where you are getting your data but the data I've seen shows a 
fairly neat CORRELATION of global temps and CO2. Would you like to give us 
a link that shows otherwise that is authoritative?

Edgar



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb 
> > wrote:
>
> > There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming 
> caused by increased CO2 
>
>
> If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying 
> the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era 
> there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 
> today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact  
> during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far 
> more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm.
>
> >> And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may 
> be getting warmer but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not 
> clearly understood but may be related to clouds, during the day at any 
> given temperature it takes longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 
> years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today much less know 
> if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100.
>
>
> > Sure they can.  It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds.  
> The IPCC AR4 models predict the increased cloudiness. 
>
>
> And what evidence can you provide that prove that particular climate model 
> makes better predictions than nineteen dozen other climate models?  
>
> > The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low clouds and high 
> clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict.
>
>
> If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're uncertain 
> about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that.
>
> > It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing.  
>
>
> Plenty clear? During the Carboniferous era the Earth was not .8 degrees 
> warmer or even 4 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, 
> and yet plant life was far more abundant then than it is now.  
>
> > A lot more people die from starvation than freezing.
>
>
> But more people die from freezing than heatstroke. And why do you thing 
> the ideal temperature to grow the most food occurs when the temperature is 
> .8 degrees cooler than now when we know that when it was 18 degrees warmer 
> plants were more abundant than they've ever been before or sense? 
>
> >> Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a 
> cure for global warming 
>
> ...

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Russell,

You actually claim that the conservation of energy and time invariance 
depend on "how humans see the world"?

If so I disagree,

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:53:40 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:46:58PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
> > Russell, 
> > 
> > Now that is true solipsism. A rather strange view of two projectors, 
> each 
> > viewing what it projects and taking that as reality. But in that model 
> each 
> > observer is a reflection of the projection of the other. So how do they 
> > confirm similarity since for two things to be similar they must be 
> > independent, and each here is just a refection of a projection of the 
> other? 
> > 
> > O, now I get it. Only the reflection of the projection by Russell is 
> really 
> > real! His projection is just nice enough to project imaginary other 
> > observers as being similar to himself? 
> > 
> > Somehow I think this model leads to consistency problems. At least it 
> seems 
> > awfully lonely 
> > 
> > Edgar 
> > 
>
> I don't think you do get it, because solipsism is not the endpoint of 
> such a view. 
>
> An example of such a "reflection" is the conservation law of energy, 
> which turns out to be a consequence of our requirement for physics to 
> be invariant through time, ie a "reflection" of how we see the 
> world. See Noether's theorem. 
>
> To argue your case, you would need to come up with some physical 
> property that is indubitably _not_ a consequence of how we perceive 
> the world. I don't think you can do that. It is a very high standard 
> of proof. Consequently, it does not follow that intersubjective 
> consistency necessarily implies the existence of some external 
> ontological reality. 
>
> Cheers 
> -- 
>
>  
>
> 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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Edgar L. Owen]

Liz,

Don't you understand the difference between a repeatable observation, which 
is the basis of science, and human interpretations of reality based on how 
human minds work?

Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 11:12:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 March 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of 
>> empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of science 
>> whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex technologies based 
>> upon it would not exist if this were not so. So there is quite obviously 
>> some actual universe 'out there' on which minds in general agree no matter 
>> how minds work...
>>
>>
>> So these consensus views are correct on everything  except space? I'm 
> sure I can think of some technology based on the assumption that space 
> exists. Actually It's hard to think of one that isn't.
>
>

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[ghibbsa]

 
Hi Bruno - I read below but am answering here. You're sincere and I'm not 
getting my single point across to you. I'm about done trying I think. I've 
taken a lot of value from the process and it's shame if you haven't but 
sincerity was all round. 
 
In my view, it doesn't stack up building a specific digital, specific 
software/hardware, prefixed conception into computationalism when so little 
is known about consciousness. There are other ways that computationalism 
can be true and yet have mind blowing surprises in store for the nature of 
what it is. 
 
You don't agree. You think comp is owned by the theses you give to it. You 
think the brain and consciousness is just a technicality despite knowing 
almost nothing about it, and being unable to give a satisfying explanation 
of it. That's your right and your theory. A view like that is not something 
I will ever relate to, but nor do I have a problem.with 
coexisting alongside. 
 
I suppose I'll draw a line provocatively by asking whether a complex 
proteinso precisely dependent on a 3D structure, is computational? The 
gene is, but is the protein? And if the answer is yes, how much code would 
be necessary to capture all the structure relationships. A gene just builds 
it, doesn't run it. Why is it ruled out effectively, that computation in 3D 
reality uses 3D reality, structure, as computation? Because it's faster 
and m ore elegant  and Occam simpler, makes use of the dimensionality and 
materials that define the reality. If it was digital computing, it would 
have surely made that our reality too
 
 
That's where I'm at,. And if that's saying no to your doctor, it's 
definitely saying yes to mine. And I think I own comp, not you. I'm right, 
not you. But in end the question of comp and consciousness will not be 
resolved by debate and persuasion...not for the majority of people. Only 
hard discovery and breakthrough progress will settle it. And that's the way 
it should be, and always has been. In Science. 

 

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

Re: Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR  wrote:

> Dear Bruno, I am shocked and saddened to hear what has been done to you.
> You have my greatest sympathies. (I too have been susceptible to
> manipulation, as I am rather shy and awkward in person, so I speak from
> experience.)
>

Liz, people with rich internal lives tend to come off as shy and awkward.
In the end, maybe the manipulators deserve our pity more than anything
else. I suspect that most of what they do is out of fear. They are stuck in
an existence ruled by status anxiety. I don't envy that...

Have a nice weekend!
Telmo.


> I am very eager to obtain a copy of "the Amoeba's Secret", even more than
> I was before, but I prefer a hard copy to the electronic so I will wait a
> little longer. I will be telling my friends and acquaintances who I think
> may have an interest about it too, of course.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

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

Re: The way the future was

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 1, 2014 1:21:44 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>
> Dear old Isaac Asimov's predictions for the distant future of 2014.
>
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asimov-predictions-from-1964-brief-report-card/
>
 
 
this is what the Clash predicted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyCrx4DyMk
 
I stumbled on itconsidering it's meant to be Punk, I was surprised how 
good it is. Good vocals
 
Being different, dressing different, making your own music, writing your 
own lyrics. It's something kids marv el ad,t when a band does it today. It 
was the norm back in the day. A lucky time that way. Black music was 
something to marvel at, so diverse, so experimental, so leading the way. It 
just vanished , I hope it comes back one day. Simon Cowell says the average 
quality is higher than ever, but a sausage factory does that 

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

Re: 15 works of art depicting women in science

[Alberto G. Corona]

There is no Monkey day in the UN agenda ?

https://www.google.es/search?q=monkeys+space&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lvIaU8TDCcL_ygObkICgCA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

I think that these heroes deserve some rights too. Some of them are
female monkeys by the way.


2014-03-08 10:45 GMT+01:00, LizR :
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-works-of-art-depicting-women-in-science
>
> Two astronauts, but neither of them the first woman in space!
>
> So much for "Scientific American's" objectivity.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Alberto.

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

Re: MODAL Last exercise

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Mar 2014, at 06:12, LizR wrote:




On 6 March 2014 21:44, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 23:06, LizR wrote:


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...


W = the set of worlds
R = the binary relation (of accessibility)

(W, R) = the multiverse, or the "frame"

(W, R, V) is the same as the multiverse, except that now, in each  
worlds of W, the sentence letters p, q, r, ... got a value 1, or 0.  
And so, all formula can be said to be true or false in each world,  
by the use of classical logic and of the semantic of Kripke (the  
fact that []A is determined in alpha by the value of A in its  
accessible worlds).


So V is an illumination?


Yes. Also called "valuation".
That is the function which gives, for each world, the true values of  
the atomic letters (p, q, r, ...).


A formula A is a law in a multiverse (W,R), or (W,R) respects A, if  
and only if for all V, (W,R,V) satisfies A. And this means that for  
all V, A is true in all worlds in that multiverse.


In modal logic the semantics is three-leveled: a proposition can be  
true in a world (in some (W,R,V)), it can be true in all worlds, and  
it can be true in all worlds whatever V is, that is true in all  
(W,R,V), with some W and and R.









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


Like a tautology is true in all worlds, a contradiction is a  
proposition false in all worlds, like f, or (A & ~A), or "0 = 1" (in  
arithmetic). f -> x is a tautology, yes, and x -> t also.





So []A is true in a world alpha.


I guess you assume []A -> [][]A is false in alpha, which belong to a  
transitive multiverse, and you want to show that we will arrive at a  
contradiction.





Hence if alpha is transitive,


I understand what you mean. But of course it is R which 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.


It looks like now you suppose []A -> [][]A is true in alpha. So I am  
no more sure of what you try to prove.




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?


No, the pleasure of finding a contradiction from
[]A -> [][]A is false in alpha
and
R is transitive

I was suggesting you to prove P -> Q, by showing that P & ~Q implies  
a contradiction. it is the easiest way, although there are  
(infinitely many) other ways to proceed.








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

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



Diagram would help a lot. I teach this basically every years since a  
long time, and I only draw diagrams on the black board, not one  
symbols, except for the sentence letters true or false in the worlds.


Take it easy, we have all the time. My feeling is that you are  
impatient with yourself. Just calm down.


It seems like I have no time! (But you sound like Charles :-)


And you sound like the White Rabbit: "No time, no time ...".  :)




You will eventually NOT understand why you ever did find this  
difficult. But this takes times and work, that's normal.


I hope you're right.


No problem, unless you try hard to convince yourself that you will  
never learn, which is a good technic to not learn.
But as long as you find the courage to be mistaken, you will learn,  
and eventually get the familiarity. But you need to be indulgent and  
patient with yourself.


I am more anxious about Brent, who solved well the reflexive  
multiverse case, but seems mute on the transitive multiverse case.


Well, I know what it is, all those mails, 

Bruno

PS I have to go now. Will answer other mails later. Next week is also  
busy, and I expect some black hole in the basement. Thanks for your  
patience.





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 

15 works of art depicting women in science

[LizR]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-works-of-art-depicting-women-in-science

Two astronauts, but neither of them the first woman in space!

So much for "Scientific American's" objectivity.

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 8:49:38 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>>> Liz,
>>>
>>> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological 
>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic 
>>> from what we can observe. That is true.
>>>
>>
>> It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience 
>> indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but 
>> even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, 
>> our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic 
>> plus observation.
>>
>  
> I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like 
> the 'Mirror Pair'
>
>>
>>> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty 
>>> space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such 
>>> an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous 
>>> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and 
>>> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our 
>>> internal models of it.
>>>
>>  
>  
>  
> I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though 
> different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of 
> being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or 
> real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external 
> world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to 
> reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence 
> seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you 
> end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by 
> design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. 
>  
> Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that 
> relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. 
> If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of 
> density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of 
> what's real, that means we have to share that moment with 
> the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is 
> real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' 
> has to arrange like?  
>  
> It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. 
> That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a 
> proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as 
> physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we 
> are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's 
> very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point 
> dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model 
> to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter 
> because physical reality wasn't there. 
>
>
> Just to be precise, I never say that "physical reality is not there", only 
> that we have to explain it by an 1p-statistics on relative consistent 
> extensions, making comp (and Theaetetus) testable.
>
> Bruno
>
 
Sorry about that then. I thought you did say it right back at start of my 
foray into trying to understand computationalism over on FoAR 

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:18:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jason,
>
> This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its 
> logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible 
> thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie 
> discussion on this group.
>
> First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces 
> clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that 
> does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it 
> doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change 
> randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem 
> random, it's quantum level events.
>
> If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already 
> provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by 
> quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no 
> deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature 
> is forced to make those alignments randomly.
>
> But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only 
> relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'.
>
> Edgar
>
 
 
Edgar, so how do you explain things like the two slit experiment and 
entanglement with this theory?

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

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Mar 2014, at 03:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Ghibbsa,

I agree with Bruno that physical reality is not primitively real. In  
my view the fundamental or primitive level of reality is purely  
computational in a dimensionless logico-mathematical space.


We agree on this indeed. But why using a notion of "computational  
space" which is not standard, and that you have not yet defined.


Is it just to avoid the "block many computations/may universe".

I have still no clue of your primitive ontological assumptions.

Bruno





The results of these computations are the information states of the  
universe, and so called physical reality is how minds model that  
information universe to make it more meaningful and easier to  
survive within...


In this view the reality of the physical world in which we think we  
exist is ITS INFORMATION ONLY, and all things are their information  
only. With practice it is possible to directly experience this by  
actually seeing that everything is actually its information  
components, and that only.


Edgar

On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:39:20 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological  
assumption.


There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by  
logic from what we can observe. That is true.


It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly.  
Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is "something  
inside our brains" but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of  
matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are  
all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation.


I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts  
like the 'Mirror Pair'


But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty  
space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN  
such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on  
continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional  
relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually  
exists outside of our internal models of it.




I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point  
(though different between you) are saying something that contains  
some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as  
inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying  
about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the  
horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look  
for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because  
it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you  
end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop  
worrying about externals in any direct sense at all.


Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is  
that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated  
than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a  
major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang  
in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that  
moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real,  
which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about  
preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like?


It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively  
real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are  
left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional  
previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point  
in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance  
in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of  
context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was  
making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to  
physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because  
physical reality wasn't there.








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

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


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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
Liz,

No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological  
assumption.


There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by  
logic from what we can observe. That is true.


It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly.  
Neuroscience indicates that what actually happens is "something  
inside our brains" but even that is a hypothesis. The existence of  
matter, energy, space, time, our brains, other people and so on are  
all hypotheses deduced from logic plus observation.


I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts  
like the 'Mirror Pair'


But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty  
space because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN  
such an empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on  
continuous INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional  
relationships, and there is no evidence that empty space actually  
exists outside of our internal models of it.




I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point  
(though different between you) are saying something that contains  
some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as  
inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying  
about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the  
horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look  
for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because  
it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you  
end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop  
worrying about externals in any direct sense at all.


Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is  
that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated  
than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a  
major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang  
in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that  
moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real,  
which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about  
preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like?


It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively  
real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are  
left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional  
previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point  
in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance  
in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of  
context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was  
making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to  
physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because  
physical reality wasn't there.


Just to be precise, I never say that "physical reality is not there",  
only that we have to explain it by an 1p-statistics on relative  
consistent extensions, making comp (and Theaetetus) testable.


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/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Why an empty space within which events occur does NOT exist.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Mar 2014, at 01:02, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Brent,

Yes, exactly. The agreement of nearly all minds on the values of  
empirical observations is truly remarkable. The vast edifice of  
science whose accuracy is confirmed by the incredibly complex  
technologies based upon it would not exist if this were not so. So  
there is quite obviously some actual universe 'out there' on which  
minds in general agree no matter how minds work...


But you do agree that such "physical universe out there" is not  
primitive, and arise from the "computational space".


Then if you use "computation" in the standard sense (Church thesis,  
etc.), then you get a precise explanation where the illusion of "  
primitively real universe" come from. Both time and space, and energy,  
comes from numbers indexical personal views. You might follow the  
current explanation or read the papers. It makes computationalism  
testable (and partially tested).


Bruno






Edgar



On Friday, March 7, 2014 5:03:19 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:

On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
All,

An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is  
no universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events  
and observers.


Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation  
whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually  
observe is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In  
fact, all observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or  
energy, they are never observations of empty space itself.


Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between  
matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our  
brains, hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain  
cells.


That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at  
two different levels of description and saying one is wrong because  
I can talk at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot  
more hypothetical than observation of words on my computer screen.   
"I'm observing a computer screen." is pretty concrete and direct.   
On a physical model I could say "Photons from excited phosphor atoms  
are being absorbed by chromophores in my retina which are sending  
neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing physicalism,  
"Information merging into my thought processes via preception,  
instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which  
pretty much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer  
screen."  A circle of explanation.


Brent



The idea of the existence of matter and energy, space and time (or  
more modernly, mass-energy and space-time) is of course a  
hypothesis which we use to account for the apparent regularities in  
our observations. You can't throw out a hypothesis on the basis  
that we can't observe its components directly because we don't  
observe any of reality directly, so on that basis you end up with  
solipsism.



--
You received this message because you are 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/d/optout.



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

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


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/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 08 Mar 2014, at 00:04, chris peck wrote:



Hi Bruno

>> With respect to the UDA, graves and me are just using different  
vocabulary.


Really?

the last time I quoted her:


"What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following  
premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with  
certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see  
spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down."


But that can only be a 3-1 description. She handles the 1p by a  
maximization of the interests of the copies, and that is equivalent  
with the FPI, without naming it.







Quentin said:

"That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact."

And you agreed with Quentin:


"Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. "

Are you saying you now actually agree with Greaves and that  
assigning probability 1 to both outcomes is in fact correct?


No, even Greaves agrees that this would minimize the interests of the  
copies.


Bruno







Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:40:53 -0800
From: ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 3:49:21 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
I'm not sure I follow. Tegmark said "If you repeated the cloning  
experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room  
number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence  
of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring  
about 50% of the time."


Did Tegmark really say that? I don't believe it. And he just deemed  
tell us the nature of mathematics. Of course they look random - they  
are hexadecimal translations. or very different bases anyway. Of  
course the bloody average 1's about 50% of the time, as well as 0's.  
It's binary. Which works by flipping.





That seems to me to be correct. If you do the experiment 4 times you  
get the sequences I typed out before, except I seem to have  
accidentally doubled up! The correct sequences should read:


  0001  0010  0011  0100  0101  0110  0111  1000  1001  1010   
1011  1100  1101  1110  


Depending on how you decide something looks random, I'd say quite a  
few of those sequences do. And 0s do occur 50% of the time overall,  
for sure.


binary relates to other bases simple if the other base is in the  
series 2^n, and arithmetically otherwise. For example, convert the  
following to hexadecimal without a calculator, in two steps only.


1101101100111111

it's 2^n so easy peasy. Just copy the sequence below, then with your  
cursor break the copy up into sets of four.


1101      1010  0001  0011   1100  0011

the right to left column value of binary goes 1,2,4,8 so putting it  
round the same way as the binary that's 8, 4, 2, 1.  So if you have  
1101 and you want to convert to hex, you jusmultiply the value in  
each binary column by 1 or 2 or 4, or 8 depending on its position.  
So 1101 would be 1x8 + 1x4 + 0x2 + 1x1 = 15 in decimal which counts  
in 10's. But hex counts in 16's, replacing everything aftter 10 with  
a letter of the alphabet, thus 15d --> Eh


I just taught a lot of people how to suck eggs right there. But  
maybe there was ONE person that wasn't 100% and is glad to now know  
hex :o)



I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in  
most sequences? I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the  
16 sequences above) or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with  
longer sequences. Maybe a mathematician can enlighten me?


Yeah it's basically a load of bollocks any much significance as it's  
an archetype of the base and all the translations intrinsic in most  
implementations. Ask why the pattern doesn't remain constant through  
the bases, allowing for translation.


I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the  
chapters I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make  
his subject matter seem more accessible.


"...I will describe..[reality from math] the greatest most large  
infinity of all the others to date" is what sticks in my mind. First  
time I read that, it put me on the floor.


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

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

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

RE: 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
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:56 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 

> You seem innocent of how the drug cartels operate and just how violent
they are.

 

I not only know they're very violent I know why they're violent. If
government made chocolate bars illegal the demand for chocolate bars would
not end and organizations would come into existance to fill that demand.
And the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Nestles candy
company couldn't sue each other in the courts and so would have no way to
settle disputes except through baseball bats and machine guns.

Come on man nobody is going to kill someone else over a bar of chocolate..
there are no chocolate deals gone bad. There are plenty of Meth deals that
have gone bad. But sure in principal agree - and think government should get
out of regulating our personal lives. I think government has a role to play
in enforcing correct labeling and ingredients (according to labeling) that
it should publish standards and issue warnings. But not enforce monopolies -
as it does with medical & dental practice, and the drug sector for example. 

 

> Then who would ever want to live under a "free market system" if as you
admit the transnational drug gangs are an exemplar of a well evolved free
market?

 

There is no disputing matters of taste so you could say if you wished that
markets, and therefore people, shouldn't have too much freedom; but you
can't say that the Black Market isn't a free market.

Yes I can, I just did. A black market degenerates into a cutthroat cartel,
which is the antithesis of freedom. There is no freedom in a market
dominated by ruthless criminality. Don't let those colored sunglasses blind
you. But sure, as you said; it's a matter of tastes. Not my choice; I think
there are much better flavors than your free market. that Ayn Rand blood
stew smothered in a rich topping of greed.

Chris de Morsella

 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/d/optout.

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

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 21:06, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:




On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:59:06 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 07 Mar 2014, at 17:05, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:



An argument on its own merits is presumably either valid or  
invalid, and either sound or unsound.  Regarding UDA's soundness:   
I have no problem saying Yes Doctor.  Similarly I have no problem  
with the Church thesis.  But when it comes to Arithmetical Realism,  
I don't know of any convincing reasons to believe it.


You don't believe in the prime numbers?

All theories presuppose arithmetical realism. Many notions, like the  
notion of digital machine presupposes arithmetical realism. Comp or  
just Church thesis don't make sense without AR.
AR is not an hypothesis in metaphysics, it is the name of the  
beliefs in elementary arithmetic. It is a set of mathematical  
hypothesis, together with its usual semantic the structure (N, +, *).


Heh, yes, I believe in prime numbers.


All right. That's arithmetical realism. Unless you believe that the  
truth of "there are prime numbers" is a consequence of physics, or of  
the existence of a primitive physical universe.





But in "The Origin of Physical Laws and Sensations" you wrote of AR  
that it is "the assumption that arithmetical propositions ... are  
true independently of me, you, humanity, the physical universe (if  
that exists), etc."


Just to make it clear. Without this you cannot assess something like  
"Church thesis", which identify all possible classes of computable  
functions from N to N. Some could argue that this is even more  
demanding than AR.





A couple other accounts of how things might be that I take seriously  
are (1) physicalism in the sense that arithmetical propositions  
might only be true when physically realized,


No problem, and indeed this would make comp false. of course, if you  
really defend that thesis, you have to explain and prove the existence  
of infinitely many prime numbers by using physics, and this without  
presupposing addition and multiplication of integers. I am not even  
sure how you will just defined what is prime number.




or even (2) relativism in the sense that arithmetical propositions  
might only be true for humanlike brains,


OK, but same remark. Defined human-like brain, and give me a proof  
that 1+1=2 from that definition.





with an alethiology of the sort preferred by the American pragmatist  
school of philosophy.


keep in mind that you mention people who are Aristotelian, and the  
point I do is only that IF comp is true, THEN such approach get  
inconsistent or epistemologically non sensical.




And a third meta-account is that reality might be a way that doesn't  
make sense to me.


Then indeed comp is false, but also physics, etc. No problem.



Four options plus an ignorance prior and little evidence gives me  
about 25% confidence for each. :)


ONLY IF you develop your alternate assumptions. The idea that "1+1 is  
prime" independently of human is far more simple (and used) than the  
idea that "1+1 is prime" is relative to the human brain.
The axiomatic of natural numbers is far more simple than anything  
else. You can always propose a much more complex theory to falsify a  
simple set of axioms.


Then, with respect to the UDA, to make much more complex a theory just  
to avoid a mathematical problem is not good science, imo.


I can present "my" theory(*). Can you present yours? I agree that comp  
might be false, but today that is speculation, and it is useless to  
speculate on the negation of a theory to avoid testing it.


Keep in mind that I do not defend comp, on the contrary I only show it  
testable, and show that thanks to Gödel and QM, it works pretty well.



(*) Classical logic + (for all x and y):

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

or if you prefer

0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1))  -> x = y
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

And this is not just the theory of numbers (on which most people  
agree), it is proved to be, once comp is assumed at the meta-level,  
the "theory of everything" including consciousness and physics.  
(Something I try to explain to Liz and some others right now, and is  
the result of my research.
Is that not simple and elegant :) Well, my point is only that this is  
testable.


Bruno





-Gabe



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

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


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

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
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 10:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

 

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

 


  _  


>>> Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be
taxed and taxed heavily

 

>> So you think it likely that people will not voluntarily use less energy
but will vote for politicians who force then to do so. I don't.  

 

> Most people WILL voluntarily use less energy

 

>>If most people can use less energy, and most people want to use less
energy, then why don't most people use less energy; why isn't energy
consumption going down? 

Perhaps the fact that in just one year 2012, more than $500 Billion was
spent globally on advertising of one form or another, and this is not an
outlier year. When a half a trillion dollars is spent to encourage people to
consume goods and services.. to feel impulse needs, to experience desire,
sexual desire you don't think that that has an effect? On what planet is
that? The incessant propaganda of materialism has been drenching our mind
space - as evidenced by how much more we spend globally (and in this country
as well) on pushing product than we do on all sectors of education combined.
Of course it has an effect, especially considering that this mass media
messaging has been going on for more than a hundred years, if we start the
mass media era with Marconi and radio. 

>>And without cheap energy how are we going to fix nitrogen from the air to
fertilize the plants that 7 billion people eat. 

Permaculture has demonstrated high yield sustainable practice. We won't have
cheap nitrogen; agriculture is going to have to get off of its
petro-chemical addiction; a terrible addiction that has led to wide spread
mono-cropping (a biologically insane practice) that is made possible by
slathering phenomenal quantities of various petro-chemical products - from
the pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, to the fertilizers. When money and
the profit motive took over our land through the - self afforded right to
print money that a private cartel of anglo-american, but also franco-german
banking cartels have given for themselves. The degree to which a few money
center banks can leverage their real assets is not only insane it is clearly
not based on any real substance and stinks of criminality and naked ugly
greed.

When the power of money took over the land of this earth the rate of rape of
the land of this earth increased dramatically, and now comes the hangover.
No. you will certainly shout the party must go on. I know, I feel ya, but it
won't because it can't. Every single sector of modern life depends on
petroleum products - even when this is not apparent. Agriculture is one of
those places. The natural soil fertility has been poisoned to death by the
poisons of Monsanto and Bayer, soil under onslaught by mono crop industrial
profit motive driven agriculture that views land in the same manner as it
views any fungible resource. Money rules right?

Global oil production has peaked; the argument about it is over. This has
been masked by the shale oil (kerogen) and gas plays, and by the Canadian
tar sands national sacrifice zones, which are bringing - very temporary -
supplies online, but conventional oil production has peaked globally and has
entered into inexorable decline. There are no new Ghawar fields on planet
earth; petroleum geologists are good, and they know where to look. Some new
fields will be discovered of course in places like the Arctic that once were
covered in ice, or in very deep water fields, but there is nothing left like
Ghawar that had in the beginning an energy return of as much as 100 times
invested energy. The signs are clear. For example the recent massive tax
breaks that were given to the oil sector by the state of Alaska and sold to
the public as a measure that would lead to a big increase in production.
well. where is the new production? 

All of this at a juncture in history when hundred of millions of aspiring
people are trying to join the material land they see on TV and at the malls;
which means that the global gap between demand for oil and supply is going
to hit the global economy like a jack hammer - IMO. Because as soon as
things anemically begin to recover the demand for oil increases - and there
is no swing supply. The Saudis do not have it. Ghawar is sucking up salt
water now.. more and more. What this means is that the global spot market
price for oil spikes, driving up the cost of everything - at all levels of
production and distribution, sending the global economy into a tail spin
once again - more social dislocation. 

We have entered the era of jettisoning countries - ask any Greek. It is
becoming like a game of musical chairs, a very gruesome game of musical
chairs. 

The global economy remains 

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 20:17, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/7/2014 1:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 07 Mar 2014, at 10:04, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Brent):



On 07 Mar 2014, at 06:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 9:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
A related question is, is there any such thing as true  
randomness at all? Or is every case of true randomness an  
instance of FPI?


Or is FPI just a convoluted way to pretend there isn't true  
randomness?


What do you mean by "true randomness"?

I have no problem with that notion, though. I use it in the sense  
of total arbitrariness. I illustrate this by giving my favorite  
binary true random sequence: it is


1...

It is the "true random sequence" of the superlucky guy (or super  
unlucky , in case he bet on zero!).


But for the FPI, for example in the iterated WM-duplication, all  
you need is too realize that the the vast majority of 1p  
experienced experience is algorithmic-incompressible. That is  
random enough.





Hmm, Brent, you were perhaps meaning by "true randomness" the  
following:


1) you assume a 3p primitive physical reality,
2) you assume it can contain primitive, irreducible random events.


I'm not sure what 1) means.  I was hypothesizing (not assuming) 2).


"1)" means that there is a primitive physical reality which has to be  
assumed and can't be explained by something else (non physical). That  
would make the "irreducible random events" irreducibly random. I just  
try to grasp what you mean by "true randomness".


I use terms like "theory", "assumption", "postulate", "hypothesis" as  
basically synonymous.









That is logically consistent, so I am agnostic, but I believe that  
invoking such "true randomness" in an explanation is just a god-of- 
the-gap type of explanation. it is like "don't ask" or "don't try  
to understand".


It is more like, "Some things just happen."...like a UD.


The existence of the UD is a consequence of elementary axioms in  
arithmetic (like x+0=x, etc.).


I can't hardly imagine something less random than that.

"Some things just happens" seems to me as convincing than "God made  
it, and less us talk on something else".


As I said, that is the "don't ask" idea.

Bruno







Brent



I feel close to Einstein on this, who define "insanity" by the  
belief in such "true 3p randomness". I don't push it that far though.


Bruno






Bruno





Brent

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.


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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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

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


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/d/optout.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

[Bruno Marchal]

On 07 Mar 2014, at 19:22, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 11:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a  
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first  
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of  
being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a  
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.  
But I can still say yes to the doctor, because I can believe that  
my consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in  
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible  
for that consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with  
hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious  
of?


Well, either in some other "here and now", as this is an indexical,  
or of something else (in some altered state of consciousness which  
might have nothing to do with "here and now"), or it might just not  
be conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious  
in some metaphorical way, like when we say that a machine can  
think, which really means only that a machine can support a  
thinking/conscious first person agent.


And without support...no consciousness.


Right.
Arithmetic contains infinity of "supports", and the consciousness of  
the universal and virgin machine is filtered through them.







The conscious-thinker has to be a first person, not a body. The  
first lesson of computationalism is that "I" am not "my body", I  
own or borrow it only. In principle, I can get another one.


Not a body I can understand (although I think a body and even an  
environment may be necessary).


I put the needed environment in the "generalized body or brain".




But you also say "not a computation".


Because "computation" are 3p. Both computation and provability are not  
conscious 1p notions. Only "[]p & p" makes sense for this, as it  
behaves like a knowledge operator. Consciousness is the non doubtable  
part of self-knowledge. Computations are only 3p describable sequences  
of relative states brought by some universal numbers.


Bruno






Brent

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

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


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/d/optout.