RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 6:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback If my joke works at all, it needs you to take that quoted line out of context. (If I understand correctly, committing in a version control system is booking in your changes so they are accessible to others...?) That is one aspect of it for sure. Looked at from another angle it is also the process of merging in the change deltas (for CVS type repositories; GIT does it differently, but conceptually it is similar) However; if you think of the case of a main trunk branch (and there can be multiple such branches); committing a branched change set, back into main is the act of merging these changes into this trunk-line of main. On 30 March 2014 13:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home. Typical guy :-) I don't know about the guy bit, but certainly typical for someone with a spouse/significant other, and life outside of work :). And as I mentioned, if I knew I was going to have a quiet evening at home (as opposed to going out to theatre, say), and I thought the commit was not likely to be problematic, then I would sometimes commit later in the day on the understanding that I would log in again remote at say 8:30 or 9 pm - just to check things, and fix any unpredicted problems, or back out if things went completely pear shaped. The point was that the repository system (which is very common - the only exception I know of is Aegis) forced this sort of behaviour. Incidently, in Aegis, the start of a commit would lock the repository. If the commit builds and passes its regression tests, the code is added to the repository, otherwise its is failed, and the next person attempting a commit is processed. At no stage is it possible for a commit to break the build. Trouble is Aegis is not popular, mainly because it doesn't play nicely with the Windows operating system. I have tried to come up with a way of implementing this protocol with the other popular SCMs used - mainly subversion, but also perforce, but haven't succeeded. Git comes close though - people commit to their local repo, then post a pull request. The owner of the master repository then does a pull, and either passes or fails the commit. If the master repository owner is automated, then you get pretty much the Aegis protocol. 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email 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: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark
On 29 Mar 2014, at 10:24, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 29 March 2014 19:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: A functionalist could agree that a computer can replicate his consciousness but it would not really be him. There is no explicit or implicit position on personal identity in functionalism. This is weird. I guess you mean your notion of functionalism, which is too much general I think, but I was still thinking it could have a relation with functionalism in the math sense, where an object is defined by its functional relations with other objects, and the identity *is* in the functionality. Then function is always used in two very different sense, especially in computer science, as it can be extensional function (defined by the functionality), or its intension (the code, the description, the body). Could your functionalist say yes to a doctor, which build the right computer (to replicate his consciousness), and add enough original atoms to preserve the identity? Is someone saying yes to that doctor, but only if a priest blesses the artificial brain with holy water a functionalist? Can you describe an experience refuting functionalism (in your sense)? Just to help me to understand. Thanks. A person could conceivably say the following: it is impossible for a computer to be conscious because consciousness is a magical substance that comes from God. Therefore, if you make an artificial brain it may behave like a real brain, but it will be a zombie. God could by a miracle grant the artificial brain consciousness, and he could even grant it a similar consciousness to my own, so that it will think it is me. Hmm... OK, but usually comp is not just that a computer can be conscious, but that it can be conscious (c= can support consciousness) in virtue of doing computation. That is why I add sometime qua computatio to remind this. If functionalism accept a role for a magical substance, it is obviously non computationalism. Of course, the computer or computing device must be doing the computations; if not it is unconscious or only potentially consciousness. I agree. A non working computer, or a frozen brain, or a Gödel number, cannot think (assuming comp) relatively to us (looking at the non working computer). The person itself might still think from her point of view, in a parallel reality or in arithmetic, etc. But this is because in that parallel reality the computer is supposed to work. If we could freeze all instantiations of that computer, the person associated with it would absolutely dead. Of course that is impossible to do. However, it won't *really* be me, because it could only be me if we were numerically identical, and not even God can make two distinct things numerically identical. Even with God. This makes the argument weird. Even if God cannot do that. But it can make sense, with magic matter, many things can make sense. It's not so weird, since even God or magic can't do something logically impossible like make 1 = 2, Is 1=2 logically impossible? I doubt this. It is certainly arithmetically impossible, but all propositions of arithmetic are independent of most logics. and under one theory of personal identity (which by the way I think is completely wrong) that is what would have to happen for a person to survive teleportation. From her first person points of view, in some non-comp theory. I don't accept this position, but it is the position many people have on personal identity, and it is independent of their position on the possibility of computer consciousness. OK. I think you have to specify whether comp means merely that a computer simulation of a brain can be conscious or go the whole way with Bruno's conclusion that there is no actual physical computer and all possible computations are necessarily implemented by virtue of their status as platonic objects. It is not so much in virtue of their status as platonic object (which seems to imply some metaphysical hypothesis), but in virtue of being true independently of my will, or even of the notion of universe, god, etc. But there is the further notion of implementation. The obvious objection is that computations might be true but they cannot give rise to consciousness unless implemented on a physical computer. Only IF you assume that one universal machine (the physical universe or some part of it) has a special (metaphysical) status, and that it plays a special role. Implementation in computer science is defined purely by a relation between a universal machine/number and a machine/number (which can be universal or not). u implements machine x if phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y) for all y, and that can be
Re: Climate models
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to immediately and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere, but it's entirely possible and I would even say probable that would be the dangerous and radical thing to do. Coal is much vilified and I don't like the pollution it causes anymore than you do, but the world is not simple and the fact remains that without coal half a billion people in China would not have been lifted out of grinding poverty since 2000; one of the most encouraging developments in this century. Cut out that energy source and they and many many more would slip back into poverty and we would have to face all the social turmoil (like war) that would entail. The fact remains that there is simply no way to keep 7 billion large mammals of the same species alive, much less happy, on this planet without using lots of energy; and the environmentalists ludicrous solution of windmills and moonbeams just doesn't cut the mustard. and those of our children and their children on that assumption. Let our grandchildren fight their own wars! In the USA during the Vietnam war the constant mantra was we must fight now so our grandchildren don't have to. Well the USA lost that war, but would it have been any better off today if it had won? I don't see how. I feel that my children's children's happiness is no more important than my own; and I know that my children's children will have very powerful new tools to deal with problems that I do not have. If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have been between, say, 1960 and 1999 Any reduction in CO2 emission levels made today would take decades to show up as less CO2 in the atmosphere, and longer than that to show up as cooler temperatures if it ever did. then we at least know roughly what to expect If you believe the climate models, and I don't see why you would, and if we obeyed the multitrillion dollar Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be what you're suggesting, then what you'd expect is a 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius reduction in temperature in the year 2100 over what it would have been without the protocol. So I say let our grandchildren find a better solution when they have access to a much much better toolkit and when they may actually know what is important and what is not. 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: Climate models
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5. Doesn't exactly comport with the theory that it's all an environmentalist conspiracy, does it. I know of no such environmental conspiracy, it takes brains to be a successful conspirator. As Napoleon said Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. 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: Climate models
The economist Tol, from the Netherlands, resigned a few days ago, objecting to the latest IPCC update exaggerating the negative impacts of GW. He is merely an economist and not a climate scientist, but I suspect he has nothing to lose telling the truth. If IPCC/UN was talking ground truth, they'd be pushing cleantech at the top of the list, they are not, so its government(?) UN(?) control that they seem to be after. To me this is harmful to the middle class in the world, but I am a distinct minority in this assessment. -Original Message- From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Mar 30, 2014 11:27 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5. Doesn't exactly comport with the theory that it's all an environmentalist conspiracy, does it. I know of no such environmental conspiracy, it takes brains to be a successful conspirator. As Napoleon said Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. 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: Climate models
On 31 March 2014 04:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to immediately and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere Since you have made the incorrect assumption that I am assuming this, I guess there is no point in reading the rest of your post. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Climate models
On 31 March 2014 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5. Doesn't exactly comport with the theory that it's all an environmentalist conspiracy, does it. I know of no such environmental conspiracy, it takes brains to be a successful conspirator. As Napoleon said Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Or as Arthur C Clarke said, Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Climate models
Oh, OK, almost said :-) (But he should have!) What he actually said was something like We can design a system that is proof against accident and stupidity, but not one that is proof against deliberate malice. But I prefer my version TBH. On 31 March 2014 10:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 March 2014 04:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:11 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5. Doesn't exactly comport with the theory that it's all an environmentalist conspiracy, does it. I know of no such environmental conspiracy, it takes brains to be a successful conspirator. As Napoleon said Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Or as Arthur C Clarke said, Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Climate models
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:19 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Climate models On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to immediately and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere, but it's entirely possible and I would even say probable that would be the dangerous and radical thing to do. Coal is much vilified and I don't like the pollution it causes anymore than you do, but the world is not simple and the fact remains that without coal half a billion people in China would not have been lifted out of grinding poverty since 2000; one of the most encouraging developments in this century. Cut out that energy source and they and many many more would slip back into poverty and we would have to face all the social turmoil (like war) that would entail. The fact remains that there is simply no way to keep 7 billion large mammals of the same species alive, much less happy, on this planet without using lots of energy; and the environmentalists ludicrous solution of windmills and moonbeams just doesn't cut the mustard. A prescription of full speed ahead, burn it all up, as fast as we possibly can is a 100% guarantee of complete disastrous sudden onset collapse - as the entire world hits the resource depletion wall all at once at peak consumption rates -- in which many billions of people will certainly die horrible deaths. What you are advocating will result in the mass death of billions of humans and the certain extinction of a huge number of species - for an extra ten or fifteen years of continuing to burn fossil energy as rapidly as the world can extract it. It seems fairly obvious to me, that you are ill equipped to mentally deal with the impending collapse in recoverable supplies - across all forms of carbon energy being drilled for or mined - and so you live in a pretend world of make believe eternally available reserves of fossil energy. It must be comforting to live in this make believe world of cornucopian availability of fossil energy; but it is a fictional world model that exists in your brain for sure - and in the brains of all the cornucopian fools who like you participate in this delusional wishful thinking idea that the world is not in fact running out of marginally recoverable fossil energy reserves. Fortunately wiser people than yourself are advocating that we begin to transition away from these fossil supplies while we still have a marginally recoverable supply of fossil energy to use as cushions during the transition period so that we can have in place other energy production systems -- based on harvesting the solar flux directly or indirectly - available and already in place for when these fossil energy reserves enter into inexorable decline - as in fact they are or will soon be. Those, who continue to delude themselves, with this absurd notion that fossil energy will always be available (or at least will be available for a very long period of time - more than a hundred years say) are deluded fools and the useful tools of the fossil energy billionaires, who are driven by narrow economic self-interest to defend the future value of their carbon reserves (consequences be damned) Yes, I am calling the brilliant John Clark. a (pompous) fool. a self-deluded idiot, living in a mind infected by magical thinking. In the real world fossil energy reserves have either already peaked or will soon be peaking - and this includes recoverable coal as well as recoverable oil gas. Yours truly, Chris de Morsella and those of our children and their children on that assumption. Let our grandchildren fight their own wars! In the USA during the Vietnam war the constant mantra was we must fight now so our grandchildren don't have to. Well the USA lost that war, but would it have been any better off today if it had won? I don't see how. I feel that my children's children's happiness is no more important than my own; and I know that my children's children will have very powerful new tools to deal with problems that I do not have. If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have been between, say, 1960 and 1999 Any reduction in CO2 emission levels made today would take decades to show up as less CO2 in the atmosphere, and longer than that to show up as cooler temperatures if it ever did. then we at least know roughly what to expect If you believe the climate models, and I don't see why you would, and if we obeyed the multitrillion dollar Kyoto Protocol, which seems to be what you're suggesting, then what you'd expect is a 0.11 to 0.21 degrees Celsius reduction in
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
Ah, I didn't realise it was a joke. I guess it must be a dig at commitment-phobia, but I can't seem to twist it into something funny. Nevermind. On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 02:36:39PM +1300, LizR wrote: If my joke works at all, it needs you to take that quoted line out of context. (If I understand correctly, committing in a version control system is booking in your changes so they are accessible to others...?) On 30 March 2014 13:30, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home. Typical guy :-) I don't know about the guy bit, but certainly typical for someone with a spouse/significant other, and life outside of work :). And as I mentioned, if I knew I was going to have a quiet evening at home (as opposed to going out to theatre, say), and I thought the commit was not likely to be problematic, then I would sometimes commit later in the day on the understanding that I would log in again remote at say 8:30 or 9 pm - just to check things, and fix any unpredicted problems, or back out if things went completely pear shaped. The point was that the repository system (which is very common - the only exception I know of is Aegis) forced this sort of behaviour. Incidently, in Aegis, the start of a commit would lock the repository. If the commit builds and passes its regression tests, the code is added to the repository, otherwise its is failed, and the next person attempting a commit is processed. At no stage is it possible for a commit to break the build. Trouble is Aegis is not popular, mainly because it doesn't play nicely with the Windows operating system. I have tried to come up with a way of implementing this protocol with the other popular SCMs used - mainly subversion, but also perforce, but haven't succeeded. Git comes close though - people commit to their local repo, then post a pull request. The owner of the master repository then does a pull, and either passes or fails the commit. If the master repository owner is automated, then you get pretty much the Aegis protocol. 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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. -- 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 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback
On 30 March 2014 17:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Ah, I didn't realise it was a joke. I guess it must be a dig at commitment-phobia, but I can't seem to twist it into something funny. Sorry. I will try harder next time. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi everyone: I am currently interested in two questions: Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno. If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of possible universes? Comments welcome. Thanks Hal Ruhl DEFINITIONS: i) Distinction: That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors. ii) Devisor: That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some divisors are thus collections of divisors.] iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s). MODEL: 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors. Call this set “A”. “A” encompasses every distinction. “A” is thus itself a divisor by definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times [“A” contains “A” which contains “A” and so on. 2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to change? It cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one. This is a type of incompleteness. [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes another] That is the “N”s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless meaningful to them. [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic Systems – See Godel.] The “N” are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition. They each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction. They thereby transition into “S”s. 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. 5) Some of the “S”s resulting from “N”s [see (3)] may themselves be incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction family. They must evolve – via similar incompleteness driven transitions - until “complete” in the sense of (3). 6) Assumption # A2: Each element of “A” is a universe state. 7) The result is a “flow” of “S”s most of which are encompassing more and more distinction with each transition. 8) This flow is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from element to element of the All. That is (by A2) a transition from a universe state to a successor universe state. 9) Our Universe’s evolution would be one such path on which the S constantly gets larger. 10) Since incompleteness can have multiple resolutions the path of an evolving “S” may split into multiple paths at any transition. 11) A path may also originate on an incomplete “S” not just the Ns. 12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions. 13) Transition paths [“traces” may be a better term] can be of any length. 14) A particular transition may not resolve any incompleteness of the subject evolving S. 15) White Rabbits: Since many elements of A are very large, large transitions could become infrequent on a long path [trace] whereon the particular S itself gets large. (Also few White Rabbits if both sides of the divisors on either side of the transition are sufficiently similar in size). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
roots of polynomials
For those who enjoyed the tour into the Mandelbrot set, there's also: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html 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: Climate models
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 10:33:55 PM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:19 AM *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: *Subject:* Re: Climate models On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 7:44 PM, LizR liz...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives You're assuming that the safe and conservative thing to do is to immediately and radically cut the amount of carbon injected into the atmosphere, but it's entirely possible and I would even say probable that would be the dangerous and radical thing to do. Coal is much vilified and I don't like the pollution it causes anymore than you do, but the world is not simple and the fact remains that without coal half a billion people in China would not have been lifted out of grinding poverty since 2000; one of the most encouraging developments in this century. Cut out that energy source and they and many many more would slip back into poverty and we would have to face all the social turmoil (like war) that would entail. The fact remains that there is simply no way to keep 7 billion large mammals of the same species alive, much less happy, on this planet without using lots of energy; and the environmentalists ludicrous solution of windmills and moonbeams just doesn't cut the mustard. A prescription of full speed ahead, burn it all up, as fast as we possibly can is a 100% guarantee of complete disastrous sudden onset collapse – as the entire world hits the resource depletion wall all at once at peak consumption rates -- in which many billions of people will certainly die horrible deaths. What you are advocating will result in the mass death of billions of humans and the certain extinction of a huge number of species – for an extra ten or fifteen years of continuing to burn fossil energy as rapidly as the world can extract it. It seems fairly obvious to me, that you are ill equipped to mentally deal with the impending collapse in recoverable supplies – across all forms of carbon energy being drilled for or mined – and so you live in a pretend world of make believe eternally available reserves of fossil energy. It must be comforting to live in this make believe world of cornucopian availability of fossil energy; but it is a fictional world model that exists in your brain for sure – and in the brains of all the cornucopian fools who like you participate in this delusional wishful thinking idea that the world is not in fact running out of marginally recoverable fossil energy reserves. Fortunately wiser people than yourself are advocating that we begin to transition away from these fossil supplies while we still have a marginally recoverable supply of fossil energy to use as cushions during the transition period so that we can have in place other energy production systems -- based on harvesting the solar flux directly or indirectly – available and already in place for when these fossil energy reserves enter into inexorable decline – as in fact they are or will soon be. Those, who continue to delude themselves, with this absurd notion that fossil energy will always be available (or at least will be available for a very long period of time – more than a hundred years say) are deluded fools and the useful tools of the fossil energy billionaires, who are driven by narrow economic self-interest to defend the future value of their carbon reserves (consequences be damned) Yes, I am calling the “brilliant” John Clark… a (pompous) fool… a self-deluded idiot, living in a mind infected by magical thinking. In the real world fossil energy reserves have either already peaked or will soon be peaking – and this includes recoverable coal as well as recoverable oil gas. Yours truly, Chris de Morsella and those of our children and their children on that assumption. Let our grandchildren fight their own wars! In the USA during the Vietnam war the constant mantra was we must fight now so our grandchildren don't have to. Well the USA lost that war, but would it have been any better off today if it had won? I don't see how. I feel that my children's children's happiness is no more important than my own; and I know that my children's children will have very powerful new tools to deal with problems that I do not have. If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have been between, say, 1960 and 1999 Any reduction in CO2 emission levels made today would take decades to show up as less CO2 in the atmosphere, and longer than that to show up as cooler temperatures if it ever did. then we at least know roughly what to expect
Re: roots of polynomials
I love the pictures. The maths is, as ever, daunting. On 31 March 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For those who enjoyed the tour into the Mandelbrot set, there's also: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html 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: Max and FPI
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure this fact. And.that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of the other stuff factors in much at all. - Hundredspossibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by a quantum strangeness dependency. Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of these things and nothing else. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. h Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently the empirically observed collapse of the wave function. To such an extreme priority this denial of objective fact be true, science would be willing to
Re: Max and FPI
I'm not sure collapse is an observed fact. Collapse is an assumption which explains how we come to measure discrete values. On 31 March 2014 16:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 3:01:04 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Mar 2014, at 05:48, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, March 24, 2014 4:48:13 AM UTC, chris peck wrote: The only person in any doubt was you wasn't it Liz? I found Tegmark's presentation very disappointing. He was alarmingly apologetic about MWI pleading that its flaws were mitigated by the fact other interpretations had similar flaws; as if the fact someone else is ill would make you less ill yourself. I think in the world of QM interpretations, with bugger all evidence to decide between them, the game is to even out the playing field in terms of flaws and then chase parsimony. Ofcourse, whether an infinite set of worlds is more or less parsimonious than just one + a few hidden variables, or one + a spooky wave function collapse, depends very much on what definition of parsimonious you find most fitting. MWI is refuted by the massive totally unexamined - some unrealized to this day - assumptions built in at the start. ? MWI seems to me to be the literal understanding of QM (without collapse). It is also a simple consequence of computationalism, except we get a multi-dreams and the question remains open if this defines a universe, a multiverse, or a multi-multiverses, etc. (results points toward a multiverse though). How can 'without collapse' in any sense be literal? Collapse is an empirically observed fact. OK...you see an elegant explanation sBould the empirically observed fact actually not be. But would even that alone have been remotely near the ballpark of things taken seriously, had there not been extreme quantum strangeness irreconcilable at that time, with the most core, most fundamental accomplishments of science to date? MWI is an extreme explanation that makes the universe infinity more complex and undiscoverable than it was before. An intolerably extreme theory unprecedented in all science, to be taken seriously, requires an even more intolerable crisis. And it just so happens at that very same point, such an extremity confronted science...quantum strangeness. But hold on a mo...I said MWI blasted complexity to the infinite limit. But that isn't true is it? MWI is Occam consistent, so the complexity malarkey is refuted good and proper. I will gladly stand corrected on that then. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that were it not for that Occam argument MWI would be placed in an untenlaable position? Glad you can agree about that. You should all really be able to agree about the hard-linking of MWI and quantumht strangeness. There's no reason why believing MW should obscure this fact. And.that Occam argument. What is that based on again, without which it wouldn't be viable. Yes that's right, it's quantum strangeness. None of the other stuff factors in much at all. - Hundredspossibly uncountably so...of largely unrealized, unexamined, assumptions are fundamental in MWI construction from Q I have pointed this out in the past. People typically try to rebut this basically the same way you try here, involving denying MWI is intrinsically linked to quantum strangeness in multiple, massive ways. I've listed some above. Each one of the examples above, demonstrate a way MWI would never have happened, or would be rendered untenable, where it not for some defence founded exclusively on quantum strangeness. At ther times I've shown how it is impossible to render MWI without implicitly making several assumptions about local realism, as to its objective truth AS WE PERCEIVE IT, it's priority in relation to other conceptions on scales of what is fundamental, and so on. It's just shocking - it used to be disturbing also - how none of you are willing to acknowledge the defining linkage of MWI and quantum strangeness. Despite massive evidence through multi[le dimensions from me. Despite obviousness. Despite complete failure to date of any one of you to refute any one of the of the hard linkages (I.e. MWI would not exist or would be thrown out without that link) that I've given. Despite the fact nothing new is ever said...the same arguments just get repeated. Despite all of them, I think, totally demolished and refuated by a quantum strangeness dependency. Like Bruno's repeat below of this argument QM is a direct consequence of these things and nothing else. Local realism is not part of QM assumption. It is a direct consequence of the linearity of the Schroedinger Equation, and the linearity of the tensor products. h Yeah? So you think that because some equations have a linearity character - which may be important, may be puzzling. But because of this, you say, thiis feature alone is enough to deny the reality of what is consistently the empirically
RE: roots of polynomials
Looked at them as well. so much emergent complexity from such simple initial conditions and equations. Beautiful haunting images. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2014 6:15 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: roots of polynomials I love the pictures. The maths is, as ever, daunting. On 31 March 2014 12:22, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: For those who enjoyed the tour into the Mandelbrot set, there's also: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week285.html 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
