Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. Lenin famously said: While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist philosophers desired authoritarianism. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 07 Jun 2014, at 12:14, LizR wrote: On 7 June 2014 22:09, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 June 2014 19:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Indeed I thought too that Liz's chart confirmed what I said for the industrial world. I remember but don't have the time to search right nox that serial killing appears more in countries with death penalty (america, russia, ...). Maybe in countries that glamourise killing - that make the killer seem cool, the hitman a hero? Or maybe the serial killer is really only looking for love. Absolutely. especially for a child brutalized by its parents in early childhood. His conception of love can be perverted. Sartre made a good analysis of Sade with that respect. Sadism is a perverted form of love. The serial killer and torturer loves genuinely their victims, in many cases. Read Zombie by Joyce Carol Oates... I guess those are not p-zombies. Might try to take a look. 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 07 Jun 2014, at 12:09, LizR wrote: On 7 June 2014 19:20, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Indeed I thought too that Liz's chart confirmed what I said for the industrial world. I remember but don't have the time to search right nox that serial killing appears more in countries with death penalty (america, russia, ...). Maybe in countries that glamourise killing - that make the killer seem cool, the hitman a hero? Humans are terrible animals. When they do not kill, they still have to watch some amount of killings in news and in movies. It is partially explained by the fact that humans (and actually all löbian) entities have the cognitive abilities to anticipate their third person vanishing and are confronted with the impossibility to anticipate the corresponding first person experience. That made them filled up with hope and fears, exploited by those who search only controls. It quickly run deep, as Eros and Tanathos have special relations, and our complex multicellular lives forced us to be 3p mortal, to leave rooms for the next generations, and then we feel very much concerned to make that generation memorizing our errors, by the natural fear to not relive the nightmares. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 07 Jun 2014, at 21:43, John Ross wrote: LizR, You need to read my book. Its main purpose is to explain the existence of the universe and it does exactly that. From what assumption? I thought you did not address that question. Also, what about consciousness? Is the brain working like a (natural) machine? Are you aware that the brain-mind identity thesis is no more working in that case? Bruno John R From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 8:01 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 14:00, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: If you think back in time long enough before there was anything anywhere you get to a point in time when there was nothing. Somehow nothing turned into something and that something or some things ultimately turned into our Universe. My theory suggests a logical answer for how this could have happened. (Well, according to eternal inflation that didn't happen anyway, but that's still rather speculative...) But in any case, if one wants to know why is there something rather than nothing? one should also ask why are there even laws of physics? So how does your model account for the existence of physics, and how does it account for the existence of the universe? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 22:30, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. And Marx would have know that how, exactly? The claim is that Marx and Engels used the withering away concept as a sop because Marx knew people would grow weary of state oppression (see quote above). That is the claim I am asking for evidence for. Sorry Liz, I misread. I agree with you, I don't think there is any evidence that Marx's work was written in bad faith. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, Delay is the most deadly form of denial. OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is evidence to support it?) I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. Lenin famously said: While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist philosophers desired authoritarianism. It would been unfair to say that they desired authoritarianism. But they didn't desire democracy either, and did not conceive that the implementations of their ideas could be done by the people in some incremental voting way. They missed the importance of democracy. Democracies are not perfect, and can be very sick, but it is better than anything else. Whatever the good idea is defended in politics, it is better to submit it to vote, and even still better when doing this without propaganda and unfair financial lobbying. Democracies can be improved, and sick democracies can be cured. Today we need something like anti-propaganda laws, and anti-special-interest lobbying or things like that. We need more democracies, not less. Today our democracies are in peril, not much due to the financial sphere, but due to the erosion of the separation of powers, which favor groups of interest again the individual interests of the majority of individuals. I don't believe in referenda, except for rare big decisions. Too much referenda is not democratic. You can influence people too much easily, by TV or other media, and it is better to vote for the wrong idea, and then to vote perhaps on some other idea after a serious long period to better evaluate if the idea was not working or not. Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. 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: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: *At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol, we just assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our infinite (then) space-time structure.* *The proposition is that if that is the case, and don't see white rabbits, it means some computations are multiplied, and exploit (perhaps) the random oracle inherent in that multiplication. * OK, so the pedagogic purpose of step 7 is to persuade us that our experiences *could* be the consequence of the above, but it doesn't yet force that conclusion (because it could still be avoided in the way I have suggested). *The step 8 does not, and cannot, refute your point above, but it can explain how far it goes near a god-of-the-gap move, or a magic move. It is close to be proved, as to counteract to step 8 you are forced (in the transfinite) to provide a matter which is non Turing emulable, and non FPI recoverable. It looks like reifying a mystery to prevent a possible partial solution to a mystery. Someone might add that matter needs a Gods blessing, also. * Step 8, if I've understood it, shows that one can evacuate all traces of computation from a primordial physical instantiation (either by substituting a filmed record, under the particular contingencies of the movie graph, or by systematically substituting each of the computational relations by fortuitous physical events). This renders the ascription of computation to the physical events as entirely gratuitous. Hence what follows is either the abandonment of CTM, or alternatively the reversal consequence. The reversal could only then be avoided by an appeal, as you say, to some (presumably presently unknown) aspect of primordial matter that is not Turing emulable in principle (e.g. that required actual computational infinities). Even after such a move, any naturally motivated appeal to computation and its putative relation with consciousness is hardly any clearer than before. My own intuition, for what its worth, has always been that any appeal to computation on the assumption of primordial matter is somewhat suspect and ad hoc. ISTM that what is supposed to be primordial about a specific set of entities and their relations is precisely that they *exclusively* underlie (or more correctly, comprise) everything that is really real. So the hierarchical structure of everything we observe thereafter - be it physical, chemical, biological, physiological, etc. - would be deemed to be underpinned, exclusively and exhaustively, by such a primordial substratum. The higher-order levels in the hierarchy could always, at least in principle, be reduced without loss to the primordial entities and their relations. They are, IOW, *re-descriptions* of primordial reality, not independent realities in themselves. If so, the problem in trying to add computation to such a hierarchy is that it must suffer the same fate - i.e. that of being reduced and eliminated as an ultimately supernumerary re-description of what is really just the primordial substratum. And consequently, if we attempt to attach consciousness to such a supernumerary re-description, it must inevitably be exposed to similar reduction and elimination. This is, I think, what the demonstrations in step 8 lay bare. By contrast, after the reversal, the primordial entities and relations are restricted to the natural numbers (or their equivalents) and their additive and multiplicative relations. It used to trouble me that the same arguments I have deployed above could seemingly equally be directed at this alternative primordial substratum. That is, that whatever was deemed to emerge from arithmetic could in the final analysis always be reduced to it again without loss and hence ultimately eliminated as being independently real. But the critical difference here, compared with the starting point of primordial matter, seems to be the natural emulation of computation and the universal machine in arithmetic. Their consequences in logic seem, at least in principle, to offer a route out of the reduction/elimination impasse by connecting an outer structure of basic arithmetical entities and relations with a much larger and more complex internal reality consisting of the modes of arithmetical truth. This latter reality is then no longer vulnerable in the same way to either reduction or elimination, though the task (substantially) remains, after a promising beginning, to connect it systematically and robustly with observed reality. It occurred to me that the relation between such a substratum and its truth domain might be suggested, albeit rather imperfectly, by an analogy with something like an LCD screen. The idea is that an enormously large (infinite?) set of possible dramatic storylines can potentially be realised by a finite set (in this case) of fundamental entities and their relations (i.e. the pixels). Of course, the analogy immediately breaks down because, in the case of the
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 07 Jun 2014, at 13:51, Richard Ruquist wrote: No, what I think is that comp cannot be falsified because it predicts a MWI universe and MWI cannot be falsified experimentally. Bruno and others seem to think that the double slit experiment is evidence for comp. But I disagree. All the detectors in the detector screen are set to observe the same single world so that when a single particle is transmitted, only one particle is detected. If the double slit were evidence for comp, many particles would be detected for one being transmitted. The consensus in the physics community is that MWI cannot be falsified or verified, otherwise it would not be considered to be an interpretation of quantum theory. Regarding reality coming from the collection of first person perspectives when there were no persons, my thinking is that comp also predicts a cosmic consciousness, essentially a god of the gap, that is the really real part of reality. What persons provide is a future that cannot be computed because of their free will. If so, all the possible futures must continually be recalculated, presumably by the cosmic consciousness. But I also think this cannot happen in a MWI block universe that is deterministic because there is no need for consciousness or free will, or even a cosmic consciousness in a deterministic universe IMO. As a result those who believe in MWI also tend to believe that our consciousness and free will is an illusion. R I disagree, but I appreciate your effort to make yourself clear. It makes easier to answer, and makes higher the probability to find what we might disagree more deeply. Let me begin by your last paragraph. I agree that the block universe is deterministic. But for me, that is a chance for free-will. I don't believe in theories or explanations of free-will in term of non determinism. I don't see how an absolute indeterminacy would implies free-will. I see free-will more as a self-indeterminacy (but different from the FPI) arising from an ability to make decisions in a frame of partial ignorance/knowledge about ourselves. God can know that I am about deciding to take another cup of coffee, but that will not prevent me to do that coffee with my free-will. Of course I have not really chosen my taste for coffee, nor my taste for searching truth. In that sense, even God has no free-will. But that sense is close to being contradictory or non sensical. The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially chose the type of future we want to belong. We can influence the statistics of the normal realities. This makes the end of the second paragraph correct with respect to comp: we cannot predict the futures notably due to the presence of persons, which can refute the predictions, or even just makes them wrong by sheer intrinsic complexity of the machines with introspective power. Does comp predicts a cosmic consciousness? Probably so, but it is not a prediction. It is more an attitude, like not taking a universal machine for a zombie. It is not so much a prediction, than a consequence of the fact that we predict our neighbors are conscious, and with comp, even so when they got an artificial brain. Sometimes ago, I would have be mute on the UM consciousness, and talk only on the Löbian one, but salvia changed my mind on this, and now I do agree with you that comp go in the direction of a cosmic consciousness, but it might be only the consciousness of the universal (virgin) machine. By virgin I mean non programmed by a particular non universal program. Does comp predicts the MWI? It depends how you interpret MWI. If you see the W like complete newtonian-like sort of realities, then comp does not predicts it, as there are only 0, 1, 2, 3, and nothing else at the ontological level. But from the + and * relational structures, all subjective appearances exists in arithmetic, seen from inside, and comp predicts the appearance of interfering computations below our substitution level. So, comp implies something similar to QM, but don't ask for a naive conception of the worlds, which typically are not, and perhaps does not, admit clear definition. The many dreams is just literal arithmetic, with mechanism assumed in the background, like MWI is just QM superpositions without an explicit mechanism/magic to make disappear all terms (but one) of the universal wave. Does the double slits experiments confirm the MWI. No, if you reify the physical worlds, as indeed this is not testable. yes, in the sense that we can put bits in superposition states and effectuate massively parallel computations, and get some results that it would be impossible to get if those computations did not take place in some reality. You detect just one particle, in the two slits, but you detect it at a place it could not have been if the multiple path stories where not realized.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I send again this post, as it seems to not go through: On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. OK. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything - my theory, The Ross Model. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything - my theory, The Ross Model. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:36 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Neutrons have a lifetime of about 15 minutes Yes, but only when they are independent and not attached to a proton or other neutrons inside the nucleus of an atom. after which they turn into an electron and a proton Yes it's due to the weak nuclear force, and under some conditions (such as inside a large unstable nucleus) the reverse can happen, a proton can emit a anti-electron and turn into a neutron. It's called Beta decay and Beta radiation is just high speed electrons (or sometimes anti-electrons). Some people (maybe a lot of people) believe neutrons live forever inside atomic nuclei. It depends on the particular atomic nuclei you're talking about. Nobody has found even a scrap of experimental evidence that the 2 neutrons inside a Helium 4 nucleus will not live forever, but the evidence is overwhelming that the 52 neutrons inside a nucleus of Strontium 90 are far from eternal, and the probability is 50% that in 29 years one of those neutrons will have undergone Beta decay. Under the Ross Model, neutrons have the same lifetime whether they are inside or outside nuclei. Then the Ross Model clearly conflicts with observation, thus if you follow the scientific method you must abandon your theory regardless of how painful that may be to you. There is no disgrace in having a theory that is wrong, all the great scientists have been wrong about something at one time or another in their career; the disgrace is holding fast to a theory long after it has been found to conflict with experiment. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 7:26 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: They laughed at Galileo ... the laughed at Copernicus ... they laughed at Einstein ... but they also laughed at Bozo the clown (Carl Sagan? And for every Einstein there are 6.02*10^23 Bozo the clowns. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
Tronnies are each a point focus of Coulomb forces. Coulomb forces spread out from this focus point in all directions at the speed of light. The tronnies travel in circles at speeds of (π/2)c so each tronnie is always at the focus of its own Coulomb force waves directed along the diameter of its circle. By the time the tronnie has completed one cycle its coulomb forces have completed 360 degrees. In entrons the tronnies cycle at frequencies of about 1.5 billion cycles per second to about 160 trillion trillion cycles per second (160 X 1024 cyc/s). I don’ know what they detected. I don’t think they know. My guess is they detected high-energy protons, maybe some high-energy anti-protons, high-energy electrons, high-energy positrons and high-energy entrons. They may have detected some neutrino entrons, but these babies are very hard to detect. I understand that they think they detected some neutrinos in an underground neutrino detector many miles from Cern. These were probably neutrino photons. I have not done the math to demonstrate all the forces acting within an alpha particle and between alpha particles. I invite all readers to do the math. Actually, the math may not be too complicated. We know the exact path of the protons and the electrons within the alpha particle. We can probably assume that in the carbon nucleus the alpha particles are approximately stationary, since carbon-12 has zero spin. I don’t know how to do computer modeling. Again I invite all readers that can do computer modeling based on my model. If you are the first to prove I am right, you may be in for a big prize. I don’t understand RM and virtual practice. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 4:36 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 8 June 2014 07:39, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Thanks for your serious questions. The answers are simple. · There is no “strong force”. Strong forces do hold atomic nuclei together. These forces are all Coulomb forces. According to Coulomb’s Law, as the distance between charged particles approach zero the forces between them approach infinity. Now an infinite force would be a “strong” force. My nuclear physics is a bit rusty but I can see that this would be true for point particles (force - infinity). But I still can't see how the arrangement of these particles is so exactly controlled, as I assume it needs to be (because you require infinite precision for these contuous forces to work correctly - unless you explain how the system deals with perturbations, as I've asked a few times.) · Forces between alpha particles (with a net charge of plus two) are repulsive at long range. At a zero range the forces are also repulsive. In between the forces between alpha exactly balance at a particular distance in many configurations, but certainly not all. That is why the nuclei of carbon-12, oxygen-16, neon-20 etc. are stable. Two alpha particles close together are stable for only an extremely short period of time in beryllium-4 which decays into two alpha particles. For Be-4 there is no perfect distance where attractive and repulsive forces balance. Can you show us the maths that proves all this? Or is it just adding up the charges involved, which isn't exactly (heehee) rocket science? · My theory accounts for everything that I have put it to test on. My entron (which is two tronnies circling at diameters that range from about 0.9339 X 10-18 m to a few centimeters) does the job that the Higgs Boson is suppose to do. That is, provide mass to other particles. The entron provides all of the mass in our Universe except for the masses of the electron and the positron. There is one entron in each photon. (All our brilliant scientist need to do is open their eyes to see millions of particles that provide mass to other particles.) When you are lying in the sun soaking up photons from the sun, your mass increased slightly with each photon absorbed. You lose a little mass when infrared entrons radiate out of your body as infrared and millimeter wave photons. There is no Higgs Boson. Billions are being spent on a wild goose chase. Entrons are describe in Chapter III. So what did they detect? · My model does not include quarks; however, I explain in Chapter VIII the internal structure of the proton. The structure of neutrons are described in Chapter XII. No quarks are needed. · As to cosmic rays and colliders, I am aware of nothing that indicates to me that the experimental evidence is inconsistent with my model. Some of the interpretations are inconsistent. Well you should check everything you can and work out whether it's consistent with the RM. Have you performed any computer simulations to see whether your
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
If there are only protons and neutrons in atomic nuclei, then you need the magical “Strong Force”. If your neutrons are a proton and an electron then you don’t need the strong force. I am sticking with my theory. jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 8:27 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:36 PM, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Neutrons have a lifetime of about 15 minutes Yes, but only when they are independent and not attached to a proton or other neutrons inside the nucleus of an atom. after which they turn into an electron and a proton Yes it's due to the weak nuclear force, and under some conditions (such as inside a large unstable nucleus) the reverse can happen, a proton can emit a anti-electron and turn into a neutron. It's called Beta decay and Beta radiation is just high speed electrons (or sometimes anti-electrons). Some people (maybe a lot of people) believe neutrons live forever inside atomic nuclei. It depends on the particular atomic nuclei you're talking about. Nobody has found even a scrap of experimental evidence that the 2 neutrons inside a Helium 4 nucleus will not live forever, but the evidence is overwhelming that the 52 neutrons inside a nucleus of Strontium 90 are far from eternal, and the probability is 50% that in 29 years one of those neutrons will have undergone Beta decay. Under the Ross Model, neutrons have the same lifetime whether they are inside or outside nuclei. Then the Ross Model clearly conflicts with observation, thus if you follow the scientific method you must abandon your theory regardless of how painful that may be to you. There is no disgrace in having a theory that is wrong, all the great scientists have been wrong about something at one time or another in their career; the disgrace is holding fast to a theory long after it has been found to conflict with experiment. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two theories may both be correct. You lost me with Turing emulable. JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything - my theory, The Ross Model. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Thirsty?
Thanx, LIZ and I appreciate that you did not write down RENEWABLE (energy). JM On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 8:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 June 2014 08:28, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz: not WATER WARS - there is plenty in th oceans. *Potable* is the word. And it is not only for thirst: it is for technology, for irrigation, for 'sweet-water' biology as well. To reduce the salt content of the seas requires ENERGY, more than we can think of today (however you would identify it ). Yes I do know there's lots of water around, 70% of the earh's surface I believe. It's not always accessible of course, even as sea water (lots of places are a large distance from the sea). I think water wars has more of a ring to it than potable water wars however -- and it's shorter to type. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
Thanks for the advice. I made a copy of your post. As to conservation of mass-energy, if this rule is correct, how did our Universe get so big? JR -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 7:03 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 11:44:06AM -0700, John Ross wrote: I have not tried Physics Review. I did try The Journal Nature and Scientific American about 10 years ago without success. I follow Daniel Boone’s philosophy, “Be sure you are right then go ahead.” Science and Nature will almost certainly bounce you, so there's almost no point at all to submitting to them. SciAm is a popular science magazine, so wouldn't be intersted. Phys Rev will be a tough sell, as they're not interested so much in fundamental questions, so you're likely to get an editorial bounce straight away. You might have more of a chance of getting a referee in some of the third tier journals like Physica, or Foundations of Physics, or New Physics Journal. But you must be prepared to answer your critics more openly and honestly than you've managed so far on this list. You will no doubt get the quite obvious criticisms about conservation laws not being satisfied that we've raised on this list. You may also get other objections - which we'd be quite interested in hearing, and also hearing how you answered them, here. Finally, you probably could get published in some of the predatory open access journals that have sprung up in the last few years. But they just take your money, and it's worth diddly squat in the long term - at that point you may as well just throw your ideas up on a webserver and go do other things. -- 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.
RE: TRONNIES - SPACE
Liz, I try to respond to all of your points. In some cases I don’t understand your points. What is RM? And I don’t understand primitive materialism. I think time is absolute and the same everywhere in our Universe and it is unrelated to space which is nothing and goes on forever. Before there was anything there was nothing, i.e. just empty space. In general mass-energy is conserved, but it must be possible to create new mass-energy, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large. John R.. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2014 4:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 8 June 2014 08:18, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I do not explain consciousness. OK, but why won't you answer ALL my questions? Every time I put more than one question in a post all but one of them gets ignored. It's hard to remember to put one in each post and split everything up (and even then some get ignored like the perturbation one). Here it is again. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 7 June 2014 04:12, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: There is a theory of everything – my theory, “The Ross Model”. You are a smart person and you are extremely interested in this subject, so sooner or later you will get around to reading my book. And I predict you will be forced to agree with me. I haven't yet managed to discover what the ontology of the RM is - is the idea primitive materialism - that space, time, matter and energy are fundamental? Do you attempt to explain consciousness? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: My theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) yes doctor (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for giving sense to artificial brain and doctor. By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong hypothesis, with consequence as radical as reminding us that Plato was Aristotle teacher, and that his theory was not Aristotelian (at least in the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends). So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp theory (which is arguably a very old idea). Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even take offense that we can imagine not following comp. Because they might not. This is a problem, because the other thing you do is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. So you are dominating people. Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a flaw if you think there is one). I show comp - something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is admittedly counter-intuitive. Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in extre dimensional reality? First, I don't express myself in that way. For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that matter goes on in extradimensional reality. With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine if its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or has a very large cardinal. Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary arithmetic (like Robinson arithmetic). I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology. Do theybelieve in MWI This is ambiguous. In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of super-atheism, as a (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become skeptical) on both a creator and a creation. So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory. What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That is not mine, that is standard material. You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the beginning. Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it. You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. Russell Standish read it...he understood. So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. I obviously shouldn't have said this, so am sorry for doing so. It is not the first time you explode. But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no case to answer'. Silence from PGC. PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he ever described anything he believes in, in plain English? Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value their dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Brunoand all of this despite it being me to be mentioning a take on falsification that the vast majority of science, historically and now would agree with? But you have not succeeded that comp + the arithmetical theaetetus is not experimentally testable in that very sense. Unless you introduce wordplay-difficulties just to prevent the admittedly naive but precise interview of the löbian number to take on. I really would not like being patronizing but let me give you an advise: never complains when people says I don't understand you. Just reply by making the point clearer. You did not
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote: Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue... On 8 June 2014 10:08, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no case to answer'. Silence from PGC. I'm afraid I missed this. I don't have time to read everything and especially tend to skip those incredibly long posts with stuff interpolated (is that the word?) into the text and nested 15 levels deep. And I am quite interested in this argument, too! Nice. That is, I believe I can see both sides, so I am interested in evidence for either. Exactly like me. And later things aggravate: exactly like all löbian number in some consciousness state. As I jokingly say, on days with an R in them I feel Bruno has the answer to life, the universe and everything, on the other days I feel the force of the materialist objections (amongst others) and feel that they refute it THUS! THUS!. Yes. You see the problem. PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he ever described anything he believes in, in plain English? I'm sure I've seen some plain English posts from PGC, and some that seem to me to make good points. But I can't quote chapter and verse on that. But flowery language abounds here, methinks, so I try to parse it and either it looks like a camel to me, my lord, or a cloud. Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value their dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Brunoand all of this despite it being me to be mentioning a take on falsification that the vast majority of science, historically and now would agree with? You should see me on the Tronnies thread, or trying to explain why time symmetry in physics may be important for understanding quantum theory. YANA.You are not alone. And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive arguments about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by some sort of logic accepting Bruno's theory. Which happens to involve things like eternal life for us, consciousness not being generated by our brains...direct links to MWI. That latest argument, I simply rejected by pointing out that not everyone does accept MWI, who accept QM. No, indeed not. Although sometimes the reasons aren't very convincing (Jim Al Khalili just really likes Bohm's take, or so he told me). But anyway consensus views get short thrift on this forum. These are really really controversial claims, and there's no way it's reasonable to think that if someone accepts comp as some high level proposal, that if they were forced to choose between that and all of the above, they can be relied on to stick with comp. And if they can't be relied on...if there's a reasonable prospect scientists will rather reject comp than accept infinities of dreams, and eternal life, and consciousness outside the body...if there's a reasonable chance they'll rather reject comp than accept that, then the thing to do WITH INTEGRITY is acknowledge that, and not be going around saying they accept something. Yes comp strikes me as highly contraversial, which is why have been trying to get to grips with it, to decide where I stand. But I have got stuck at the MGA and (I think) some Kripkean logic. If you get step 3 I am already glad. Step 7 needs the understanding of the notion of universal number when written in some (Turing universal) base. I recall the number u is universal (in the base phi_i), if phi_u(x,y)= phi_x(y). Such u is sigma_1 complete, and becomes Löbian when he proves p - []p for all p sigma_1. What you miss, and many miss, is the mathematical, actually arithmetical definition of beweisbar, the []p hypostase which is the one which explains the presence of all its rivals, the []p p, notably. The creative bomb is Gödel's theorem, and the discovery of the universal machine (hated and loved by different mathematicians, and which does bring some amount of mess in Platonia. I can't get even an infinity of computations to grok some of that stuff. Nobodies does. More precisely. No sigma_1 complete and pi_1 incomplete (machines) entities does. Pi_1 complete set (which are still arithmetical, but no more computable) can solve much more, but are still incomplete with respect to the arithmetical truth. But come on! All you need is a good diary, patience, and well, you might have good manuals
Re: Is Consciousness Computable?
On 9 June 2014 09:16, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Jun 2014, at 05:41, LizR wrote: Yes comp strikes me as highly controversial, which is why have been trying to get to grips with it, to decide where I stand. But I have got stuck at the MGA and (I think) some Kripkean logic. If you get step 3 I am already glad. Step 7 needs the understanding of the notion of universal number when written in some (Turing universal) base. I recall the number u is universal (in the base phi_i), if phi_u(x,y)= phi_x(y). Such u is sigma_1 complete, and becomes Löbian when he proves p - []p for all p sigma_1. What you miss, and many miss, is the mathematical, actually arithmetical definition of beweisbar, the []p hypostase which is the one which explains the presence of all its rivals, the []p p, notably. The creative bomb is Gödel's theorem, and the discovery of the universal machine (hated and loved by different mathematicians, and which does bring some amount of mess in Platonia. Well I believe I understand Godel's theorem - in its word-based form, at least. Understanding it arithmetically (i.e. properly) is more of a challenge. I can't get even an infinity of computations to grok some of that stuff. Nobodies does. Thank you for those kind words. (Also I feel nobodies is an interesting word and should be a crossword solution, because it contains quite a few other words ... no/bo/dies ... I will add it to my collection.) More precisely. No sigma_1 complete and pi_1 incomplete (machines) entities does. Pi_1 complete set (which are still arithmetical, but no more computable) can solve much more, but are still incomplete with respect to the arithmetical truth. But come on! All you need is a good diary, patience, and well, you might have good manuals with you like the Mendelson, Boolos, Smorynski, and you might need to see by your own eyes the equivalence between a bunch of universal numbers/languages/machines/systems. I haven't given up! But things keep happening ... distractions ... work, housework, children, husband ... I ask myself if the confusion between p-q and q-p should not be punished by laws, as propaganda. Probably, if stated a little more wordily. I encounter that often enough. Legalized drugs, make propaganda, and lies in advertising, punishable perhaps ... Yeah! (Swinging sixties here I come!) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 08 Jun 2014, at 14:28, David Nyman wrote: On 7 June 2014 20:05, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: At step 7, it is not in principle. Like in the preceding protocol, we just assume the existence of an infinite running of the UD in our infinite (then) space-time structure. The proposition is that if that is the case, and don't see white rabbits, it means some computations are multiplied, and exploit (perhaps) the random oracle inherent in that multiplication. OK, so the pedagogic purpose of step 7 is to persuade us that our experiences *could* be the consequence of the above, but it doesn't yet force that conclusion (because it could still be avoided in the way I have suggested). The step 8 does not, and cannot, refute your point above, but it can explain how far it goes near a god-of-the-gap move, or a magic move. It is close to be proved, as to counteract to step 8 you are forced (in the transfinite) to provide a matter which is non Turing emulable, and non FPI recoverable. It looks like reifying a mystery to prevent a possible partial solution to a mystery. Someone might add that matter needs a Gods blessing, also. Step 8, if I've understood it, shows that one can evacuate all traces of computation from a primordial physical instantiation (either by substituting a filmed record, under the particular contingencies of the movie graph, or by systematically substituting each of the computational relations by fortuitous physical events). This renders the ascription of computation to the physical events as entirely gratuitous. Hence what follows is either the abandonment of CTM, or alternatively the reversal consequence. The reversal could only then be avoided by an appeal, as you say, to some (presumably presently unknown) aspect of primordial matter that is not Turing emulable in principle (e.g. that required actual computational infinities). Even after such a move, any naturally motivated appeal to computation and its putative relation with consciousness is hardly any clearer than before. My own intuition, for what its worth, has always been that any appeal to computation on the assumption of primordial matter is somewhat suspect and ad hoc. ISTM that what is supposed to be primordial about a specific set of entities and their relations is precisely that they *exclusively* underlie (or more correctly, comprise) everything that is really real. So the hierarchical structure of everything we observe thereafter - be it physical, chemical, biological, physiological, etc. - would be deemed to be underpinned, exclusively and exhaustively, by such a primordial substratum. The higher-order levels in the hierarchy could always, at least in principle, be reduced without loss to the primordial entities and their relations. They are, IOW, *re-descriptions* of primordial reality, not independent realities in themselves. If so, the problem in trying to add computation to such a hierarchy is that it must suffer the same fate - i.e. that of being reduced and eliminated as an ultimately supernumerary re-description of what is really just the primordial substratum. And consequently, if we attempt to attach consciousness to such a supernumerary re-description, it must inevitably be exposed to similar reduction and elimination. This is, I think, what the demonstrations in step 8 lay bare. By contrast, after the reversal, the primordial entities and relations are restricted to the natural numbers (or their equivalents) and their additive and multiplicative relations. It used to trouble me that the same arguments I have deployed above could seemingly equally be directed at this alternative primordial substratum. That is, that whatever was deemed to emerge from arithmetic could in the final analysis always be reduced to it again without loss and hence ultimately eliminated as being independently real. But the critical difference here, compared with the starting point of primordial matter, seems to be the natural emulation of computation and the universal machine in arithmetic. Their consequences in logic seem, at least in principle, to offer a route out of the reduction/elimination impasse by connecting an outer structure of basic arithmetical entities and relations with a much larger and more complex internal reality consisting of the modes of arithmetical truth. This latter reality is then no longer vulnerable in the same way to either reduction or elimination, though the task (substantially) remains, after a promising beginning, to connect it systematically and robustly with observed reality. It occurred to me that the relation between such a substratum and its truth domain might be suggested, albeit rather imperfectly, by an analogy with something like an LCD screen. The idea is that an enormously large (infinite?) set of possible dramatic storylines can
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 9 June 2014 03:33, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 7:26 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: They laughed at Galileo ... the laughed at Copernicus ... they laughed at Einstein ... but they also laughed at Bozo the clown (Carl Sagan? And for every Einstein there are 6.02*10^23 Bozo the clowns. You exaggerate, but only slightly. (Then again, Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 9 June 2014 06:19, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Tronnies are each a point focus of Coulomb forces. Are you saying tronnies aren't particles, but excitations of this Coulomb field? Actually this implies that only the field exists, tronnies are just a convenient way of indicating where it's strongest. (Assuming they have no mass, at least, as you say.) Coulomb forces spread out from this focus point in all directions at the speed of light. The tronnies travel in circles at speeds of (π/2)c so each tronnie is always at the focus of its own Coulomb force waves directed along the diameter of its circle. By the time the tronnie has completed one cycle its coulomb forces have completed 360 degrees. In entrons the tronnies cycle at frequencies of about 1.5 billion cycles per second to about 160 trillion trillion cycles per second (160 X 1024 cyc/s). At the focus for point particles implies infinite precision. How do you deal with perturbations if your model needs infinite precision to work? I don’ know what they detected. I don’t think they know. My guess is they detected high-energy protons, maybe some high-energy anti-protons, high-energy electrons, high-energy positrons and high-energy entrons. They may have detected some neutrino entrons, but these babies are very hard to detect. I understand that they think they detected some neutrinos in an underground neutrino detector many miles from Cern. These were probably neutrino photons. You need to be able to at least explain existing results for your model to be taken seriously. I have not done the math to demonstrate all the forces acting within an alpha particle and between alpha particles. I invite all readers to do the math. Actually, the math may not be too complicated. We know the exact path of the protons and the electrons within the alpha particle. We can probably assume that in the carbon nucleus the alpha particles are approximately stationary, since carbon-12 has zero spin. Well, it really should be up to you to do the maths. I believe Einstein had to learn a new branch of maths to formulate General Relativity. You at least need to produce equations which describe the system under consideration, which other people may be able to solve for particular cases. I don’t know how to do computer modeling. Again I invite all readers that can do computer modeling based on my model. If you are the first to prove I am right, you may be in for a big prize. You could pay a programmer, as long as you have some equations, they can apply them to a model of a suitable system. I think what you do is create, say, a couple of tronnies as data structures, and then apply the equations of motion to them over and over again and see what path they trace out under their mutual attraction. My guess is that (like the famous weather simulation that was important in bringing chaos theory into existence) you won't get a stable result, because the floating-point numbers you have to use to describe the tronnies' positions have limited precision. Personally I don't think a theory that requires infinite precision can work, because nature doesn't seem to be infinitely precise. So this would be a valid test, imho - does the system fall down when simulated? (You can I believe get any finite amount of precision in your simulation, the calculations just take longer for higher precision.) I don’t understand RM and virtual practice. RM = Ross Model (in an effort to save wear and tear on my typing fingers). Virtual practice meant you could see your model working in practice - except that it wouldn't be what we normally mean by in practice (in the real world) but in a simulation. Hence VP. :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 9 June 2014 00:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially chose the type of future we want to belong. We can influence the statistics of the normal realities. This makes the end of the second paragraph correct with respect to comp: we cannot predict the futures notably due to the presence of persons, which can refute the predictions, or even just makes them wrong by sheer intrinsic complexity of the machines with introspective power. I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI. He even had a couple of anecdotes of occasions when he thought he'd done so. And he was a very good writer, although I don't know if he every got published. He was also a member of the Society for Psychical Research, just to round out the thumbnail sketch ... a tall guy with frizzy hair (perhaps not so now). I am trying to recall his name, not having thought about him much in the last 1/4 century... anyway, he had this idea that space-time was like a vast railway marshalling yard and we could choose which rains to run along. I always wondered what happened to the other mes who didn't get to go on those lines? Do you really think we can do this? I'd like to think so, but I can't see how it would work in practice. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 9 June 2014 06:33, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two theories may both be correct. You can't prove a theory is correct, you can only show that it passes all the available experimental (and other) tests. You lost me with Turing emulable. This is (almost) just a fancy way of saying that something can be run on a computer. The almost is because Turing envisaged an ideal computer for the purposes of working out results (like what can in principle be computed), so for this to be *fully* in line with Turing's ideas, the computer in question needs to be a universal one (capable of doing any possible computation) ... which all existing computers aren't, of course, because they have a finite amount of memory and disc space - but for most practical purposes I believe a real computer is a good approximation to a Turing machine, and if you allow that, if you needed to, you could always attach more storage, you would effectively have something that was a universal computer for all practical purposes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 9 June 2014 06:50, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Liz, I try to respond to all of your points. In some cases I don’t understand your points. What is RM? And I don’t understand primitive materialism. Not understanding is the worst reason not to respond! You should ask! RM= Ross Model primitive materialism is the assumption that matter is fundamental, that is that it isn't derived from anything else. A person, a stone or even an atom isn't primitive in the standard model - they are all made of more fundamental entities. PM is the assumption that the bottom of the matter hierarchy is the end of the line in terms of the explanation of existence - that there is nothing deeper down than fundamental particles and space-time. I think time is absolute and the same everywhere in our Universe and it is unrelated to space which is nothing and goes on forever. Before there was anything there was nothing, i.e. just empty space. This contradicts lots of experimental results which indicate that space and time are a Manifold - a 4 dimensional continuum. In general mass-energy is conserved, but it must be possible to create new mass-energy, otherwise our Universe could not have become so large. Or exist at all. Unless of course it has always existed, in which case nothing new needs to be created. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Suicide Words God and Ideas
On 8 June 2014 22:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Ready? Have you bought the Mendelson? OK, I give in. I just found a reasonably-priced second-hand copy of the Mendelson on Abebooks - should be here in a few days. Oh, and by the way, I'm presently reading and enjoying Hines's Return to the One. Thanks for the recommendation. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
David Nyman gave a much more rigorous definition of primitive materialism in another thread (he calls it primordial). ISTM that what is supposed to be primordial about a specific set of entities and their relations is precisely that they *exclusively* underlie (or more correctly, comprise) everything that is really real. So the hierarchical structure of everything we observe thereafter - be it physical, chemical, biological, physiological, etc. - would be deemed to be underpinned, exclusively and exhaustively, by such a primordial substratum. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Pluto bounces back!
Telmo's point about ganja convictions are true, save the Vice article did not mention American minorities being involved in the commission of theft, robbery, carjackings, shopliftings, beatings, while having weed on their posession. For the US police, it must be one stop shopping for them. Perp does a break in, perp gets caught, perp gets convicted of possession, fleeing the scene of a crime. Prosecutor throws book at minority criminal and crime statistics then indicate a prejudice against American minorities. Now compare this to, US college student (any race) wakes up on a rainy sunday morning, drinks water or beer, lights up a blunt, and then goes back to sleep. Marijuana has been used, but not along with user in the commission of a crime. Thus, the statistics gets skewed, but for rational reasons. Back to the death penalty. Its hard for me to determine what disuades people from murdering, if anything. Is there such a thing as just revenge? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 8, 2014 8:03 am Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 08 Jun 2014, at 10:40, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:29 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List lt;everything-list@googlegroups.comgt; wrote: Telmo, I tend toward trying Libertarianism first, and pragmatic enough to insist on something that works, Libertarian, or not. But, its a first go for me, its just simpler. The Marxists chooses government, first last always. This is irrational, dishonestly irrational. I am no big fan of the Romans and their laws, anymore than I am a fan or Stalin's industrialization, or Adolf building the autobahn. I am also no fan of hitlerizing the police in the US. The facts are that Obama's supporters are fans of this, for the most part, envisioning that those troops will be there to protect them from armed Teabeaggers. In the few cases of police fighting student protesters or Occupy dunces, please remember that both the police and protesters are on the same side. Whether its unionized police, or protestor/Marxists, they were on the same side, similar ideologies, similar loyalties unto King Barry. I am not sure how this relates to the issue of the morality of capital punishment. You could live in an anarchist society and face the same problem. Eventually there's going to be a murder, and people will have to decide how to deal with it. In fact, the success of an anarchist society (if such a thing is possible at all) depends on individual rationality and ethics. As applies the death penalty, armed police are who, when shooting happen at colleges, or schools, are the responders who eventually kill the perpetrator, or in most cases H, always a male, commits suicide. My summation is that had these bastards faced an armed citizenry, this would have save lives. What two nations in your hemisphere- the death penalty aside-have very, low, crimes, of violence, though their citizenries are heavily armed? Answer, Switzerland and Israel. Why aren't their crimes of violence rates going through the roof? The best answer seems to be social cohesion. Also, please note, that the murderers of the last few decades who commit senseless violence, seem to be schizophrenic's, or yes, autism sufferers, which gives evidence to notion of social isolation, and an inability to consider other humans, people. I over simplify, but this is the best way to go on a mailing list, yes? I too am against gun control. Again, I don't see how this relates to the morality of capital punishment. I already told you that I find killing acceptable as self-defence (if given no other option). Yes, the big difference relies in that. Killing someone shooting kids is an act of self-defense. Death penalty is when you captured the shooter alive, and decide month or years after to kill him/she despite he:she is no more dangerous. Either the guy was mad and need to be cured or isolated in some asylum, or the guy is judged responsible, and deserves to be isolated in jail. Then experts can judge if he is still dangerous after some times. Killing will solve nothing. She/he will not even be any more able to become sorry or say sorry. It makes forgiving impossible, and can kill symbolically the victim(s) a second time. I don't believe in revenge. I understand the instinct, but I don't believe it works. It is like applying terrorist methods to fight terrorism. Once you do that the terrorists have won. Bruno I will say that the US's rate of crime, is often not simply poverty, but the values that contribute to poverty. In other words the mind-set, or values sets the trajectory. Sure. But let's not forget that law enforcement is still racist: http://www.vice.com/read/black-people-are-more-likely-to-be-arrested-for-marijuana-possession-than-white-people-twir (this, on top of prohibition laws,
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On 9 June 2014 11:22, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Back to the death penalty. Its hard for me to determine what disuades people from murdering, if anything. For most people you don't need to dissuade them, except in extreme situations, imho. For psychopaths and normal people in extreme situations, I imagine it's the prospect of getting caught and punished (and no doubt the religious idea that they will *inevitably* be punished, possibly for eternity, helps). Plus the natural desire not to kill people (see previous posts on the difficulties armies have getting soldiers to kill people). Is there such a thing as just revenge? Justice and revenge are human inventions, so the question is context dependent. All one can say is that neither of these appear to exist naturally, except insofar as humans have created them, but that they both arise from tendencies with, I'm sure, genetic and social underpinnings. (So some animals exhibit them too, I imagine.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
The Really Real Part of Reality
In the Is Conscious Computable? and Suicide Words God and Ideas threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of primitive materialism. This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the Aristotelians get to slug it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the discussion between David Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno's version of CTM and I take the liberty to provide this. In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short version of the SANE 2004 paper. This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change your stance vis à vis Bruno's core ideas. It is designed to read as fluently as possible. The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download folder Comp 2013 Redux Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: The Really Real Part of Reality
Thank you, I have downloaded and printed it (now I just need time to read it). The idea of Neoplatoists and Aristotelians slugging it out is intriguing, I'm surprised Monty Python doesn't have a sketch of this. On 9 June 2014 13:20, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: In the “Is Conscious Computable?” and “Suicide Words God and Ideas” threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of “primitive materialism”. This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the Aristotelians get to slug it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the discussion between David Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno’s version of CTM and I take the liberty to provide this. In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short version of the SANE 2004 paper. This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change your stance vis à vis Bruno’s core ideas. It is designed to read as fluently as possible. The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download folder Comp 2013 Redux http://www.kmjcommp.com/COMP%202013%20Redux.pdf Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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 Really Real Part of Reality
I like the way every page is page one! That seems fitting somehow - not to mention very egalitarian... Would you or Bruno mind if I was to share this outside the everything list? I have a couple of friends who might be interested. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:48:27AM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2014 00:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The same with the MWI: we still have the ability to partially chose the type of future we want to belong. We can influence the statistics of the normal realities. This makes the end of the second paragraph correct with respect to comp: we cannot predict the futures notably due to the presence of persons, which can refute the predictions, or even just makes them wrong by sheer intrinsic complexity of the machines with introspective power. I knew someone - gosh, it was almost 25 years ago! - who believed that we can choose our future from the ones made available by the MWI. He even had a couple of anecdotes of occasions when he thought he'd done so. And he was a very good writer, although I don't know if he every got published. He was also a member of the Society for Psychical Research, just to round out the thumbnail sketch ... a tall guy with frizzy hair (perhaps not so now). I am trying to recall his name, not having thought about him much in the last 1/4 century... anyway, he had this idea that space-time was like a vast railway marshalling yard and we could choose which rains to run along. I always wondered what happened to the other mes who didn't get to go on those lines? Do you really think we can do this? I'd like to think so, but I can't see how it would work in practice. I changed the thread topic, as this is a long way from tronnies. I, for one, do not think it such a crazy idea. When I was a child, I used to chant silently 3 times the outcome I wanted before rolling a dice. Surprisingly, it seemed to work (although I could easily have been deluded by various sorts of selective memory effects). Of course it it worked to the point of changing objective outcomes, that truly would be miraculous. However, it always seemd that it might be possible to influence the subjective probabilities for future branches we occupy in the Multiverse. In a rather less controversial way we already do this by choosing which basis set to measure - if we choose to measure in the position basis, it is not surprising that the probability of ending up in a future with a well defined momentum result is therefore zero. It was pointed out on this list that this implies zombies exist. Well it would if the probability of a future branch truly goes to zero, but not if the effect is to say favour branch A by ten times branch B, where objectively branch A and B are equally probable. Whatever method is employed to do this, it must sometimes fail (otherwise zombies would indeed exist!). So perhaps it is possible to will changes in subjective probability, but knowledge of that phenomenon will never be scientifically communicable to other people. It would be another example from what Brun describes as G*\G, a noncommunicable truth. Anyway, just my two bits. I don't know why I didn't discuss this idea in my book. 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.
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 9 June 2014 13:58, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I, for one, do not think it such a crazy idea. When I was a child, I used to chant silently 3 times the outcome I wanted before rolling a dice. Surprisingly, it seemed to work (although I could easily have been deluded by various sorts of selective memory effects). Of course it it worked to the point of changing objective outcomes, that truly would be miraculous. However, it always seemd that it might be possible to influence the subjective probabilities for future branches we occupy in the Multiverse. In a rather less controversial way we already do this by choosing which basis set to measure - if we choose to measure in the position basis, it is not surprising that the probability of ending up in a future with a well defined momentum result is therefore zero. That is exactly the sort of thing my friend had in mind, I think. It was pointed out on this list that this implies zombies exist. Well it would if the probability of a future branch truly goes to zero, but not if the effect is to say favour branch A by ten times branch B, where objectively branch A and B are equally probable. Whatever method is employed to do this, it must sometimes fail (otherwise zombies would indeed exist!). OK, my take on this is that zombies do exist! That is, if you can really do it, yet the multiverse is deterministic, that implies that when there are 10 distinct outcomes and you want one of them (say) for it to be meaningful that you get it, in the 10 futures 9 of the yous are p-zombies and one is conscious. Otherwise, how do we reconcile this with (a) unitarity and determinism, and (b) everyone else having the same ability? Suppose there are 10 futures, and Alice wants future A and B wants future B? They both try really hard to get their one... And the multiverse is deterministic... Then Alice gets A, Bob gets B (from their 1p point of view) and p-zombie Alice occupies all branches but A, and similarly for Bob. I cannae see how else it could work, Captain. (But perhaps that's just my limited imagination.) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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 Really Real Part of Reality
Go for it, Liz. The more the merrier. Sorry about the eternal page one. The last thing on my mind was the pagination Kim On 9 Jun 2014, at 11:44 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: I like the way every page is page one! That seems fitting somehow - not to mention very egalitarian... Would you or Bruno mind if I was to share this outside the everything list? I have a couple of friends who might be interested. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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. Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 9 Jun 2014, at 11:58 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I don't know why I didn't discuss this idea in my book. Be consoled. There is a branch of the MV where you do discuss this in your book! K Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 9 June 2014 14:26, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: On 9 Jun 2014, at 11:58 am, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I don't know why I didn't discuss this idea in my book. Be consoled. There is a branch of the MV where you do discuss this in your book! But maybe in that branch he's a zombie! 8-0 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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 Really Real Part of Reality
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:35 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, I have downloaded and printed it (now I just need time to read it). The idea of Neoplatoists and Aristotelians slugging it out is intriguing, I'm surprised Monty Python doesn't have a sketch of this. Lol, Monty Python is smart so they probably tried; but the Neoplatonists would have refused to play and the Aristotelians would have sentenced them to death penalty. Sudden death penalties on all levels thus. PGC On 9 June 2014 13:20, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: In the “Is Conscious Computable?” and “Suicide Words God and Ideas” threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of “primitive materialism”. This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the Aristotelians get to slug it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the discussion between David Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno’s version of CTM and I take the liberty to provide this. In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short version of the SANE 2004 paper. This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change your stance vis à vis Bruno’s core ideas. It is designed to read as fluently as possible. The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download folder Comp 2013 Redux http://www.kmjcommp.com/COMP%202013%20Redux.pdf Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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.
HAL is here!
Or is he (it) ? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/super-computer-simulates-13-year-old-boy-passes-turing-test?CMP=twt_fd -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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.
Through The Wormhole Episode
Through the Wormhole: Is God an Alien Concept? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hexc7_is-god-an-alien-concept_shortfilms?start=2 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1hexc7_is-god-an-alien-concept_shortfilms?start=2 If you haven’t seen this episode, I highly recommend it. Early on there is an experiment which shows the effect that reading words associated with spirituality is correlated with being able to exercise substantially more willpower. This result is used to help justify the existence of religion as a part of natural selection, since the benefit of increased willpower to perform unpleasant tasks would offset the cost of otherwise difficult to explain rituals and ceremonies. What was not offered is an explanation of the nature of what it is in particular about concept of spirituality that causes the effect of amplifying the effectiveness of personal resolve. In my view, the God concept is a metaphor for consciousness, so that by referring to the divine, we are reminding ourselves of the primacy of our own sensory capacities and motive powers. Spiritual concepts assert teleology over material appearances, and aligns the self rightfully with teleology rather than a passive object. Part of the reason why religion has been so effective has been its role as cheerleader for the military, and if there is some truth to my hypothesis, it would make a lot of sense to mix the two so that you have a weaponized religion/teleologized military. Of course, it is a double edged sword (almost literally), as the physical arms race is mirrored by the immaterial arms race, and fanatical fundamentalism is born. The last segment (starting 36:35) was on Gödel and incompleteness. In the example they dramatized, there is an exchange with a universal truth machine which repeats only true statements. 2+2=4 gets repeated but 2+2=5 does not. The machine famously breaks down when it comes to the prospect of repeating “I cannot say 2+2=5 twice, I cannot say 2+2=5”, since it is both true that it cannot say that 2+2=5, but false that it cannot say it two times in a row. What occurs to me here is to ask whether the machine can just say “2”, or “plus”, or “equals”? If so, then just by slowing down the machine, it can be made to say two, plus, two, equals, five. By breaking down logic to these elements, it can be seen that sensory inputs are beneath the level of logic. Whether we say that the machine will repeat isolated elements or it won’t, it should be clear that the presence or absence of information is not generated by logic, and that in fact, logical inference is derived from the relationships among elements which are given. Indeed, just as we can utter statements that the logical truth machine cannot, we have no trouble uttering isolated elements. We can appreciate and reproduce sounds and symbols which have no logical meaning, but rather refer to the aesthetic nature of the experience of uttering them. How are we to deny that aesthetic properties must be more fundamental than logical properties, and that representation (information) cannot exist in the absence of presentation (sensory experience)? There are several other good segments in here, including one with Ben Goertzel. I agree with Ben’s views on the universality of spiritual qualities within intelligence, however I do not consider AI to be authentic intelligence derived from sensory-aesthetic phenomena, but rather simulated intelligence, derived from what I imagine to be a kind of grand concourse of interstitial protocols. Intelligence can be thought of as commercialization or publicizing of subjectivity. An AI, derived from generic rules rather than irrationally appreciated aesthetic experiences (like, love, pain, pleasure), can deliver a commercial for subjectivity, but I think that it will in fact lack any ‘residential’ authenticity. The lights are on, and it looks like someone might be home…but they aren’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: HAL is here!
Nah, just more hype. Telling the judges that the computer was a 13 year old who speaks English as a second language is tampering. Why not say that they are developmentally disabled or a sociopath? No dice. At least they could have used 13 year old judges. On Sunday, June 8, 2014 10:34:10 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Or is he (it) ? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/super-computer-simulates-13-year-old-boy-passes-turing-test?CMP=twt_fd -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email 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: Selecting your future branch
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 02:12:59PM +1200, LizR wrote: On 9 June 2014 13:58, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I, for one, do not think it such a crazy idea. When I was a child, I used to chant silently 3 times the outcome I wanted before rolling a dice. Surprisingly, it seemed to work (although I could easily have been deluded by various sorts of selective memory effects). Of course it it worked to the point of changing objective outcomes, that truly would be miraculous. However, it always seemd that it might be possible to influence the subjective probabilities for future branches we occupy in the Multiverse. In a rather less controversial way we already do this by choosing which basis set to measure - if we choose to measure in the position basis, it is not surprising that the probability of ending up in a future with a well defined momentum result is therefore zero. That is exactly the sort of thing my friend had in mind, I think. It was pointed out on this list that this implies zombies exist. Well it would if the probability of a future branch truly goes to zero, but not if the effect is to say favour branch A by ten times branch B, where objectively branch A and B are equally probable. Whatever method is employed to do this, it must sometimes fail (otherwise zombies would indeed exist!). OK, my take on this is that zombies do exist! That is, if you can really do it, yet the multiverse is deterministic, that implies that when there are 10 distinct outcomes and you want one of them (say) for it to be meaningful that you get it, in the 10 futures 9 of the yous are p-zombies and one is conscious. Otherwise, how do we reconcile this with (a) unitarity and determinism, and (b) everyone else having the same ability? Suppose there are 10 futures, and Alice wants future A and B wants future B? They both try really hard to get their one... And the multiverse is deterministic... Then Alice gets A, Bob gets B (from their 1p point of view) and p-zombie Alice occupies all branches but A, and similarly for Bob. I cannae see how else it could work, Captain. (But perhaps that's just my limited imagination.) Perhaps Alice gets future A with probability 0.9 and future B with p=0.1, and Bob vice versa. Then there would be no zombies. But then the influence on subjective probabilities is no longer infallible. You pays your money, and you takes your choices :). 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.
