Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Obviously, 2 divides 4 without any help of physics, > Obviously 2 never changes so by itself 2 has never dived 4 nor done anything else; 2 just is. If 2 is going to actually do something like perform a mathematical operation it's going to need the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics, >> >> Giuseppe Peano >> >> may have proven some things >> >> but >> >> then Giuseppe Peano >> >> had a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics. > > > > > You don't know that. And we know today that this is just false if we > assume digital mechanism. > Giuseppe Peano did not have a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics ?! Was he headless or just brainless? Perhaps Giuseppe's mother had the Zika virus when she was pregnant. > >> I agree. As I said before I don't dispute that truth exists >> independently of physics in the same same way that David existed for >> millions of years inside a huge block of marble before a artist >> (Michelangelo) happened to remove the parts of the marble block that were >> not part of David; but if you want to separate true statement from false >> statement you are going to need matter that obeys the laws of Physics. >> > > > > > Wrong. > Wrong. > the arithmetical truth is independent of both arithmetical proofs and physical proofs. I agree. But to determine the difference between arithmetical truth and arithmetical falsehood matter that obeys the laws of physics is required. That distinction is important, if Michelangelo had just displayed a huge block of natural marble and said David was inside few would say he was a great artist. >> >> >> You confuse what works from what doesn't; and machines made of nothing >> but pure mathematics *DON'T WORK*. > > > > They don't work in the physical reality, > I know, and I can explain why it doesn't work and you can't. > > > It is up to you to tell us what a physical machine can do that a universal > machine cannot do, > A machine made of matter that obeys the laws of physics can correctly inform John Clark that 2 ^ 57,885,161 − 1 is prime, a machine made of nothing but pure mathematics can not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!
The best definition I've heard, which I ascribe to Vic Stenger, is that it is what is conserved when a physical system is translated in the time dimension. This comes from the Noether theorem. Of course, relativity changes this a bit, since there is no longer a unique time dimension. In relativity, what is conserved is a 4-vector when the system is translated in spacetime. Conventionally we call that vector the "mass-energy-momentum" vector. The magnitude of that vector is just the rest mass of the system, and that is an intrinsic property of the system. E=mc^2 is just a famous equation referring to the fact that components of a vector change when you change the coordinate system (which depends on the observer) - much like the width and height of a 2D object change into each other as you rotate the x-y axes of the coordinate system. Cheers On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 09:34:09AM -0500, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: > You know, I have never heard a decent definition of what energy is? I learnt > in grade school was that energy was the ability to do work. Yah! Now that > sounds really, scientific, not. I refined the definition, to be "matter in > motion." Anyone have a better definition? "It takes energy.." > > > > -Original Message- > From: Terren Suydam > To: everything-list > Sent: Sat, Feb 13, 2016 9:47 pm > Subject: Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO! > > > > Great, but what is the specific way in which mass is converted into the > energy required to produce gravitational waves? When planetary orbits decay, > kinetic energy is lost... No mass is converted. > On Feb 13, 2016 1:20 PM, "John Clark" wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Terren Suydam > wrote: > > > > > > > > Sure, but John said the black holes lost 3 solar masses, which was converted > into gravitational waves... how? Fusion and fission are easy examples of > mass to energy conversion - so what's the specific interaction here according > to theory? > > > > > Einstein found in General Relativity a new law of nature, he said it takes > energy to make gravitational waves and that an accelerating mass produces > gravitational waves, just as Maxwell said a accelerating charged particle > makes a electromagnetic wave. Normally this effect is far too small to be > important and can be ignored, but when it's something as massive as a black > hole and its vibrating at almost the speed of light as it tries to become > spherical we now know that gravity waves can not be ignored and Einstein was > right. General Relativity has passed its most stringent test yet and passed > it with flying colors! > > 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:34 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > You know, I have never heard a decent definition of what energy is? I > learnt in grade school was that energy was the ability to do work. You need energy to do work but you can never use all the energy you have to do work no matter how good your technology is, much of it is always wasted. With today's machines usually less than 40% of the energy can do work; electric motors do better than that but you waste a lot of energy converting heat or motion or sunlight into electricity. > > > Yah! Now that sounds really, scientific, not. I refined the definition, to > be "matter in motion." The energy of motion is half of the mass of the matter times the velocity of motion squared. If it's at rest it still has energy, it's the mass times the speed of light squared. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!
You know, I have never heard a decent definition of what energy is? I learnt in grade school was that energy was the ability to do work. Yah! Now that sounds really, scientific, not. I refined the definition, to be "matter in motion." Anyone have a better definition? "It takes energy.." -Original Message- From: Terren Suydam To: everything-list Sent: Sat, Feb 13, 2016 9:47 pm Subject: Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO! Great, but what is the specific way in which mass is converted into the energy required to produce gravitational waves? When planetary orbits decay, kinetic energy is lost... No mass is converted. On Feb 13, 2016 1:20 PM, "John Clark" wrote: On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: > Sure, but John said the black holes lost 3 solar masses, which was converted into gravitational waves... how? Fusion and fission are easy examples of mass to energy conversion - so what's the specific interaction here according to theory? Einstein found in General Relativity a new law of nature, he said it takes energy to make gravitational waves and that an accelerating mass produces gravitational waves, just as Maxwell said a accelerating charged particle makes a electromagnetic wave. Normally this effect is far too small to be important and can be ignored, but when it's something as massive as a black hole and its vibrating at almost the speed of light as it tries to become spherical we now know that gravity waves can not be ignored and Einstein was right. General Relativity has passed its most stringent test yet and passed it with flying colors! 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Cryonics punched cards and the brain
On 14 Feb 2016, at 03:05, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 Bruno Marchal wrote:
> You argument is isomorphic to a creationist who would add
that your universe needs to be baptized by some God.
The difference is it can be shown that objects unbaptized by God
can still do a lot of things, but if its unbaptized by
Physics nobody has ever seen anything do anything.
Assuming primary matter exits, and defining "doing things" by "doing
things physically", but in our context this is just aristotelian
pseudo-religious begging of the question.
Obviously, 2 divides 4 without any help of physics, as it only means
that there is a number z such that 2 * z = 4 is true.
> PA proves the existence of an infinity of reasoners, reading
all scripts. PA (even RA) proves the existence of all relative
executions too.
PA has never proven a damn thing and never will.
PA proves "~beweisbar("0=1") -> ~beweisbar("~beweisbar("0=1")") is a
very well know fact.
Beweisbar (provable) is an arithmetical predicate. That is the most
basic things to undersatnd, bith to grasp the second incompleteness
result, and what we are discussing about.
Giuseppe Peano may have proven some things but then Giuseppe
Peano had a brain made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics.
You don't know that. And we know today that this is just false if we
assume digital mechanism.
> You really need to revise a bit elementary mathematics. RA
proves 2+2=4 and ~(2+2=5) without mentioning any notion of matter.
RM has never proved a damn thing and never will. Raphael Robinson
may have proven some things but then Raphael Robinson had a brain
made of matter that obeyed the laws of physics.
> the fact that a machine i stops, or not, on input j is not a
question of language: it is true or false independently of you and me.
I agree. As I said before I don't dispute that truth exists
independently of physics in the same same way that David existed for
millions of years inside a huge block of marble before a artist
(Michelangelo) happened to remove the parts of the marble block that
were not part of David; but if you want to separate true statement
from false statement you are going to need matter that obeys the
laws of Physics.
Wrong. the arithmetical truth is independent of both arithmetical
proofs and physical proofs.
> You confuse reality and description of reality.
You confuse what works from what doesn't; and machines made of
nothing but pure mathematics DON'T WORK.
They don't work in the physical reality, but with mechanism, the
physical reality has been shown to be emergent from self-reference
through the non physical emulation of the machine in arithmetic.
It is up to you to tell us what a physical machine can do that a
universal machine cannot do, and if you succeed then you juts refute
digital mechanism, and make my point in a direct way.
Bruno
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
