date:20170130

Re: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-30 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I would suggest that those other beings out in never-never-land, are not me, 
and I am not them. The histories are experiences that I was never a part of.
Speaking with very smart space aliens might be an enjoyable substitute for a 
conversation with God. Like the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers.

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Jan 30, 2017 10:14 am
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post

On 29 Jan 2017, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

So, just to be clear, the Boltzmann Brain(s) spun off from the thermodynamics 
of an absolute vacuum (as opposed to the false vacuum that is the Hubble 
Volume) would, if they existed, be persons. Bodies, with a sub-component, 
called a 'mind'? 

Not really. They support mind, for a second. the probability that you are in a 
Boltzman brain, in the computationalist setting, is near zero. You, the person, 
is attached to *all$ histories, and those who win the measure play, are related 
to long, and interesting (in bennett sense) histories. To be conscious for a 
second, one brain is sufficient, but for two seconds, you need a long and 
complex histories, making you rare in your branch, et quite numerous relatively 
to that branch. QM does show a sort of solution (Feynman phase randomization) 
so we can expect to justify it through computationalism, assuming only 
arithmetic, and this actually works. The logic of the material points of views 
does show a quantum logic on which, hopefully, some equivalent of Gleason's 
theorem will hold. 

A brain is never a person. A person owns a brain, and actually owns an infinity 
of brains, on which he is first person-undetermined. No need to invoke some 
God-like entities, like "universe" or "god": we must explain their appearances 
only from arithmetic/computer science. I am aware that this is 
counter-intuitive, but Pythagoras and Plato warned us that the fundamental 
reality might be quite different from what we see/observe/measure, etc. 

Bruno

-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2017 8:19 am
 Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post

On 27 Jan 2017, at 13:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

What about Boltzmann Brains? 
Do you view these as mindful observers?

I don't see any brain as mindful observers. Only a person is mindful, and they 
own brains, which are just tools making that person able to interact with some 
stable collection of universal entities.

The UD generates all Boltzmann brains, but to be conscious, you need more than 
a brain, you need a sheaf of normal (gaussian) computations (measure 1, or 1 - 
epsilon). And, you, that is the person, are not attached to any brain per se, 
but only to a succession of brain state compute by a stable universal 
environment, which lacks (by definition) for Boltzmann brains. That reduce the 
Boltzmann brain problem in physics to justifying the appearance of brain in 
arithmetic (the white rabbit problem).To simplify; we might say that you need 
an infinity of brains belonging to an infinity of stable computations. That 
such infinities exist and have a quantum logic suggests that computationalism 
might be correct.

Bruno

-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal 
 To: everything-list 
 Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm
 Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post

On 26 Jan 2017, at 17:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

If dreaming is a function of biological things,

It depends on how you define biological. If you define it like me with a 
theorem in arithmetic/computer-science, of intensional numbers (relative codes, 
like DNA, or programs) which can reprodruces themselves with respect to other 
universal numbers, physical or not, then, OK, like Bateson, psychology is a 
cousin of biology, and we use ineddded the same trick (Dx = xx -> DD = DD) both 
in abstract biology and in abstract psychology, ... and in abstract theology.

 where then, might be the brain of the dreamer. 

That does simply not exist. It is all in your brain (grin).

If we except Babbage machine, computability and the notion of computation have 
been discovered by mathematical logicians working in the foundations of 
mathematics. Gödel discovered 95% of it, but missed it. Post, Church and Turing 
got it, and then many others, including Gödel who talk about a miracle (the 
closure of the set of partial computable function from Cantor Diagonalization).

(Very) Elementary Arithmetic is already Turing universal.

Whatever can be done by a universal system can be done by any other universal 
system.

So, if you are willing to admit that 2+2=4 and simlar propositions

Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-01-30 Thread Brent Meeker


Are you really agnostic about the god of theism?

Brent

On 1/30/2017 2:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I hope all atheists and all religious people with all of their silly
certainties convert to intelectual humility and agnosticism.
Then maybe we have a chance of transcending this silly monkey-stage
where we seem to be stuck at.

Cheers
Telmo.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Samiya Illias  wrote:

These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
professor):

https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7


Samiya

--
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: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> 
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he is
> duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M.
>

You were correct when 
when you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.

> > 
> The H in Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have
> to ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was
> correct, in both the 1p views,
>

So if they both agree and they are both correct then there must be only
one answer to the question. So what one city do both W and M agree that H
ended up seeing in the first person, Washington or Moscow?

> > 
> and that "W and M" is correct from the 3p views but incorrect from the
> 1p-views, which was the one asked to predict in Helsinki.
>

That's all very nice but it doesn't answer the question I asked, what one
and only one city did H end up seeing? Your entire proof is built around
the idea that a correct prediction cannot be made in Helsinki, but for that
to work after the thought experiment is all over you've got to tell us what
the correct prediction turned out to be so we can see that the correct
prediction was not made. So what would the correct prediction have been, M
or H? If you can not clearly and unambiguously answer that very simple
question then the entire thing is nonsense because there is no way to tell
if the correct prediction was made or not.

>>
>> So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or M?
>
>
> 
>
> 
> W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.
> > 
> M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.
>

OK.

> 
> Both agree that "W or M" was correct
>

No, they don't agree on that at all.
One says W saw W and H saw W. The other says M saw M and H saw M. The one
thing they both agree on is H saw W *AND* M.

> 
> None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling
> themselves being in two cities at once.
>

That has no relevance on the question asked. 

The question was what cities will H see, if both are H then H will see
both cities. Where is this failed prediction you keep talking about?

>>
>> And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
>> also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
>> neither?
>
>
> > 
> Both.
>

Fine. If both say they are H and one says H is in W and one says H is in M
and you believe both then the answer to the question "what cities will H be
in?" is rather obvious.

>
> > 
> both confirm "W v M" (exclusive "or"), and both refutes "W & M"
>

Neither can confirm or or refute "W v M" by themselves. W can say that H
sees W but W can say nothing about H seeing M,  Mr. W knows nothing about
M, to find out about H seeing that you'll have to ask Mr.M. 

> > 
> that part of the argument is understood by nine year old children.
>

Nine year old children are not noted for their critical thinking skills,
that's why nine year old children "understand" things that just aren't true.

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: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there are  
now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU* sees 2 cities".  What one and only one  
meaning does the word "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is  
the one and only one referent?

> So you dare to insist on this?

Yes I dares. 

> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only  
write W, or write M in the personal diary

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he  
is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M. The H in  
Helsinki is no more there, so to confirm the prediction, we have to  
ask both HW and HM, and both say that the prediction "W v M" was  
correct, in both the 1p views, and that "W and M" is correct from the  
3p views but incorrect from the 1p-views, which was the one asked to  
predict in Helsinki.

> Both agree that they did survive in only one place

Yes, and both agree they are H.

Exactly.

So you tell me, what one and only one city did H end up seeing, W or  
M? 

W, and only W for the H guy finding himself in W.

M, and only M for the H guy finding himself in M.

Both agree that "W or M" was correct (and they are correct with the  
assumption and this protocol).

None claims suddenly to have the first person experience of feeling  
themselves being in two cities at once.

And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if  
both also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M  
or both or neither?

Both.

And indeed, as I just show above, both confirm "W v M" (exclusive  
"or"), and both refutes "W & M" (keeping in mind that W and M  
represent the first person subjective experience of seeing something  
after some door is open).

> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide  
to abstract from the 1-3 distinction,

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the  
referent is always clear to Bruno Marchal, if that were true Bruno  
Marchal could have ended this debate long ago simply by always  
using the referent in the thought experiment rather than the  
personal pronoun, but Bruno Marchal has refused to do that  
because then the flaws in the logic would be obvious. Those little  
personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up a multitude of  
sins, aka sloppy thinking.

I did it with and without pronouns, and that part of the argument is  
understood by nine year old children. You are the only one having a  
problem with this, and nobody understand your argument, as it consists  
in systematically introducing a difficulty where precisely the  
computationalist hypothesis makes everything utterly transparent.

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.

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> 
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating experiment **YOU**
>> can not predict what one and only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU**
>> after have been duplicated and thus there are now 2 of **YOU** and *
>> *YOU** sees 2 cities".  What one and only one meaning does the word
>> "YOU" have in the preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?
>
>
> > 
> So you dare to insist on this?
>

Yes I dares. 

> 
> In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or write
> M in the personal diary
>

And which one acknowledges that he and only he is H? W or M? 

> > 
> Both agree that they did survive in only one place
>

Yes, and both agree they are H. So you tell me, what one and only one city
did H end up seeing, W or M?

 And yes both say they are in one place and one place only, but if both
also say they are H then which one should be believed, W or M or both or
neither?

> 
> The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to abstract
> from the 1-3 distinction,
>

The referent is unclear to John Clark, Bruno Marchal claims the referent
is always clear to
Bruno Marchal
, i
f that were true Bruno Marchal could have ended this debate long ago
simply by always using the referent in the thought experiment rather than
the personal pronoun, but
Bruno Marchal 
has refused to do that because then the flaws in the logic would be
obvious. Those little personal pronouns may be small but they can cover up
a multitude of sins, aka sloppy thinking.

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: From Atheism to Islam

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 30 Jan 2017, at 11:26, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I hope all atheists and all religious people with all of their silly
certainties convert to intelectual humility and agnosticism.
Then maybe we have a chance of transcending this silly monkey-stage
where we seem to be stuck at.

I can't agree more. Well said Telmo. The divide is not between the
believer and the non believer (in whatever), but between the arrogant
dogmatic who dare to impose their view with violence to the others,
and the modest researcher who live the genuine doubt and skepticism
toward easy answers.

Bruno

Cheers
Telmo.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Samiya Illias
wrote:

These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
professor):

https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7

Samiya

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an

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

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

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.

Re: Correction to MWI post

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Jan 2017, at 16:28, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

So, just to be clear, the Boltzmann Brain(s) spun off from the  
thermodynamics of an absolute vacuum (as opposed to the false vacuum  
that is the Hubble Volume) would, if they existed, be persons.  
Bodies, with a sub-component, called a 'mind'?


Not really. They support mind, for a second. the probability that you  
are in a Boltzman brain, in the computationalist setting, is near  
zero. You, the person, is attached to *all$ histories, and those who  
win the measure play, are related to long, and interesting (in bennett  
sense) histories. To be conscious for a second, one brain is  
sufficient, but for two seconds, you need a long and complex  
histories, making you rare in your branch, et quite numerous  
relatively to that branch. QM does show a sort of solution (Feynman  
phase randomization) so we can expect to justify it through  
computationalism, assuming only arithmetic, and this actually works.  
The logic of the material points of views does show a quantum logic on  
which, hopefully, some equivalent of Gleason's theorem will hold.


A brain is never a person. A person owns a brain, and actually owns an  
infinity of brains, on which he is first person-undetermined. No need  
to invoke some God-like entities, like "universe" or "god": we must  
explain their appearances only from arithmetic/computer science. I am  
aware that this is counter-intuitive, but Pythagoras and Plato warned  
us that the fundamental reality might be quite different from what we  
see/observe/measure, etc.


Bruno








-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2017 8:19 am
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post


On 27 Jan 2017, at 13:57, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

What about Boltzmann Brains?
Do you view these as mindful observers?


I don't see any brain as mindful observers. Only a person is  
mindful, and they own brains, which are just tools making that  
person able to interact with some stable collection of universal  
entities.


The UD generates all Boltzmann brains, but to be conscious, you need  
more than a brain, you need a sheaf of normal (gaussian)  
computations (measure 1, or 1 - epsilon). And, you, that is the  
person, are not attached to any brain per se, but only to a  
succession of brain state compute by a stable universal environment,  
which lacks (by definition) for Boltzmann brains. That reduce the  
Boltzmann brain problem in physics to justifying the appearance of  
brain in arithmetic (the white rabbit problem).To simplify; we might  
say that you need an infinity of brains belonging to an infinity of  
stable computations. That such infinities exist and have a quantum  
logic suggests that computationalism might be correct.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Thu, Jan 26, 2017 2:07 pm
Subject: Re: Correction to MWI post


On 26 Jan 2017, at 17:07, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

If dreaming is a function of biological things,


It depends on how you define biological. If you define it like me  
with a theorem in arithmetic/computer-science, of intensional  
numbers (relative codes, like DNA, or programs) which can  
reprodruces themselves with respect to other universal numbers,  
physical or not, then, OK, like Bateson, psychology is a cousin of  
biology, and we use ineddded the same trick (Dx = xx -> DD = DD)  
both in abstract biology and in abstract psychology, ... and in  
abstract theology.




where then, might be the brain of the dreamer.

That does simply not exist. It is all in your brain (grin).

If we except Babbage machine, computability and the notion of  
computation have been discovered by mathematical logicians working  
in the foundations of mathematics. Gödel discovered 95% of it, but  
missed it. Post, Church and Turing got it, and then many others,  
including Gödel who talk about a miracle (the closure of the set of  
partial computable function from Cantor Diagonalization).


(Very) Elementary Arithmetic is already Turing universal.

Whatever can be done by a universal system can be done by any other  
universal system.


So, if you are willing to admit that 2+2=4 and simlar propositions  
are independent of you, then you are forced to admit that all  
digital emulation of your brain are instantiated in term of some  
(true) number relation. Actually (and that is the (interesting)  
problem) there are infinitely many of them.





Can we contact the dreamer?


By amnesy and/or dissociation, you can go up to remember which  
universal person you are, perhaps. Sy hello to the *many* dreamers!





Is there a an analog of the dreamers, neurobiology? Numbers may  
generate reality, or so Tegmark has asserted.


And I have proved it well before. It follows from Church Thesis,

Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-01-30 Thread Telmo Menezes

I hope all atheists and all religious people with all of their silly
certainties convert to intelectual humility and agnosticism.
Then maybe we have a chance of transcending this silly monkey-stage
where we seem to be stuck at.

Cheers
Telmo.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Samiya Illias  wrote:
> These videos might be of interest to some (the first one is by a Math
> professor):
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-have-made-an-atheist-convert-to-Islam/answer/Shau-Sumar?srid=s5B1=215c99a7
>
>
> Samiya
>
> --
> 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: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

2017-01-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 28 Jan 2017, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:

>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal  
pronouns with no clear referent;

> Where?

Where it says things like "in the people duplicating  
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*  
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and  
thus there are now 2 of *YOU* and *YOU" sees 2 cities".

So you dare to insist on this? You are just repeating for the nth  
times (n big) your deliberate confusion between the 1p-you and the 3p- 
you.

What one and only one meaning does the word "YOU" have in the  
preceding sentence? Who is the one and only one referent?

In W, and in M, they both acknowledge that they can only write W, or  
write M in the personal diary they can immediately access, and not both.
Both agree that they did survive in only one place, so they will do a  
better prediction next times, which is W v M, with an exclusive "or",  
and indeed the majority of the 2^n copies after the experiment is  
iterated n times agrees with this, where none can agree with "seeing,  
in the 1p sense, two cities.

The referent of "you" becomes unclear only because you decide to  
abstract from the 1-3 distinction, which of course is a manner to  
eliminate the person contents of the person memories, which is akin to  
the usual and known person elimination of the materialist.

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.

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: From Atheism to Islam

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

Re: From Atheism to Islam

Re: Correction to MWI post

Re: From Atheism to Islam

Re: An invisible amoral mindless metaphorical form of arithmetic, aka "God"

9 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information