Re: Does GR tell us why anything moves?

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/7/2018 5:39 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

*Thanks for your time and effort, but I don't think you understand my*
*question. Suppose a test particle is restrained spatially, say in *
*the Sun's gravitational field. When released, it starts to move (toward *
*the Sun). How does GR explain this motion? By the advance of time? AG*


Time was advancing all along.  Your restraint was a force causing the 
particle to follow a non-geodesic path through space-time.  When you 
released it, it then followed the "straightest path possible", i.e. a 
geodesic.


Brent

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

What is Science?

[Telmo Menezes]

What it says in the tin... not a trick question.

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

Re: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 9:33:25 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> If you're not bluffing, then what is holding you back from just holding 
> forth on your "very good model"? Just put it out there and let people 
> respond. That's how this thing works. You don't need an invitation. I doubt 
> it's all that relevant to this list, but that hasn't stopped people 
> before... it's not the first time this list has talked about 9/11. Bigfoot 
> might be a first though, at least as long as I've been here. But for the 
> love of pete, please stop dangling your ideas like bait. Nobody gives a 
> shit.
>

If they don't give a S, let them live in ignorance. AG 

>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:49 AM,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I 
>>> care enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of 
>>> participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait. 
>>> I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>
>> *And presumably it doesn't bother you in the slightest that Clark 
>> deliberately misrepresented my views, say of Big Foot, and shows an 
>> arrogant misunderstanding of how most conspiracy theories originate and 
>> evolve, which means he's woefully ignorant of history. None of this matters 
>> to you because you can't read well. Where were you educated? In Russia? 
>> Incidentally, I don't bluff. I have a very good model of the evident flash 
>> when in the CNN video when the second impact occurred at WTC1. It wasn't an 
>> incendiary device (implying a conspiracy). I wonder if any of the skeptics 
>> like Clark have a clue. AG *
>>
>>>  
>>>
 *But, as I have shown, at least for 911, there IS an underlying logic, 
 and the gurus here cannot debunk it even though they have given ample 
 opportunity. I CAN debunk one of the major facts from which the conspiracy 
 is constructed, but they're simply not interested. AG*

>
>
>>>  
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at 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: Disclosure Project

[Terren Suydam]

If you're not bluffing, then what is holding you back from just holding
forth on your "very good model"? Just put it out there and let people
respond. That's how this thing works. You don't need an invitation. I doubt
it's all that relevant to this list, but that hasn't stopped people
before... it's not the first time this list has talked about 9/11. Bigfoot
might be a first though, at least as long as I've been here. But for the
love of pete, please stop dangling your ideas like bait. Nobody gives a
shit.

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:49 AM,  wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care
>> enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of
>> participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait.
>> I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up.
>>
>
> *And presumably it doesn't bother you in the slightest that Clark
> deliberately misrepresented my views, say of Big Foot, and shows an
> arrogant misunderstanding of how most conspiracy theories originate and
> evolve, which means he's woefully ignorant of history. None of this matters
> to you because you can't read well. Where were you educated? In Russia?
> Incidentally, I don't bluff. I have a very good model of the evident flash
> when in the CNN video when the second impact occurred at WTC1. It wasn't an
> incendiary device (implying a conspiracy). I wonder if any of the skeptics
> like Clark have a clue. AG *
>
>>
>>
>>> *But, as I have shown, at least for 911, there IS an underlying logic,
>>> and the gurus here cannot debunk it even though they have given ample
>>> opportunity. I CAN debunk one of the major facts from which the conspiracy
>>> is constructed, but they're simply not interested. AG*
>>>


>>
>>
> --
> 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: INDEXICAL Computationalism

[Telmo Menezes]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>
> On 3/5/2018 11:49 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:37 AM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> On 3/5/2018 9:14 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> "Could" implies a question about possibilities.  It's certainly logically
> possible that there not be such a disease as leukemia.  Is it nomologically
> possible?...not as far as we know.
>
> Well I'm not sure it's logically possible, for the reasons that Bruno
> already addressed.
>
>
> Bruno is assuming that everything not contrary to his theory exists
> axiomatically...which is assuming the answer.
>
> That is a rather uncharitable way of putting it.
>
> Bruno has discussed his Universal Dovetailer Argument extensively. If
> you assume comp and accept the argument, then we are inside of the
> dovetailer. The dovetailer is an everything-generator.
>
>
> That's exactly the problem with everythingism.  It predicts all the stuff we
> don't see.

Bruno, Russell, Tegmark and others tend to concern themselves a lot
with why our experience of reality looks like it does on the face of
everythingism. That is precisely the "hard part", no?

> Russell
> proposes something similar in his book. Isn't the exploration of this
> type of idea the original reason for this mailing list? That doesn't
> mean that the idea is right, of course, but it does mean that one
> should expect to not keep going around in circles without ever
> reaching a more sophisticated level of engagement with such theories.
>
>
> I'd be happy to engage a more sophisticated level.  I've suggested several
> times points on which Bruno's theory might have something to say about
> physics or cognition:  For example there is the discussion of whether QM is
> epistemic (quantum bayesianism) or ontic (wave-function realism).  There are
> experiments that seem to show it's ontic, but only under the assumption that
> experimenters agree on it...which seems to be an epistemic condition.  Or
> how about the past hypothesis; does the UD necessarily imply a universe that
> in low entropy in the past...or is that just the definition of "past", in
> which case one asks why does the AoT have a consistent direction.  And what
> is the relation of the brain to the computational processes producing
> consciousness?  Why the delay in the Gray Walter experiment?  Is there
> really some number of neurons between platyhelmenthies and homo sapiens that
> maximizes consciousness?

Ok, me too. I feel that lack of moderation on the list makes it
difficult -- although I am not advocating it.
It's hard to talk over certain megaphones, and I think many give up.

>
> But why would you suppose that a world in which "Leukemia doesn't exist."
> would allow you derive a logical contradiction?
>
> I think such a world would require one to accept something like
> creationism as logically consistent. The process of biological
> complexification happens by natural selection. Natural selection, by
> definition, implies failure modes. It also leads to endless
> competitive and exploitative dynamics such as predators, pathogens,
> parasites, etc. Avoiding all of these tragedies from the perspective
> of human beings would require a designer holding human interests at
> heart above everything else. Both the pre-existence of such a designer
> and its motivation to helps us above everything else seem nonsensical
> to me.
>
>
> First, you are appealing to biology and physics, not logic.

I am appealing to logic, because I am claiming that we must discard
scenarios where the arrow of complexity is reversed. That is to say: a
complex phenomena entailing an even more complex entity than what is
being explained.

> I already said
> that nomologically, leukemia was probably necessary.  It's just a possible
> mutation in bone marrow cells. But there's no logical contradiction in that
> mutation not occuring.

No, but there is a logic contradiction in no mutations ever occurring,
unless you can provide an alternative theory to natural selection that
does not revert the arrow of complexity.

> Second, you're straw manning.  I didn' t say
> anything about "failure modes" not existing.  I said that one particular
> failure mode could fail to exist.  In fact I'd say the world would be better
> if even that one little girl had not died in pain.  Let's see you prove that
> implies a logical contradiction.

I would say that it really depends on weather QM is epistemic or
ontic, as you say above. Or: everythingism allows for an entity that
fits Anselm's argument.

Telmo.

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

Re: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:49:11 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care 
>> enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of 
>> participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait. 
>> I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up.
>>
>
> *And presumably it doesn't bother you in the slightest that Clark 
> deliberately misrepresented my views, say of Big Foot, and shows an 
> arrogant misunderstanding of how most conspiracy theories originate and 
> evolve, which means he's woefully ignorant of history. None of this matters 
> to you because you can't read well. Where were you educated? In Russia? 
> Incidentally, I don't bluff. I have a very good model of the evident flash 
> when in the CNN video when the second impact occurred at WTC1. It wasn't an 
> incendiary device (implying a conspiracy). I wonder if any of the skeptics 
> like Clark have a clue. AG *
>

*You must have been educated at Trump University, such is your level of 
discrimination. AG *

>  
>>
>>> *But, as I have shown, at least for 911, there IS an underlying logic, 
>>> and the gurus here cannot debunk it even though they have given ample 
>>> opportunity. I CAN debunk one of the major facts from which the conspiracy 
>>> is constructed, but they're simply not interested. AG*
>>>


>>  
>>
>

-- 
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: Disclosure Project

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 8:33:39 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care 
> enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of 
> participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait. 
> I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up.
>

*And presumably it doesn't bother you in the slightest that Clark 
deliberately misrepresented my views, say of Big Foot, and shows an 
arrogant misunderstanding of how most conspiracy theories originate and 
evolve, which means he's woefully ignorant of history. None of this matters 
to you because you can't read well. Where were you educated? In Russia? 
Incidentally, I don't bluff. I have a very good model of the evident flash 
when in the CNN video when the second impact occurred at WTC1. It wasn't an 
incendiary device (implying a conspiracy). I wonder if any of the skeptics 
like Clark have a clue. AG *

>  
>
>> *But, as I have shown, at least for 911, there IS an underlying logic, 
>> and the gurus here cannot debunk it even though they have given ample 
>> opportunity. I CAN debunk one of the major facts from which the conspiracy 
>> is constructed, but they're simply not interested. AG*
>>
>>>
>>>
>  
>

-- 
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: Does GR tell us why anything moves?

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 2:17:15 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 09:18:46PM -0800, agrays...@gmail.com 
>  wrote: 
> > > 
> > > They follow from the principle of conservation of momentum, also 
> > > sometimes known as Newton's first law. 
> > > 
> > 
> > Can you elaborate on that? Is there always motion even if time 
> > doesn't exist?  Motion in space or spacetime AG 
>
> Clearly, with motion in flat space, conservation of momentum 
> implies that motion will be along a straight line. If the direction of 
> movement changed, that is automatically a change of momentum. 
>
> In curved space, the corresponding curve must be a geodesic - there 
> are no such things as straight lines in curved space. IIRC, the 
> equivalent expression of conservation of momentum is that the 
> covariant derivative of the mass-energy tensor must vanish. There is a 
> discussion on page 386 of Misner, Thorne & Wheeler's epic book 
> gravitation... 
>
> You can also come to the same conclusion using an extremum principle 
> such as Laplace's principle of least action, but for sheer intuition, 
> the above explanation works best for me. 


*Thanks for your time and effort, but I don't think you understand my*
*question. Suppose a test particle is restrained spatially, say in *
*the Sun's gravitational field. When released, it starts to move (toward *
*the Sun). How does GR explain this motion? By the advance of time? AG*

-- 
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: Disclosure Project

[Terren Suydam]

Speaking for myself (and I'm guessing others) - I could care less. I care
enough to respond to this, but only because I find this style of
participation to be annoying as fuck. Nobody is going to take your bait.
I'm guessing you know that, so this amounts to a bluff. Put up or shut up.


> *But, as I have shown, at least for 911, there IS an underlying logic, and
> the gurus here cannot debunk it even though they have given ample
> opportunity. I CAN debunk one of the major facts from which the conspiracy
> is constructed, but they're simply not interested. AG*
>
>>
>>

-- 
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: Death creeps through the brain as a “spreading wave” of silence and inactivity

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Mar 2018, at 00:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/2/2018 2:36 PM, Dirk Van Niekerk wrote:
>> It looks as if individual neurons keep firing and small local (< 4mm) neural 
>> networks remain intact during general anesthesia (at least due to propofol). 
>>  However, large scale network integration is lost.  So I don't think general 
>> anesthesia is very similar to death at the neural level at all.-  
>> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/49/E3377?etoc= 
>>  
>>  
>> On a different note.  I have read some of the discussion and literature 
>> about computation and consciousness on various fora.  There is a school of 
>> thought that matter does not actually exist and that everything can be 
>> explained by the existence of natural numbers and computations related to 
>> operators acting on these. 
> 
> Yes, that's Bruno Marchal's theory that he holds forth on in the Everything 
> list, everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .  It's an interesting idea and I 
> post there as does Lawrence, but it requires reifying all computation in the 
> abstract "Turing machine" sense. 


You don’t need to reify the computations. It is enough you believe in the 
elementary axioms, like x + 0 = x.

Please read the Davis “computability and unsolvability” book up to chapter 4 
included. 

Would you say that we need to reify the natural numbers to make sense of Rieman 
Hypothesis?

The computation are very concrete objects that we can identify with their 
number representation when reasoning on them. They are relational objects, well 
defined in each “base” chosen (a base is a Turing universal machinery, or the 
phi_i, or even just one universal phi_u).

The whole point is to not commit oneself ontologically, except for the minimal 
amounts of terms needed to have a universal machinery, so that we can define 
what is a digital computer (a purely mathematical object, even arithmetical).

Even ultra-finitism cannot make this arithmetical realism false, as RA is 
consistent with there is a bigger integer.

Now, in Arithmetic, we listen to the numbers/machine which asserts much richer 
beliefs (they are Löbian, which means they obey to G, G*, etc.).







> And it "predicts" things like indeterminancy and maybe linear superposition, 
> but I can't see that it predicts anything surprising.



It explains consciousness, from arithmetical 1P/3p self-reference, and it 
explains matter from consciousness, making the theory testable (which might be, 
if true, an infinite task asking for infinite vigilance). 


It provides a test between Mechanism ad Materialism, and the evidences are 
arguably for Mechanism, I would say.

It gives a transparent arithmetical representation of Plotinus or Moderatus 
“theory of everything” (called “theology” at that time).

The interest is not providing a new physics, but a new (well, an ancient) 
different metaphysics, in which *matter* is explained in term of probable 
appearances. It generalises Everett on elementary arithmetic, through a many 
dream internal interpretation of arithmetic.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> Direct correlates between measurable brain function and reported subjective 
>> consciousness seems difficult to reconcile with this strictly computational 
>> interpretation.  Also, the computational approach seems to suffer from the 
>> same problems as many "theories of everything" including religious ones in 
>> that they explain everything but cannot make any predictions because that 
>> cannot predict which events will NOT happen.
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-8, meekerdb wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/1/2018 2:03 PM, spinozalens via Free Thinkers Physics Discussion Group 
>> wrote:
>>> Anesthetic is as close to death you can get without doing the dying.
>> 
>> I don't think so.  Under anesthetic there is still plenty of blood flow to 
>> your brain and no reason for neurons to shut down to conserve resources.  In 
>> fact many neurons continue to fire; but I don't know which ones or what 
>> their function is.  
>> 
>> You get a lot closer to dying if your heart stops for a few minutes, which 
>> the Annals of Neurology paper says causes all the neurons to shut down, but 
>> notes that: "...this shouldn’t be used as an end-all marker of death. Past 
>> research has shown that if blood and oxygen return to the brain quickly 
>> enough after the spreading wave, the neurons resume activity and recover 
>> their chemical charge. It takes several minutes for the depolarized neurons, 
>> sitting in this chemical cocktail, to reach a “commitment point” beyond 
>> which they cannot restart their function."
>> 
>>> To your question I think it depends what you die of. Feynman on his death 
>>> bed remarked that dying was boring
>> 
>> The one time I thought I would die I just felt a kind of curiosity...like 
>> "So this it?"
>> 
>> Brent
>> -- 
>> You