Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the 
plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world 
appearances much before I realised the physicists were already open to 
this for empirical reason. Once you understand that there are 
infinitely many computations going through you actual state, 


What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?

Brent

you can understand that we have to see the trace of those computations 
when looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our substitution 
level. Then the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.


--
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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/3/2019 6:03 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



So learn from this!
The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the
proper time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as
the time kept by a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a
geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.


*If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer 
who reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? 
TIA, AG *





Coordinates are just labels for events.  In general there are not clocks 
that will agree with a given coordinate time although you can imagine 
sets of clocks that would define coordinates.  Take a look at Ned 
Wright's cosmology tutorial and see how he defines different coordinate 
systems to elucidate different aspects of cosmology.


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.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM  wrote:

> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to
 New York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the
 odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring
 the fact that they took different routes.*

>>>
>>> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is
>>> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the
>>> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and
>>> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even
>>> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense
>>>
>>>
>>> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the
> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but
> proper time is *not* invariant;


 * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given
 path. *

>>>
>>> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not
>>> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same
>>> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through
>>> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X,
>>> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree
>>> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the
>>> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the
>>> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and
>>> that's why it's useful.
>>>
>>>
 *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length
 of the longest proper time path between them.*

>>>
>>> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula
>>> for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's
>>> green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a
>>> invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same
>>> units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no
>>> disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit
>>> error or learn from it.
>>>
>>
>> So learn from this!
>> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
>> time. Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by
>> a perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along
>> which the rate of time is constant.
>>
>
> *If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer who
> reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *
>

For the observer sitting at rest in the one location, his clock reads both
coordinate time and proper time. For an observer in motion, his clock reads
only proper time, not coordinate time.

In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2, d = t if and only if r = 0. (natural
units).

Bruce

-- 
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: What is more primary than numbers?

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>>
>> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New 
>>> York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the 
>>> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring 
>>> the fact that they took different routes.*
>>>
>>
>> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is 
>> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the 
>> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and 
>> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even 
>> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense   
>>
>>
>> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the 
 spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but 
 proper time is *not* invariant;
>>>
>>>
>>> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given 
>>> path. *
>>>
>>
>> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not 
>> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same 
>> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through 
>> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X, 
>> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree 
>> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the 
>> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the 
>> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and 
>> that's why it's useful.  
>>  
>>
>>> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length of 
>>> the longest proper time path between them.*
>>>
>>
>> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula 
>> for spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's 
>> green earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a 
>> invariant and the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same 
>> units. I really don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no 
>> disgrace in being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit error 
>> or learn from it.
>>
>
> So learn from this!
> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper time. 
> Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by a 
> perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along 
> which the rate of time is constant.
>

*If time is what is read on a clock, who, what, where, is the observer who 
reads coordinate time, or the clock recording coordinate time? TIA, AG *

>
> Bruce 
>

-- 
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: What is more primary than numbers?

[Brent Meeker]

On 1/3/2019 12:05 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett > wrote:


/> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the
proper time. /


What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event 
B and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2


You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in which case 
your formula will yield an negative squared distance.


where x,y,and z are the differences in spatial coordinates I observe 
and *t is the proper time* it took for me to make the trip I will get 
an invariant.


No.  To make that work you have to put in the difference in time 
coordinate for t. THEN you get the invariant interval (in flat 
spacetime) also known at the proper interval, or the proper time when A 
and B are timelike.  When spactime isn't flat, or the path isn't the 
extremal path you have to integrate the proper time intervals along the 
path.


If you also travel between event A and B but use a different path you 
will get entirely different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a 
different number for *the proper time t,* but when you plug in your 
numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  you will get the exact same 
value I do.


/> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
travelling on a geodesic./


No it is not! The proper time is defined as the time measured by a 
clock along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in 
hell if that line is a geodesic or not.


That's right.

And you said "/Proper time is the distance through spacetime/" but 
every book on physics on the planet will tell you that the distance 
through spacetime is an invariant; but proper time is NOT a invariant, 
different observers can have different proper times,


No.  Different paths between two events have different proper times 
between the same two events.  All observers will agree on the length 
(proper time duration) of those paths because that is what a clock 
measures along the path...it is not observer dependent.  You are using 
the word "observer" as though it referred to a traveler, but in 
relativity it usually means someone measuring a physical process from a 
different state of motion.  So an observer of a path through spacetime 
may measure it to have different coordinate time changes and different 
spacial distance changes, but still the same path length or proper time.


even you know this because you said "/two different orbits of the 
Earth, both geodesics, can coincide at a pair of events.  They will 
measure different proper times between those events/".


Actually I wrote that, not Bruce.

So your ideas are not self consistent but then they had to be, 
spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same units.


You keep a harping on units.  That has not more significance than the 
fact that we measure the length of highways in miles and widths in 
feet.  In practice, all distance measurements are made with clocks.  If 
someone wants the answer in meters they use the conversion factor 
299792458 meter/second.


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.

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 7:06 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
>
>> *> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
>> time. *
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event B
> and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  where x,y,and z are the
> differences in spatial coordinates I observe and *t is the proper time*
> it took for me to make the trip I will get an invariant.  If you also
> travel between event A and B but use a different path you will get entirely
> different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a different number for *the
> proper time t,* but when you plug in your numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2
> -(ct)^2  you will get the exact same value I do.
>

You clearly do not know =what 'proper time' is.


>
>
>> *> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
>> travelling on a geodesic.*
>>
>
> No it is not! The  proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock
> along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if
> that line is a geodesic or not. And you said "*Proper time is the
> distance through spacetime*" but every book on physics on the planet will
> tell you that the distance through spacetime is an invariant; but proper
> time is NOT a invariant,
>

Wikipedia thinks that it is.at least in non-curved space-times.


> different observers can have different proper times, even you know this
> because you said "*two different orbits of the Earth, both geodesics, can
> coincide at a pair of events.  They will measure different proper times
> between those events*". So your ideas are not self consistent but then
> they had to be, spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in the same
> units.
>
> The reason you need both a odometer and a clock in your car is that they
> measure different things. And no matter how hard you try you're never going
> to be able to subtract seconds from meters, so why are we still arguing
> about this when it's obvious you're wrong?
>

Have you never heard of natural units, units in which c = 1?

Bruce


> > *And a geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.*
>>
>
> What the hell?! Obviously the rate of time is always constant for any
> observer in the same reference frame as the clock regardless if the path is
> a geodesic or not, it will always change at the rate of one second per
> second . It doesn't take a Einstein to know that.
>
> 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: What is more primary than numbers?

[John Clark]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 3:58 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:


> *> The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper
> time. *
>

What the hell are you talking about? If I travel from event A to event B
and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2  where x,y,and z are the
differences in spatial coordinates I observe and *t is the proper time* it
took for me to make the trip I will get an invariant.  If you also travel
between event A and B but use a different path you will get entirely
different numbers for x, y and z and you will get a different number for *the
proper time t,* but when you plug in your numbers into x^2 + y^2 + z^2
-(ct)^2  you will get the exact same value I do.


> *> The proper time is defined as the time kept by a perfect clock
> travelling on a geodesic.*
>

No it is not! The  proper time is defined as the time measured by a clock
along ANY line through spacetime and it doesn't matter a hoot in hell if
that line is a geodesic or not. And you said "*Proper time is the distance
through spacetime*" but every book on physics on the planet will tell you
that the distance through spacetime is an invariant; but proper time is NOT
a invariant, different observers can have different proper times, even you
know this because you said "*two different orbits of the Earth, both
geodesics, can coincide at a pair of events.  They will measure different
proper times between those events*". So your ideas are not self consistent
but then they had to be, spacetime distance and proper time aren't even in
the same units.

The reason you need both a odometer and a clock in your car is that they
measure different things. And no matter how hard you try you're never going
to be able to subtract seconds from meters, so why are we still arguing
about this when it's obvious you're wrong?


> > *And a geodesic is the path along which the rate of time is constant.*
>

What the hell?! Obviously the rate of time is always constant for any
observer in the same reference frame as the clock regardless if the path is
a geodesic or not, it will always change at the rate of one second per
second . It doesn't take a Einstein to know that.

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: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 2 Jan 2019, at 21:09, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 8:44:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 30 Dec 2018, at 19:02, Philip Thrift  wrote:



 On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 7:35:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Dec 2018, at 08:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
> There is no "even" or "odd" prior to the existence of* matter.*
>
>
> With some act of faith in some notion of matter. No problem with this, 
> unless this is used in conjunction with Mechanism.
>
> But there is a problem with this view in the foundations of physics, 
> as physicist presuppose numbers in their theories. That works FAPP, but 
> is 
> a problem, even without mechanism, in the materialistic ontologies.
>
> Bruno
>



 By "matter" I just mean all "the stuff" there is. 



 That leaves unclear if that “stuff which is” is primary or not. Up to 
 now, matter is a prediction of Mechanism, but not as stuff, more as 
 element 
 of (sharable) long dreams (computation seen from “inside” (to be short).






 "Numbers" are merely (human-made) language entities used in 
 communicating (human-made) theories about "the stuff”.  


 I doubt less 2+2=4 than the existence of the humans. I need to assume 
 2+2=4 to understand any experiment and theory in physics. With mechanism, 
 we explain human from relations on which everybody (enough serious) agree 
 on. If numbers were creation by human, why does that creation hits back so 
 strongly? Personally, I tend to believe that elementary arithmetical 
 statement, provable or not, are true independently of us. Matter, human’s 
 psychology, etc… needs a simpler explanation than simply assuming them.

 All what Mechanism needs to assume is one (any one) universal machine 
 or machinery.

 Bruno



>>> The relationship between mathematics and matter (or, really, between 
>>> math and science) - *Why does math work so well? - the *‘indispensability 
>>> question’ - is discussed in depth:
>>>
>>> SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
>>> IEP:  https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/
>>>
>>> I wrote a post on a my 'cheap' version:
>>>
>>> *Mathematical pulp fictionalism*
>>>
>>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematical-pulp-fictionalism/
>>>
>>> I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., 
>>> (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is nothing more than language - which 
>>> is something generated by material beings.
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., 
>> (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is *anything* more than language - 
>> which is something generated by material beings.
>>
>>
>> I caught that!
>>
>> - pt
>>  
>>
>
> When one thinks of "1+1=2", "|+|=||", etc. one thinks of, say, "There's a 
> stick and another stick side by side. What do you call that?"
>
> Where do people get the idea that there are  numbers in heaven that they 
> are thinking about?
>
>
> When we assume digital mechanism, only numbers (or equivalent) can think, 
> and get deluded in confusing the (quite real) physical appearance, with an 
> ontological being.
>
> The idea that mathematics is just language does not make sense to me. 
>
> It is a confusion between “2+2=4” and the fact that 2+2=4. 
>
> Once a mathematical realm is enough to possess Turing universal numbers, 
> it kicks strongly back, and indeed such a realm is not amenable completely 
> to *any* theory or language. 
>
> The mathematical theories used language, and are limited by the language 
> to get the whole truth, which shows that such a truth is fundamentally 
> above language and larger than syntactical or mechanical construction. 
> The beauty, is that once a universal machine is Löbienne, like when 
> believing in sufficiently powerful induction axioms, the machine get aware 
> of its own limitations with respect to some truth. That is how and why they 
> develop religion, i.e. a conception of reality with the idea that such a 
> reality is beyond their rational means, but not necessarily beyond personal 
> reflection and personal experience.
>
> With mechanism, we have the proof that in between rationalism and 
> irrationalism, there is a surrational corona, containing many true but 
> unprovable (unjustifiable by purely rational means) statements.
>
> There are tuns of evidence for a physical reality, but no evidence at all 
> for the idea that such a physical reality is primary. That is only believed 
> by many

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 3 Jan 2019, at 02:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
>> > are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>> > 
>> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
>> > multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
>> > describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
>> > values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
>> > transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps 
>> > the price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, 
>> > but an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
>> > January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>> 
>> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. The 
>> computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal computational 
>> deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first person indeterminacy 
>> is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many computations. But the 
>> precise topology and cardinality remains open problems. 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
>> universes, one for each horse as the winner,
> 
> Why? I don’t see this. Horses could be classical machine, in which case the 
> same horse is the winner in all, or quasi-all universes.
> 
> You believe that everything that's possible to happen, must happen; ergo Many 
> Worlds.


I prove that all computations are run in arithmetic, with relative proportion, 
handled by the math of self)-reference. 

I don’t believe in any world, nor even that the notion of (physical) world make 
sense, at least when using my working hypothesis.

I do not assume a physical world, nor a physical theory. That is what we have 
to explain.





> Horses are classical objects, so you can reject this example of the fallacy 
> in your thinking by modeling a situation with similar outcomes in a quantum 
> setting. AG 

In this case, I was (temporally, for the sake of the discussion) assuming the 
SWE, but nothing more. 






>>  but assuming space is continuous, an additional uncountable set of 
>> universes for each winner, where the losers have different positions when 
>> the winner crosses the finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but 
>> utterly sublime. Wouldn't you agree? AG 
> 
> Yes, the multiplication would occur (assuming space continuous). But the same 
> horse would still be the winner, except perhaps if two horses are so close 
> that in some universe another one wins the race, due to that location 
> superposition. Yet, if the horse behaves classically, with respect to their 
> muscular force and strategy, the winner will be the same in some majority 
> (say) of worlds. That is a good thing, as it makes it possible for large 
> creature to have a partial control on their destiny, and take a lift instead 
> of jumping through a window. Of course such a classical appearance have to be 
> explained from the quantum formalism, and with mechanism, such quantum 
> formalism has to be justified from the statistics on many computations (of 
> all types).
> 
> If you recast the horse race in a quantum context, which shouldn't be too 
> difficult, you will see that your *bias* that all things which are possible 
> to happen, MUST happen, leads to an absurdity. Try this; imagine several 
> electrons fired simultaneously, and the winner is the one which lands at the 
> positive extremity. No broken legs here, but I think one could massage this 
> model to include that as well. AG

Yes, but that would be like, prior to the horse race, of putting them 
explicitly in a superposition state, like giving them some drugs according to 
some quantum choice. But without that, QM will predict the same horse will win 
in all “quasi-classical” reality.

As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I 
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once 
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you 
actual state, you can understand that we have to see the trace of those 
computations when looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our 
substitution level. Then the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.

Bruno





> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> > "Everything List" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group an

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 2 Jan 2019, at 21:09, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:30:22 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 8:44:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Dec 2018, at 19:02, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 7:35:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 30 Dec 2018, at 08:33, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> There is no "even" or "odd" prior to the existence of matter.
>> 
>> With some act of faith in some notion of matter. No problem with this, 
>> unless this is used in conjunction with Mechanism.
>> 
>> But there is a problem with this view in the foundations of physics, as 
>> physicist presuppose numbers in their theories. That works FAPP, but is a 
>> problem, even without mechanism, in the materialistic ontologies.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> By "matter" I just mean all "the stuff" there is. 
> 
> 
> That leaves unclear if that “stuff which is” is primary or not. Up to now, 
> matter is a prediction of Mechanism, but not as stuff, more as element of 
> (sharable) long dreams (computation seen from “inside” (to be short).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> "Numbers" are merely (human-made) language entities used in communicating 
>> (human-made) theories about "the stuff”.  
> 
> I doubt less 2+2=4 than the existence of the humans. I need to assume 2+2=4 
> to understand any experiment and theory in physics. With mechanism, we 
> explain human from relations on which everybody (enough serious) agree on. If 
> numbers were creation by human, why does that creation hits back so strongly? 
> Personally, I tend to believe that elementary arithmetical statement, 
> provable or not, are true independently of us. Matter, human’s psychology, 
> etc… needs a simpler explanation than simply assuming them.
> 
> All what Mechanism needs to assume is one (any one) universal machine or 
> machinery.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> The relationship between mathematics and matter (or, really, between math and 
> science) - Why does math work so well? - the ‘indispensability question’ - is 
> discussed in depth:
> 
> SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/ 
> 
> IEP:  https://www.iep.utm.edu/mathfict/ 
> 
> I wrote a post on a my 'cheap' version:
> 
> Mathematical pulp fictionalism
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/26/mathematical-pulp-fictionalism/ 
> 
> 
> I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., 
> (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is nothing more than language - which is 
> something generated by material beings.
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> I have no reason to believe that all of mathematics (numbers, ..., 
> (mathematical) Turing machines, ...) is anything more than language - which 
> is something generated by material beings.
> 
> 
> I caught that!
> 
> - pt
>  
> 
> When one thinks of "1+1=2", "|+|=||", etc. one thinks of, say, "There's a 
> stick and another stick side by side. What do you call that?"
> 
> Where do people get the idea that there are  numbers in heaven that they are 
> thinking about?

When we assume digital mechanism, only numbers (or equivalent) can think, and 
get deluded in confusing the (quite real) physical appearance, with an 
ontological being.

The idea that mathematics is just language does not make sense to me. 

It is a confusion between “2+2=4” and the fact that 2+2=4. 

Once a mathematical realm is enough to possess Turing universal numbers, it 
kicks strongly back, and indeed such a realm is not amenable completely to 
*any* theory or language. 

The mathematical theories used language, and are limited by the language to get 
the whole truth, which shows that such a truth is fundamentally above language 
and larger than syntactical or mechanical construction. 
The beauty, is that once a universal machine is Löbienne, like when believing 
in sufficiently powerful induction axioms, the machine get aware of its own 
limitations with respect to some truth. That is how and why they develop 
religion, i.e. a conception of reality with the idea that such a reality is 
beyond their rational means, but not necessarily beyond personal reflection and 
personal experience.

With mechanism, we have the proof that in between rationalism and 
irrationalism, there is a surrational corona, containing many true but 
unprovable (unjustifiable by purely rational means) statements.

There are tuns of evidence for a physical reality, but no evidence at all for 
the idea that such a physical reality is primary. That is only believed by many 
today due to 1500 years of brainwashing by pseudo-religious people. 

To confuse matter with primary matter is the dogma of Aristotle. There has 
never been one experienc

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

[Bruce Kellett]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
> *> That's like saying if two people drove different cars from L.A. to New
>> York and their odometers registered different distances then one of the
>> odometers must have measured miles differently than the other...ignoring
>> the fact that they took different routes.*
>>
>
> No it's more like you claiming the odometer which measures miles is
> telling you the time which is measures in seconds. Or it's like saying the
> readings on any odometer that went from L.A. to New York is a invariant and
> so will always give the same reading regardless of the path took, even
> though they *don't have the same reading*. In other words its nonsense
>
>
> >> The spacetime distance d is *not* the proper time, the
>>> spacetime distance is an invariant, it's the same for all observers, but
>>> proper time is *not* invariant;
>>
>>
>> * > Sure it is.   It's path dependent, but it's an invariant of a given
>> path. *
>>
>
> Obviously!! If you take the same path through spacetime then you've not
> only traveled the exact same distance through time but moved the exact same
> distance through space too, otherwise it wouldn't be the same path through
> spacetime. But Einstein told us something much more interesting than X=X,
> If we travel between event A  and event B by different paths we'll disagree
> on the distance through space that was required and disagree on the
> distance through time that was required but we'll both agree on the
> distance through spacetime we traversed; that's why it's a invariant and
> that's why it's useful.
>
>
>> *> The "spacetime distance" between two timelike events is the length of
>> the longest proper time path between them.*
>>
>
> Brent, this is getting silly.  If  d^2 =  r^2 - (ct)^2 is the formula for
> spacetime distance (*AND IT IS!*) then there is no way on god's green
> earth the proper time can be the spacetime distance, one is a invariant and
> the other isn't and the two things don't even have the same units. I really
> don't know what else I can tell you except that there is no disgrace in
> being wrong but there is disgrace in refusing to admit error or learn
> from it.
>

So learn from this!
The 't' in your formula above is the coordinate time, not the proper time.
Learn the difference! The proper time is defined as the time kept by a
perfect clock travelling on a geodesic. And a geodesic is the path along
which the rate of time is constant.

Bruce

-- 
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.