Everything List
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
On 12/30/2019 5:44 PM, George Levy wrote:
On 12/29/2019 4:34 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:
George,
Does your interpretation of Boltzmann's view on the conservation of
energy invoke any observer like Boltzman
to any of these thought experiments -
just guesses. Do you know the answers?
George
-Original Message-
From: George Levy
To: everything-list
Sent: Mon, Dec 23, 2019 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines
Hi everyone
I do not post often, but now is an opportune time to post
vious state /even in the presence of an arrow of time,/
thereby restoring its entropy to its original value. This version of the
paradox renders moot the arrow of time assumption and bypasses the
H-Theorem.
The paper includes a theoretical discussion, simulation and experimental
data.
George Levy
Thanks Bruno
On 11/11/2015 12:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi George,
Congratulations!
Best wishes for you and your amazing work. I am not convinced but that
might only be due to my incompetence in the field. I will make a
further look.
Bruno
On 10 Nov 2015, at 23:10, George Levy wrote
I would like to update the members of this list on what I have been up
to recently (and revive an old thread). My latest paper "Quantum Game
Beats Classical Odds - Thermodynamics Implications" has just been
published by the Journal Entropy under the section "Statistical
Mechanics" after a
Dear Rabbi
Rabbi Rabbit wrote:
What is
surprising about Abulafia is that he did not reach this state by
suppressing his conscious mind, as most mystics do by repetition of a
single formula/mantra, but by overstimulating it with letter
combinations accompanied by body motions.
Too much
Hi John
Thanks for your appreciation.
John Mikes wrote:
Dear George,
I was missing more of your contributions on this list lately (years?).
Let me reflect to a few of your topics:
*Chaos.*
A decade or so ago I was named 'resident chaotician' on another list -
later changed my mind when I
Hi Rabbi Rabbit.
Welcome
I haven't contributed to this list for a while but I have been reading it.
Here is a possible connection between the Kabbalah and the Multiverse,
which I will describe in a bulleted fashion for brevity.
The initial chaos, Tohu va Bohu, (from which the French word
A good model of the naturalist math that Torgny is talking about is the
overflow mechanism in computers.
For example in a 64 bit machine you may define overflow for positive
integers as 2^^64 -1. If negative integers are included then the
biggest positive could be 2^^32-1.
Torgny would also
Kelly Harmon wrote:
What if you used a lookup table for only a single neuron in a computer
simulation of a brain?
Hi Kelly
Zombie arguments involving look up tables are faulty because look up
tables are not closed systems. They require someone to fill them up.
To resolve these arguments
I agree with Anna. In addition, it all depends on where you define the
boundary of the self. Just the brain? Brain + body? Brain + body +
immediate surrounding (prescription glasses being worn, automobile being
driven, binoculars or computer being used) ? Brain + body + Whole
causally
I agree with Anna. In addition, it all depends on where you define the
boundary of the self. Just the brain? Brain + body? Brain + body +
immediate surrounding (prescription glasses being worn, automobile being
driven, binoculars or computer being used) ? Brain + body + Whole
causally
Jack,
You say Q_i (which is _your_ utility per unit measure for the observer i).
This is an oxymoron. How can observer i know or care what YOUR Q
(Quality) is? How can this observer feel what it feels being you?. The
only observer that matters in evaluating your Q is you as a
self-observer.
Hi Jack
Nice to see you again.
The assumption that measure decreases continuously has been accepted too
easily. This is, however, really the crux of the discussion.
One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and
corresponds to the increase in entropy occurring in everyday
is new to the list.
I have also been overwhelmed by the volume on this list. The idea is not
to take more than you can chew.
--- On Wed, 2/11/09, George Levy gl...@quantics.net wrote:
One could argue that measure actually increases continuously and corresponds
to the increase in entropy
This last example illustrates how three different observers can see
three different probabilities.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
Hi Brian
As Russell said, we have been discussing this topic for at least a
decade. We all respect each other. I am sure that Bruno did not mean
harm when he made his comment.
You bring up an interesting question: the relationship between Fuzzy
logic and the MUH and you state that Fuzzy
Hal
Ok, there is no feeling but there is motivation. There is no feeling of
motivation and there is motivation without feeling. This is totally
alien or the English language is broken.
George
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi George:
I see no feeling of anything in a Something. There is only an
Hal,
Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator of
the members. In other words the members feel motivated by
incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that
motivates their behavior. Is this correct?
George
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi George:
I see no
Hal,
I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say:
Something if incomplete will have to
increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions
which implies volition and therefore spirit;
and on the other hand you say:
There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on
the part of the
Hal Ruhl wrote:
This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces
[meaningful questions] applied to it.
What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces?
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
that what I am
explaining now does not depend on those possible relations (between
truth and reality).
Bruno
Le 24-nov.-07, à 21:23, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno thank you for this elaborate reply. I would like these three
statements to make use of cybernetic language
. I guess there may be cases where multiple machines can
have access to the dame data.
Same with statement 4
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-nov.-07, à 20:50, George Levy a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old)
which I found very
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found very
intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think that if you want to
make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor
One more question: can or should p be the observer?
George
George Levy wrote:
Hi Bruno,
I am reopening an old thread ( more than a year old) which I found
very intriguing. It leads to some startling conclusions.
Le 05-août-06, à 02:07, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:I think
A theory of everyting is sweeping the Physics community.
The theory by Garrett Lisi is explained in this Wiki entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
A simulation of E8 can be found a the New Scientist.
Sorry the nice equation formats did not make it past the server. Anyone
interested in the equations can find them at the associated wiki links.
George
Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:20:35PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Russel,
We are trying to related the expansion
ve trouble relating these facts to your equation H = C + S or
maybe to the differential version dH = dC + dS. What do you think? Can
we push this further?
George
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 05:11:01PM -0700, George Levy wrote:
Could we relate the expansion of th
) (see below) is quite relevant sure,
Bruno
Le 08-oct.-07, à 05:10, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think that Maudlin refers to the conjunction of the comp hyp and
supervenience, where consciousness is supposed to be linked (most of
the time in a sort of real-time way
Oops: replace Newton's demon by Maxwell's demon.
George
George Levy wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Yes I am still on the list, barely trying to keep up, but I have been
very busy. Actually the ball was in my court and I was supposed to
answer to your last post to me about a year ago!!!. Generally I
saying that I have to answer it, but apparently I didn't. So here is
the answer, with a delay of about one year :(
Le 08-oct.-06, à 08:00, George Levy wrote :
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http
Brent meeker writes:
It could be argued that not even God could create a world in which there are
no accidents,
conflicts of interest, disappointments, and so on, at least not without
severely limiting
his creatures' freedom. However, it would have been possible for God to limit
the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-oct.-06, 21:54, George Levy a crit :
To observe a split consciousness, you need an observer
who
is also split,
?
This is simple. The time/space/substrate/level of the observer must
match the time/space/substrate/level of what he observes
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 08-oct.-06, 08:00, George Levy a crit :
Bruno,
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
is not accessible
Bruno,
Finally I read your filmed graph argument which I have stored in my
computer. (The original at the Iridia web site
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/bxlthesis/Volume3CC/3%20%202%20.pdf
is not accessible anymore. I am not sure why.)
In page TROIS -61 you describe an experience of
. To understand the insertion of
Maudlin into the consciousness of The Conscious_Subroutine, you must
agree that this consciousness is independent of
time, space, substrate and level. This Maybe is the Moral of Maudlin's
Machinations...?
George
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 03-oct.-06, 21:33, George
Oops. Read: IF (Input = 27098217872180483080234850309823740127)
George
George Levy wrote:
Bruno, Stathis,
Thank you Stathis for the summary. I do have the paper now and I will
read it carefully. Based on Sathis summary I still believe that Maudlin
is fallacious. A computer program
List members
I scanned Maudlin's paper. Thank you Russell. As I suspected I found a
few questionable passages:
Page417: line 14:
"So the spatial sequence of the troughs need not reflect their
'computational sequence'. We may so contrive that any sequence of
address lie next to each other
Bruno Marchal wrote in explaining Maudlin's argument:
"For any given precise running computation associated to
some inner experience, you
can modify the device in such a way that the amount of physical
activity involved is
arbitrarily low, and even null for dreaming experience which has no
The scientist could prove that he is not alone by invoking the
principle of sufficient reason: nothing is arbitrary and exist with no
reason. If something exists in a particular arbitrary way (himself)
with no reason for him to be in that particular way, then all
other alternatives of him must
If you're not sure that you are sane, then you must be crazy to say
"Yes Doctor."..
...yet a man could say it but not a "sane" machine.
Bruno's quest based on machine psychology runs the risk of leaving
unanswered the really big quest based on human psychology.
George
Slight correction:
If you are sane then you're not sure that you are sane, then you would
have to be crazy to say
"Yes Doctor."..
...yet a man could say it but not a "sane" machine.
Bruno's quest based on machine psychology runs the risk of leaving
unanswered the really
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an unsupported inference.
IMHO everything hinges on "I think." "I th
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Brent Meeker wrote:
That brings us back to Descartes "I think therefore I am"; which Russell
pointed out was an u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno, I spent some (!) time on speculating on 'timelessness' - Let me tell
up front: I did not solve it.
Hi John
For example, we can conceive of a consciousness generated by a computer
operating in a time share mode where the time share occur every
thousand
David Nyman wrote:
Third person perception comes about when several observers share the
same perception because they share the same environmental contingencies
on their existence. In effect these observers share the same "frame of
reference." I see many similarities with relativity
David Nyman wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Not at all. A bidirectional contingency is superfluous. The only
relevent contingency is: If the observed event will result in different
probabilities of survival for myself and for others observing me, then
our perceptions will be different
1Z wrote:
I don't even know what you mean by "first person".
David Nyman wrote:
Peter
It's a bit late in the day perhaps to tell me you 'don't even know what
I mean by first person'! However, I'll have another go. I'm concerned
to distinguish two basic meanings, which
David Nyman wrote:
George Levy wrote:
Thus first person perception of the world comes about when our own
existence is contingent on our observation.
Hi George
I think I agree with this. It could correspond with what I'm trying to
model in terms of FP1 etc. Perhaps
1Z wrote:
George Levy wrote:
A conscious entity is also information.
I am assuming here that a conscious entity is essentially "software."
George
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Would it be possible to map your three axiomatic lines
replacing "knowable" by "think" and "true" by "exist." ...
See my conversation with 1Z (Peter D. Jones). I will define "exist" by
" "exist" is true".
Then we have:
1 If p thinks then p exists;
ntails q" reminds me vaguely of the Anthropic
principle. I am not sure what to make of this. My children think???)
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Hi Bruno
Each one of us like to do what we do best and we apply our preferred
techniques to the problem at hand. Thus a mechanic may solve the
pollution problem by building electric cars, and the cook may solve the
same problem by preparing vegetarian meals.
As a mathematician you are trying
Stephen Paul King wrote:
little discussion has
been given to the implications of taking the 1st person aspect as primary or
fundamental. Could you point me toward any that you have seen?
Hi Stephen
Alas, I am a mere engineer, not a philosopher. The only author I can
point you to is John
ness
problem under the quantum carpet. We must first get a good
understanding of self referential systems, classical or quantum. Bruno
seems to be on the right track but I think we are still waiting for the
linkage between diagonalization and self referentiality and
consciousness... (forgive me
is
important to avoid confusion.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group
eeds no
medium!" Marshall McLuhan got it all wrong!
:-)
George Levy
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-juil.-06, 20:36, George Levy a crit :
My background is more engineering and physics than
mathematics and I do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has
to do with terminolo
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Norman,
Le 20-juin-06, 04:04, Norman Samish a crit :
I've endured this thread long
enough! Let's get back to something I can understand!
My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do
share some of Norman misgivings.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 23-juin-06, 07:29, George Levy a crit :
In Bruno's calculus what are the invariances? (Comment on Tom Caylor's
post)
Logicians, traditionally, are interested in deduction invariant with
respect of the interpretation. A typical piece
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon) this issue brings us
back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have
to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the
mind-body problem.
[SPK]
Lee Corbin wrote:
I find that the 1st person accounts to be pretty subjective,
actually. They also lead to inconsistencies and unnecessary
differences of opinion.
Interestingly the geocentric Aristotelian system was replaced by the
heliocentric Copernican system. Then Relativity and Quantum
Hi Stephen
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Quentin et al,
I keep reading this claim that only the existence of the algorithm
itself is necessary and I am still mystified as to how it is reasoned for
mere existence of a representation of a process, such as an implementation
in terms of
Hi Lee,
Lee Corbin wrote:
George writes
Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This
is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain
the physics and the objects.
This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Proceeding that way you will run into trouble. But it is very easy to
find the k.
Let us be specific and let us imagine you have already written in
Fortran a generator of all programs of the one-variable partial
computable functions: F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 ...
The list of
I went on a 10 day trip during which I had no access to email... a lot
has happened on this list since then.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
And fortran programs
are fortran generable, so I can generate a sequence of all fortran
one-variable program F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 (all means that
soon or
Russell Standish wrote:
This would imply that there exist "islands" of indentity, and having
limited awareness in time and multispace, we can only ever be aware of
one instance from each island, but that might change with technology.
BTW another analogy is the islands of geneflow within
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Meanwhile, I
would like to ask George and the others if they have a good
understanding of the present thread, that is on the fact that growing
functions has been well defined, that each sequence of such functions
are well defined, and each diagonalisation defines quite
One can create faster and faster rising functions and larger and larger
number until one is blue in the face. The point is that no matter how
large a finite number n one defines, I can stand on the
shoulder of giants and do better by citing n+1 using simple addition.
Now if somehow one came
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Now I think I should train you with diagonalization. I give you an
exercise: write a program which, if executed, will stop on the biggest
possible natural number. Fairy tale version: you meet a fairy who
propose you a wish. You ask to be immortal but the fairy
Bruno,
Thank you for still working on my post. I am working on the reply, in
particular designing the set of function or number that can be
diagonalized to generate a large number. I shall be busy this weekend
with family matters but I will reply to you in detail.
I agree that the idea of
I have had trouble opening The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE posts. As
soon as I open the post my mail software (in Netscape) closes. I think
there is an invisible character or command associated with the subject
line, that forces the software to close.
I have also experienced the same effect
d person is a single history and corresponds to "I" AND the bomb
goes off/probability{bomb goes off}.
Plural person is multiple histories regarding the bomb, and corresponds
to "I" AND ("the bomb goes off" inclusive OR "the bomb does not go
off".) = &qu
Bruno Marchal wrote:
<>
Le 25-mars-06, 00:51, George Levy a crit :
Smullyan's white knigth had the mission to teach me about the logic of
G
and G*. Sorry, he failed.
All right, but this is just because he miss Church Thesis and Comp. His
purpose actually is just to introdu
assuming the many-world, and 3) G/G* logic assuming the many-world.
What would the white knight do if he were living in the many-world? What
kind of situations would highlight his talent to think in G. Would his
behavior appear to be paradoxical from our logical point of view?
George Levy
lusion of reality at our level of
implementation/illusion.
George Levy
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To uns
There is a great article entitled "The Limts of Reason" by Gregory
Chaitin in the March Issue of Scientific American page 74. I quote:
"So perhaps mathematicians should not try to prove
everything. Sometimes they should try to add new axioms. That is what
you have got to do when you are faced
Norman Samish wrote:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that nothing was
describable - because, if it was, it would not be nothing. I don't think
of nothing as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a
bitstring - as
crazy and leave me alone. :-)
I bet you never had to deal with patients as wily as me. Aye, there is
method in my madness! :-P
George
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
George Levy writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem, is
that no consistent machine can prove its own consistency:
IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its consistency
Bruno,
After I read your email, we had a gathering of family and friends,
Naming this field is difficult. This is why I made several suggestions
none of which I thought were excellent.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think it is a question of vocabulary,
It is only a question of vocabulary if you intend to communicate with
other people. And this is where the
Bruno, John and Stephen
More on naming:
I think the name should include the following concepts
1) modal or relativistic or relative formulation or first person,
2) quantum or quantics,
3) psycho or psyche or consciousness or ego,
4) mechanics or theory.
So, picking one term from each row we
Bruno
I don't think either "machine psychology" or "machine theology" work
because of the baggage those field already carry. In any case the
attribute "machine" sends the wrong picture. And as you have pointed
out the terms "computer science" and "number theory" do not capture
the real issue
Le 14-déc.-05, à 01:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
In the multiverse, only other people end up in dead ends. Although
from a third person perspective every entity in the multiverse could
be said to exist only transiently because at every point of an
entity's history we can say that there
Bruno Marchal wrote:
we are conscious only because we belong to a continuum of infinite
never ending stories ...
...that's what the lobian machine's guardian angel G* says about
that: true and strictly unbelievable.
Bruno
Since you agree that the number of histories is on a continuum, you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
In addition to the above arguments, consider the problem
from the point of view of the subject. If multiple copies of a person
are created and run in parallel for a period, what difference does this
make to his experience? It seems to me that there is no test or
ar that if you
consider the problem from the information angle, then duplication of
information does not increase the measure of that information. This
would support the relative interpretation of measure.
George
Quentin
Le Jeudi 8 Décembre 2005 22:21, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-dc.-05, 02:46, Saibal Mitra a crit :
I still think that if you double everything
and then annihilate only the
doubled person, the probability will be 1.
Actually I agree with this.
So far we have been talking about
Saibal Mitra wrote:
Correction, I seem to have misunderstood Statis' set up. If you really
create a new world and then create and kill the person there then the
probability of survival is 1. This is different from quantum mechanical
branch splitting.
To see this, consider first what would
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this might be interpreted from the 1st
person viewpoint:
(a) Pr(I
Please disregard previous post. The b and c cases were inverted.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
If on the basis of a coin toss the world splits, and in one branch I
am instantaneously killed while in the other I continue living, there
are several possible ways this
Along the line of Jorge Luis Borges a
blackboard covered in chalk contains the library of Babel (everything)
but no information. Similarly a white board covered with ink also
contains no information.
Interestingly, information is minimized or actually goes to zero when
the world is too large
I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a universe
capable of 1) supporting the NAND function 2) storing (locally) 1 bit,
3) transmitting 1 bit from one point to another point, then one could
also generate a Turing machine in this universe which would then be
capable of
From the thread Re: ROSS MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE - The Simplest Yet
Theory of Everything
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 22-oct.-05, à 04:50, George Levy a écrit :
The 3-plenitude is equivalent with the computationnal states accessed
by the UD. It is also equivalent with the (finite and infinite
Hal Finney wrote:
Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the
actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do.
The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of
a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory
ancel long range
gravitational force (possibly what we are seeing with the Pioneer
spacecrafts?)
George Levy
are different. If negative matter/energy
could exist they would give space a negative curvature. Negative
matter/energy may be identical to dark energy.
George Levy
Hi Godfrey, Bruno
The "I" that I consider consists of a logical system that defines and
coincides with the physical system that the "I" inhabits. Thus the
world (the slice of the plenitude that we can observe) is anthropically
constrained by the "I."
[GK]
So the "I" is (1) a logical system
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also have some trouble with the idea that we "share an I", as you put
it, as I don't know to what extent
I do share mine with anyone! My notion is, instead, that the "I" is
exactly what we DO NOT SHARE, what makes us different,
while Reality is all the rest:
iffer from George Levy
(OK George?), although I could make sense of it. The point is, and
Dennett agrees on this, that, in cognitive *science*, we need to
develop some third person discourse on the first person discourses.
OK, strictly speaking the quantum and physical discourses appears at
some fi
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
Wouldn't it be true that in the
1 - 100 of 237 matches
Mail list logo
