Re: A theory of dark matter...

On 27 January 2014 14:11, Jason Resch wrote: > > This is something I have always wondered: if gravitons are real, does it > make the "warping of space" explanation of gravity redundant? What was the > evidence that space warps to begin with? The only thing I could think of > was gravitational tim

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On 27 January 2014 15:30, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 12:40 PM, LizR wrote: > > It's common knowledge - well, amongst people who are interested in this > sort of thing - that an outside observer sees an infalling object get stuck > just outside the event horizon of a

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I have provided the definition. Should I repeat? > God is the transcendental reality we bet on, and which is supposed to be > responsible for my or our existence. > > Sounds like "physics" to me. > If phy

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 15:50, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 1:45 PM, LizR wrote: > > OK, so your notion of God is "whatever is fundamentally responsible for > existence" - hence primitive materialism makes matter (energy etc) play the > part of God, in that sense. I can

Re: Church thesis => non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear LizR, >George Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form<http://www.lawsofform.org/lof.html>are > the place to start... > I'll add that to my reading list. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to th

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 17:31, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 6:44 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 January 2014 14:08, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/26/2014 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> I have provided the definition. Should I repeat? >> God is the transcende

Re: Church thesis => non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

My reading list is endless... On 27 January 2014 17:49, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> George Spencer-Brown's Laws of >> Form<http://www.lawso

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark wrote: > > 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the > very universe itself had not been discovered, they hadn't found Dark Matter > or Dark Energy; even Einstein didn't know about that. > Dark matter was discovered in 1932; and E

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 27 January 2014 23:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2014-01-27 LizR > > On 27 January 2014 07:58, John Clark wrote: >> >>> >>> 2) In 1947 the Double Helix hadn't been discovered yet, and 96% of the >>> very universe itself had not been discov

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes floating around the web. On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that >> book is really informative

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 06:07, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 27 Jan 2014, at 17:18, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that >> book is really informative about Einstein's religion. >> > > Rather than re

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, >> physicalist) theology for granted. >> > > I've said more than once that Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever > lived, h

Re: Church thesis => non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 27 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 27 Jan 2014, at 05:49, meekerdb wrote: > > On 1/26/2014 7:22 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 27 January 2014 15:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> George Spencer-Brown's Laws of >> For

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from >> the start, then all further argument is begging the question. If something >> can 'equal' something else, then consciousness is unnecessary. >> >> Could you explain? (I

Re: Church thesis => non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 28 January 2014 01:21, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Dear Bruno, > > I think that where we differ is in how we think of numbers: I see them > as merely representational > > What do they represent? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" g

Re: Church thesis => non computable functions exist (Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On 28 January 2014 09:42, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/26/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote: > > Watching "Memento" gives some idea of what's really going on, by showing > what life would be like after a partial breakdown of how the brain fools us > into thinking we have cont

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 11:09, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/27/2014 1:52 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 06:46, John Clark wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> > You seem to take the Aristotelian (naturalist, materialist, &

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote: > But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical >> I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a >> goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the >> existence of the universe is

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch wrote: > But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical >> I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a >> goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the >> existence of the universe is

Re: Modal Logic (Part 1: Leibniz)

On 27 January 2014 06:11, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2014, at 01:56, LizR wrote: > > On 25 January 2014 23:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >>> if p is true (in this world, say) then it's true in all worlds that p is >>> true in at least one wo

Re: Kevin Knuth's emergent spacetime

Very interesting, and (like spin foams and CDT and LQG) a possible way to get to emergent space-time from something more basic. But why do you say it's an alternative to the block universe? I didn't see anything in there to suggest that. On 28 January 2014 13:51, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi F

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 14:46, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/27/2014 2:32 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:09 PM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 1/27/2014 12:12 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >> So sure yeah, there's no limit to what you can do when you eliminate and

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect > outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and > nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? > > Your answer was that when ma

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational effect > outside the event horizon if gravity propagates at the speed of light and > nothing can go faster than the speed of light to come out of a black hole? > > Your answer was that when ma

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 16:17, Jason Resch wrote: > On Jan 27, 2014, at 4:38 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 09:21, Jason Resch < > jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical >>> I

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

Hm. "GOAR" could be a goer. "Ground of all reality" is neat, and shares the first 2 letters with the previous one. Or how about BOAR - Basis of all reality? (Or how about GOATEE - Ground of all that ever exists :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ev

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> >>> I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from the start, then all further argument is beg

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 21:48, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote: > > I hope those are real quotes. There are quite a few fake Einstein quotes > floating around the web. > > They were real, but taken out of the context. > > But they made my po

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 21:59, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Concepts like God, Matter, Universe are very useful, as long as their > precise sense are free to evolve, like any other concepts. To stuck a > concept in one theory is just like assessing that theory. I know only > atheists to stuck the God conc

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 28 January 2014 22:08, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote: > > After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that > Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. From that, one > cannot deduce that he thought you

Re: Modal Logic (Part 2: From Leibniz to Kripke)

On 29 January 2014 08:29, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Liz, Others, > "Good morning Professor Marchal!" > > In the general semantic of Leibniz, we have a non empty set of worlds W, > and some valuation of the propositional variables (p, q, r, ...) at each > world. > > And we should be convinced th

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

I imagine this is he: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll That took a good 5 seconds! On the subject of a BH not containing matter, surely that depends on whether there really *is* a singularity inside it? If it's a genuine singularity, as GR suggests, then any original matter that went

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

OK... thanks, I should have guesses it was the zeta function :D Anyway, I showed this proof to my 15 year old son and he soon put me right on why 1-1+1-1+1-1+1... is indeed 1/2. call the series 1-1+1-1+1... S then 1-S = 1 - (1-1+1-1+1-1+1...) = 1-1+1-1+1-1... = S S=1-S, so S=1/2 (which is, I sh

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

That's basically how the guys in the video summed it. On 30 January 2014 10:11, Telmo Menezes wrote: > I've noticed something (maybe silly, maybe trivial?). Let's say: > > S(0) = 1 = 1 > S(1) = 1 - 1 = 0 > S(2) = 1 - 1 + 1 = 1 > S(3) = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 = 0 > S(in

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 10:28, Russell Standish wrote: > As someone pointed out, it requires a non-standard definition of > convergence, as these series are non-convergent according to the usual > Cauchy definition. > Surely they are non convergent full stop? But even so I can't offhand see what's w

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> > NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. >>> >> >> And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or >> possibl

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 04:47, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR wrote: > > > The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s >> > > Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s, > but only in the late 1990s

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 07:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 29 Jan 2014, at 17:29, John Clark wrote: > And there *might* be a china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus too, > but I doubt it. > > Sure, that is possible, but the proposition that God is a person or not > might have more appreciable con

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 09:50, meekerdb wrote: > Leibniz was so impressed with binary numbers he suggested that 1 and 0 > might be the goar. > > John A. Wheeler also. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: Would math make God obsolete ?

"Would math make God obsolete?" If so, that remainds me of something... "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, an

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 05:13, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: > > > After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that >> Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God. >> > > No, Einstein had more to

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 11:56, Russell Standish wrote: > I just went upstairs and dug out my copy of Marsden's "Elementary > Classical Analysis" (don't you love the way advanced maths books are > "elementary this", or "elementary that" - except for my favourite, > "Mathematics Made Difficult", by Lind

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 11:56, Russell Standish wrote: > > It's the concept of Cesaro 1-summability that I was dimly recalling > (page 125), but on page 126, it appears the same result is achieved by > Abel summability, which is more general. > Is Abel the person after whom "Abelian" is named? > > G

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

According to comp, consciousness can't be localised, so neither a brain nor a room can be conscious. -- 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 everythin

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish wrote: > Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach > them this stuff. I remember someone once showed me the definition of > continuity in year 11 (with all the upside down As and back to frount > Es), and it nearly did my head

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 12:12, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:53:31AM +1300, LizR wrote: > > > > If I ever write a book on the behaviour of birds native to the > Antarctic, I > > must call it "Elementary penguin singing hare krishna" > >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 12:34, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:07:08PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish > wrote: > > > > > Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach > > > them this s

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 30 January 2014 12:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 12:45, Jesse Mazer wrote: > I think the problem is that for non-converging series, there are multiple > similar tricks you could do that would give different answers...for example: > > S = 1-1+1-1+1-1... > -1*S = -1+1-1+1-1+1... > > For a finite or converging series, the order

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 30 January 2014 12:48, Jesse Mazer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:39 PM, LizR wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 12:34, Russell Standish wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:07:08PM +1300, LizR wrote: >>> > On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Stand

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 30 January 2014 14:17, meekerdb wrote: > On 1/29/2014 5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for >> if I may... >> >> In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example. >> >> Two observers A and

Re: Modal Logic (Part 2: From Leibniz to Kripke)

On 29 January 2014 23:23, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Ah? I read his book on GR. It is a bit old but still pleasant. Not sure > that "our minds crawl up our worldlines" is wrong for block universe. Maybe > you can elaborate a little bit. > It creates the wrong image for people who don't understand

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

On 31 January 2014 04:43, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 30 Jan 2014, at 00:07, LizR wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish wrote: > >> Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach >> them this stuff. I remember someone once

Re: A theory of dark matter...

On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Richard, > > I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions. > :-) > > There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see > though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the > universe.

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones wrote: > Meanwhile - back at the ranch: > > Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of > matter. This is very confusing. He is just making this up as he goes along, > I'm afraid... > > I think to be fair he wants to work out the prope

Re: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

Shu's idea is that time and space are not independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each other. I thought SR already did that? (Combined them, I mean). So they are already not independent entities...? (Brent? :) Also, I thought GR explained why energy isn't conserved on the

Re: The Big Bang Never Happened - Eric Lerner

Time to look for polarisation in the CMBR and check for gravity waves... or are we already onto that? :) On 31 January 2014 10:34, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar > >

Re: A theory of dark matter...

Omega=1 (to within 0.4%) which means the universe is very close to flat (or even "hyperflat"). This is what would be predicted by inflation (which is just as well, because I believe inflation was invented specifically to solve the "flatness problem" !) If one treats the universe as having uniforml

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing something changing. Change is by definition things being different at different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you will n

Re: Unput and Onput

It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of the programme). Obviously this isn't much use in practice, of course! But from a philosophical perspective it's possible, so it isn't ontologically essential

Re: Unput and Onput

On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a >> computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of >> the programme). >> > > Added

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from >> something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing >> something changing. Chang

Re: Tegmark's new book

A consensus?!? Here??? Excuse me while I ROFLMAO, at least metaphorically. *I'm *gonna read the damn thing, ha ha, to quote a very old review by John Clute of a James Blish novel. Well, at least, I'm going to give it a go. I like Mad Max's mojo for some reason. They laughed at Bozo the clown, af

Re: The Robot and the Wizard

Like, wow. Nice picture (I'm tempted to say it makes a lot more sense than some posts around here!) On 1 February 2014 08:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > -- > You received this message be

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no >> > program or data is input and from which no data is expected as output? >> >> The UD. >> > > Isn't everything output from the UD? > No, as I understand it, only the appear

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: Why do some people have such a problem with "how change

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 02:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: > Why is this a problem? How can you know for sure that there is a flow > of time? Block universe hypothesis can explain how time would appear > to flow for each observer. This doesn't prove that block universe > hypothesis are correct, but they cann

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 02:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Again, the best way I can say it is that your mouth has to move plenty to > tell me it isn't moving! > > Patronising, boring, insulting and totally failing to understand elementary physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own >>> instantiation through input. It begins assuming that code is running. It >>> begins with the assumption that coding methods exist. I am saying that >>> those methods can only be s

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 1 February 2014 07:59, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > > A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees >> A's clock slow >> > > Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at > near light speed,

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1 February 2014 06:16, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 30 Jan 2014, at 21:44, LizR wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 22:44, Kim Jones wrote: > >> Meanwhile - back at the ranch: >> >> Tegmark wants to think of consciousness as - wait for it - a state of >> matter

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On 1 February 2014 17:37, Kim Jones wrote: > On 1 Feb 2014, at 3:24 pm, LizR wrote: > > Ah. Maybe I am being misled by the fact that I rather like Max :) > > Well look, Liz - so do I. He's almost as cute as Brian Cox - almost, but > not quite. Both of these Brains t

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a >> block universe. All the phenomena we experience can occur in a block >> universe, otherwise no one would e

Re: Unput and Onput

On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is > computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely > overlooked in the ontology of computationalism. Given that, isn't it more > likely that computationalis

Block Universes

There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change can't happen in a block universe" (which are obviously nonsense, or Einstein e

Re: Tegmark's new book

I will answer that if / when I have read it. On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held wrote: > Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps > has the most members in it. > > For another try I have read the following: > > > arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other] > Title: The Math

Re: Block Universes

On 2 February 2014 04:44, David Nyman wrote: > On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR wrote: > > Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a >> space-time continuum such that a "god's eye" view (or the relevant >> equations) would see it

Re: A theory of dark matter...

The saga continues... [image: Inline images 1] -- 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

Re: Unput and Onput

On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman wrote: > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical >> objection then you don't understand my theory fully. > > > That is truly hilarious Craig! I cannot help being reminded of Luther

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a

Re: Block Universes

Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that). I wish I could find the original question, to make sure exactly what it was. But I haven't managed to find it, and I can't spend all night trawling the for

Re: Block Universes

4 03:19, David Nyman wrote: > On 2 February 2014 03:42, LizR wrote: > > To answer the question about the frogs. We imagine we are an "extended >> frog" because of memory; without it we really would be stuck in the present >> moment, a series of individual isolated

Re: Unput and Onput

On 3 February 2014 03:29, David Nyman wrote: > On 2 February 2014 05:40, LizR wrote: > > Phew. At least it isn't just me who has this reaction. Maybe Craig and >> Edgar can get together and form a church whose motto is "I am right, and if >> you don't realise

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 3 February 2014 00:04, Telmo Menezes wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Hi Telmo, > > > > No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually > > OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block > times > > including Br

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 3 February 2014 02:37, David Nyman wrote: > Chalmers knows he has put his finger on a stark contradiction - a paradox > in fact - and he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge its force. > He shows that it should lead us to the conclusion - per impossibile - that > we ourselves are in

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 3 February 2014 08:05, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/2/2014 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Exactly. The only thing lagging is the AI. > > > More or less, but "AI" is a bit relative. I agree with Hofstadter "AI" > is when the program are not yet written, and once written we take them as > conve

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 3 February 2014 08:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Your idea of my theory must be very different from mine. > > You appear to have Edgar-itis - "I have a theory which I can't explain clearly, nor can I defend it against criticism except by insisting that nobody understands it". -- You received t

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 3 February 2014 08:31, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the > significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy to disarm it > as insouciantly interpolating armfuls of non-sequiturs couched

Re: Block Universes

On 3 February 2014 08:03, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/2/2014 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: > > Someone asked how a block universe "comes to exist" and if it comes into > existence "all at once, or a bit at a time" (or something like that). > > I wish I could find the o

Re: How to define finite

Ooh, tricky - could that be Brent Meeker or Bruno Marchal being quoted? (I have my suspicions of course... :-) BM: But mathematical truth is not substituted for reality. i show that the machine's epistemology is already richer than the mathematical truth. -- You received this message because you

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

ike to help make the wiki more complete, feel free to >> >> > write >> >> > one of the "wanted" pages: >> >> > >> >> > >> http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki2/index.php?title=Special:WantedPages >> >> > >> >> &

Films I think people on this forum might like

One I've mentioned ad nauseum - "Memento". There is also "The Prestige", which I would definitely recommend. To avoid spoilers, I won't go into detail about why these films might appeal, but they both address issues mentioned on this list (at least tangentially, and in a fictional manner). I mig

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

Yes, it's in response to that. It just struck me that although the original couldn't get out on his own, the duplicates he created could still help him escape. On 3 February 2014 20:33, Jason Resch wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:58 PM, LizR wrote: > >> >>

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

Oh, and I should of course mention "The Pirates! Band of Misfits" from Aardman (makers of "Wallace and Gromit") which is the source of my new avatar. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop rece

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

On 4 February 2014 06:19, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > Do you troll as a hobby or professionally? >> > > Oh I think you could call me a professional by now, in fact because I've > been making many of these exact same points since the early 1990s I

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >