RIP Steven Weinberg

Steven Weinberg is no more, since recently. I did appreciate very much his books on quantum mechanics, and also his introduction to quantum field theory. I have mentioned more than once his work showing that if you delinearise a little bit quantum mechanics, not only you cannot make the paralle

Re: Consciousness research

It is never to late, but I guess they remain in the Aristotelian framework, which makes them impossible to take into account the elementary consequences of Mechanism in metaphysics. If you can sum up their approaches or just tell me their basic hypotheses ... In my university, it too time, but

Re: Europeans are smarter than Americans

I am rather disappointed that Biden took seriously "the negotiation" between Trump and the Talibans, which is more like bandits collaboration. I was rather angry with respect to trump's isolationism, and it is sad that Biden follows him on this.I was hoping that America stays much longer in Afg

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

Markov Chains, > We Gonna Be all right! > > Triple Integrals, > We be Jamm'in in the name of Plato! > > Irae Mon! > > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: Everything List > Sent: Thu, Aug 12, 2021 7:47 am > Subject: Re: Hitler against

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

Nobody says that cannabis is not harmful, but it remains far less harmful than alcohol, especially during a pandemic. And cannabis is a *very* efficacious medication for a large spectrum if disease, which does not mean that it has not some secondary indesirable effects. Then the worst is prohib

Re: Vaccine statistics

Spud, the protest in France is absurd. It reflects lack of education, or of common sense. But then, that is very common, even in the Academia, for reason of untouchability. It is like with the conflict in the Middle-East, where many Europeans and more and more Americans confuse systematically

Re: Vaccine statistics

People who claim that a vaccination mandate, or masks, constitute a threat for freedom are mocking those living in a genuine dictatorship and they have no ideas of what that means. If they were serious they would be in the street since the prohibition of medication laws, which is something put

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

brain was >> consciously thinking...an effective theory of consciousness...then* > > > Then I would ask, how do you know the machine is working properly, and how > on earth do you read the machine's output? > > > The machine prints out "JKC is thinking about Kate B

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

instead mental > apps based on whatever facts we can uncover, be it flesh or spirit? > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: Everything List > Sent: Wed, Jul 21, 2021 6:32 am > Subject: Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem > > There are some

Re: NYTimes.com: A.I. Predicts the Shapes of Molecules to Come

I agree that solving the folding of protein problem is a huge accomplishment. To get consciousness you need to apply DeepMind on itself, and wait. That will give a sort of "universal baby", and it will get the G* theology/psychology as long as it remains arithmetically sound. Consciousness is r

Re: Fox News and Newsmax regurgitates anti-vaccine rhetoric​ vomit ​

I am pro vaccine, but also a bit of a procrastinator. Eventually I got the first dose, moderna, (today) and, yes, it has been approved by the FDA, ...although this is a more an argument of concern to me, given that the FDA continues to lie implicitly on cannabis. That is the problem with the lia

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

so does Swiss digital philosopher, Juergen Schmidhuber. > https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ > > Hope everyone whose system can take (I'd avoid the very young) gets vaxed? > Good luck. > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: Everything List > Se

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

As in Quantum Woo style-all focus > upon the same thing? > > Probably not, so it's back to work for scientists and engineers > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: Everything List > Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2021 9:07 am > Subject: Re: Hitler aga

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

I have answered this, but I don't find my answer. Penrose use Gödel's theorem to argue that we are not machine, by a reasoning similar to one already found, and refuted, by Emil Post, and later developed (wrongly) by Lucas and Penrose. Eventually Penrose got it right, and that kind of argument

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

adow of) the quantum logical formalism. I don't think that something like gravitation is globally Turing emulable, but I am not sure. Bruno On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 2:13:15 PM UTC+2 Tomas Pales wrote: > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 1:55:59 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

://www.facebook.com/Bruno.Marchal24 I would not say that we are inconsistent machine. We are more like consistent (even arithmetically sound) machine, with some layer of non-monotonic logic to handle local belief revision. On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 5:28:27 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 3 Jun 2

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 11 Jul 2021, at 13:03, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 10, 2021 at 11:34:28 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > I think this kind of talk puts far too much on consciousness. Conscious > thoughts seem to pop into my head with no antecedents, yet they relate to > past and distant things

Re: Hitler against Godel's Theorem

> On 3 Jun 2021, at 13:28, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > It is Penrose's thesis that consciousness is a sort of Godel trick. ? Penrose on the contrary use Gödel’s theorem, like Lucas, erroneously, to claim that we are not machine. Basically he says that the correct machine cannot see []p ->

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 21:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > On 7/4/2021 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra wrote: >>> >>> Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 17:40, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:46:39 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or > who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly > or do you find points i

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:48, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 2:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> <mailto:everything-l

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:45, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 1:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales >> <mailto:litewav...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:43, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark >> <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 1:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> So, in general we can conclude by generalizing this to any large number of >> particles that even with what we consider to

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 21:38, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 7/10/2021 1:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> <mailto:everything

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 10 Jul 2021, at 14:17, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 3:52 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not > > > I disagree with this > > An embalme

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 09:34, smitra wrote: > > On 06-07-2021 22:29, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: >> On 7/6/2021 12:49 PM, smitra wrote: >>> On 06-07-2021 19:34, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: And you're nev

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 03:21, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > Then I guess I don't understand this p

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 22:07, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> >> wrote: >> And you're never going to find a being

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

7;Brent Meeker' via Everything List > Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2021 10:56 am > Subject: Re: Why are laws of physics stable? > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matte

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:45, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:28:11 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales > > wrote: >> Can't there be a machine that computes gravitational interaction with >>

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:56, John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:49 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > > > Many people continue to believe in the God “Matter” > > Yeah, many people are like that, people such as yourself who l

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 16:39, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 6, 2021 at 10:12:49 AM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > The physical laws are stable because they have an arithmetical origin in the > “head” of any universal+ machine (those which have the theology G*)

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 15:53, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 4:19 PM Tomas Pales > wrote: > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com > wrote: > > How can my consciousness be located in a place th

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 12:55, John Clark wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >> It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but as for > >> consciousness, how did you determ

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 6 Jul 2021, at 09:21, smitra wrote: > > On 05-07-2021 12:18, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:39 PM smitra wrote: >>> On 05-07-2021 09:00, Bruce Kellett wrote: On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM smitra wrote: I don't think this is actually done in the experiment. Wh

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 22:19, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > > How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of? > > You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that have > high org

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 21:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > On 7/5/2021 7:41 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:44 AM Tomas Pales > > wrote: >> >> >> "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, that's why you can't measure >> consc

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 15:03, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 5:33 AM Tomas Pales > wrote: > > > I think consciousness is the brain, > > I disagree. Me too. > "Brain" is a noun, "consciousness" is not, I disagree with this too. > that's why you c

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 11:41, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:25:09 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > But there's no random selection involved unless you make it a postulate. > Otherwise it's just a collection. > > There is obviously a selection because I don't see all possible outc

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 11:33, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:22:51 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > So consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of brains or other quantum systems. > > I think consciousness is the brain, That makes no sense. With mechanism, the brain is just a compute

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 04:25, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > On 7/4/2021 6:33 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 2:50:48 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> >> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >>> For example, A happens in 16 worlds and B in 9 worlds. Or in g

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 04:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > On 7/4/2021 5:54 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:57:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> So you are this single magic soul that selects one world of many to really >> be in? >> >> I don't select

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 03:08, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> It's not

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 5 Jul 2021, at 02:58, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:39 PM Tomas Pales > wrote: > > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote: > > Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I think: > > http://www

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 22:29, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > >> I think I mentioned before that in David Deutsch's book "The Ghost In The > >> Atom" he proposed an experimental test

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 4 Jul 2021, at 12:29, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 11:26 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > > Then do you suppose that the number of branches corresponds to the > > probability? > > > With a few cavea

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 3 Jul 2021, at 14:13, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 1:55:59 PM UTC+2 Bruno Marchal wrote: > > With Mechanism the physical laws remains persistent because they are the same > for all universal machine, and they come from the uni

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 27 Jun 2021, at 11:49, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws aren't > around anymore. > > By laws I mean regularities in nature. The apple still falls down and not up > o

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

> On 27 Jun 2021, at 01:41, Tomas Pales wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:36:47 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: > > But presumably the laws are stable. Why? Because that's the way we want > them. If they weren't stable (or even time invariant) we wouldn't call them > laws of physics.

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 16:02, John Clark wrote: > > Suppose there is an AI that behaves more intelligently than the most > intelligent human who ever lived, however when the machine is opened up to > see how this intelligence is actually achieved one consciousness theory > doesn't like what it

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 13:17, smitra wrote: > > Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely that > information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This means > that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some physical > object, because the inf

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 19 Jun 2021, at 02:18, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > I'm most with Dennett. I see consciousness as having several different > levels, which are also different levels of self-reference. Different modes, yes (“level” is already used to describe the Doctor(s coding des

Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory of consciousness?

> On 18 Jun 2021, at 20:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date, or > who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them wholeheartedly > or do you find points if disagreement? > > I am seeing several related thoughts comm

Re: Why are laws of physics stable?

With Mechanism the physical laws remains persistent because they are the same for all universal machine, and they come from the unique statistics on all computations (in arithmetic, in lambda calculus, in any Turing universal theory or system). In a sense, they are even more solid than what we

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

> On 15 Jun 2021, at 00:12, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 6/14/2021 2:17 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 11:05 AM > > wrote: >> >> > New religions I hold we do not need. >> >> I hold we don't need the old religions either.

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

> On 14 Jun 2021, at 17:05, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > A wise idea to clear up the word clutter. New religions I hold we do not > need. It's better to use science to upgrade them. That the whole point. To bring back reason in theology, which is the fundamental science by def

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

> On 14 Jun 2021, at 16:21, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:18 PM spudboy100 via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > I am not saying we do not need theology, > > Maybe you're not saying we don't need theology, but I certainly am. We

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

> On 4 Jun 2021, at 17:03, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > SALON. 6-4-21. Alan D. Blotcky Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist in > Birmingham, > Alabama..https://www.salon.com/2021/06/04/one-thing-trump-destroyed-we-should-be-happy-about-the-goldwater-rule-bites-the-dust/ > >

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

> On 30 May 2021, at 16:15, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 6:27:15 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 3 May 2021, at 17:09, Philip Benjamin > > wrote: >> > >> Speech by Senator Tim Scott: >> https://www.nbcnews.co

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

tion, for which there is no evidence at all. Bruno > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2021 9:35 am > Subject: Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not > released on April

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

> On 30 May 2021, at 15:58, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > The Boltzmann brain is only really a problem if the vacuum or spacetime of > the observable universe is "eternal." It probably is not, and in fact there > are reasons to suspect the vacuum of the universe has phantom energy. This > wi

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

f people are interested. Tegmark has progressed by using computationalism, but is still not aware that the physical reality is in the head of all universal numbers, as a by-product of incompleteness. Bruno > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: spudboy...@aol.

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

igour in the fundamental science, and many people confuse the physical reality and the fundamental reality, without knowing that this confusion is a string hypothesis in the fundamental science. Bruno > > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: spudboy...@aol.co

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

nd whether pigs have wings, ha ha… All universal machine can understand, pig includes. If they don’t, it is a symptom of prejudices, brainwashing, … Bruno > > LC > > On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 7:51:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 16 Apr 2021, at 04:36, spudboy100

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

) which is only half-enlightenment, as the fundamental science per definition (theology) has not yet come back to reason, only the natural sciences have been restituted, and the fundamental science remains in the hand of argument by authority, literal reading of sacred text, dogma (matter), et

Re: Senator's "My American Story" Is a Result of Awakened-Bo Dark-Matter Body

> On 3 May 2021, at 17:09, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > Speech by Senator Tim Scott: > https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/read-sen-tim-scott-s-speech-rnc-n1237978 > > ... > “ America is not Rac

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 6 May 2021, at 17:19, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal] “I consider a cigarette as a living organism, with a complex > reproductive cycle involving humans...” > [Philip Benjamin] > This is a Darwinian view of life. Indeed. Darwin was inspired by Descartes Mec

Re: A minimally conscious program

> On 2 May 2021, at 13:27, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 3:50:14 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 4:29 PM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and > > later retrieves ( info

Re: A minimally conscious program

> On 30 Apr 2021, at 20:52, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:19 AM Bruno Marchal <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > >> On 25 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Jason Resch > <mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>

Re: A minimally conscious program

> On 30 Apr 2021, at 20:47, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2021 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> If a program can be said to "know" something then can we also say it is >>> conscious of that thing? >

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

miss in notions of computer and computation as > arithmetical notions. Everything physical is DEAD, unless it is ENDOWED with > life”. > [Bruno Marchal] > “This looks like vitalism to me, frankly”. Also, you seem to assume a > physical reality out there. That requires to abandon Mechani

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

ment to tell it refuted. Then, Mechanism itself is my working hypothesis, although I can argue that there are many evidence, and none for materialism, like the greek already understood less formally. Bruno > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal > To: everything-list@

Re: A minimally conscious program

Hi Jason, > On 25 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Jason Resch wrote: > > It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and > later retrieves ( information. > > It is slightly harder, but not altogether difficult, to write a program that > "learns" (alters its behavior based on

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 20:22, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 11:47:04 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:17:23 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:41, Alan Grayson > wrote: >> >&

Re: Irreducible randomness in QM

> On 28 Dec 2020, at 19:47, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:17:23 AM UTC-7 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 26 Dec 2020, at 16:41, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> Fact is there's no need to bring in pretentious big brains

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 19 Apr 2021, at 19:51, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal] > “Good question. I can answer some of them in the frame of the > computationalist hypothesis. Everything physical emerges from arithmetic as > seen from inside in some mode of self-reference. What m

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 16 Apr 2021, at 11:04, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:58:59 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 14 Apr 2021, at 16:33, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:40:08 AM UTC-

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 17:15, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>] > “But the amplitude of probability is physically real: that is the whole > point of quantum mechanics, not to mention arithmetic (with Mechanism)

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 16:33, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 14, 2021 at 4:40:08 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

> On 14 Apr 2021, at 20:41, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> <mailto:everything

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 22:11, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote: > > Boys, boys! To better answer your questions we'd need to consult > neuroscientists In this case, Louis Jouvet has given evidences that we can wake up with the memory of two separate independent consciousness stream. I h

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

> On 12 Apr 2021, at 18:35, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 10:35 AM John Clark > wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:27 AM Jason Resch > wrote: > > > while I can't know what it's like to be a bat anymore than a bat

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 16:47, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Philip Benjamin] > Wave equation? Of what? Wavy Particles? Or Wave-like Particles? Wavy > particles is a paradox, a puzzle, a mystic mystery!! That is how a purely > scientific theory such as Quantum Mechanics became so confounded with >

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 10 Apr 2021, at 13:55, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Saturday, April 10, 2021 at 5:21:46 AM UTC-6 Bruno Marchal wrote: >> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson > > wrote: >> >> When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't

Re: BATS (was:Qualia and communicability)

> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > That would be of some interest but I think it would fail to communicate what > it is like to be a bat because of the inability to act as a bat. I'm not > sure your brain could learn to interpret visual input if it we

Re: Was, Re: The theology of number, (Now) The Universe Learns (not released on April 1st)

too. We already know that the arithmetical reality is not Turing emulable. In fact, the physical universe cannot be an ontological reality. It is not a thing, but a first person plural experience. (Assuming Descartes + Turing…). Bruno > > -Original Message- > From: Bruno Marchal

Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 06:42, Alan Grayson wrote: > > When the box is closed, and before the measurement, why can't it be claimed > that the Cat is in a Mixed State, not a Superposition of States? Only the > latter leads to the paradox of a cat which is Alive and Dead simultaneously. > AG Beca

Re: Qualia and communicability

> On 9 Apr 2021, at 02:40, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/8/2021 12:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Hi Telmo, >> >> Thank you for these links, they are very helpful in articulating the >> problem. I think you are right about there being some connection between >> com

Re: Qualia and communicability

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 21:38, Jason Resch wrote: > > Hi Telmo, > > Thank you for these links, they are very helpful in articulating the problem. > I think you are right about there being some connection between communication > of qualia and the symbol grounding problem. > > I used to think ther

Re: Qualia and communicability

> On 8 Apr 2021, at 18:10, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > I believe that you are alluding to what is known in Cognitive Science as the > "Symbol Grounding Problem": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem > >

Re: Qualia and communicability

Hi Jason, I discover your post just now, sorry. > On 31 Mar 2021, at 17:58, Jason Resch wrote: > > I was thinking about what aspects of conscious experience are communicable > and which are not, and I realized all communication relies on some > pre-existing shared framework. OK. It presuppo

The theology of number (Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg)

ave G* proves p <-> ([]p) <-> ([]p & p) <-> ([]p & <>t) <-> ([]p & <>t & p) But G does not proves any of those equivalence. They all belong in the proper theological part of the theology (which, from the machine perspective transcend its “science” (G)).

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

> On 1 Apr 2021, at 00:08, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal] > I think Trump is a symptom, not a cause > [Philip Benjamin] > Symptom of what? What exactly are the reasons why he is so hated? Personal? > Official? It is not a question of hate. It is more fear in

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 20:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > Are you sure that any of that stuff really matters? To be clear, I am against > tearing down some of those agreements. I do think that China should be > sanctioned for committing genocide, I know we can’t due to Covid, but I am sad we don’

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 19:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > >> That’s because prohibition and free-market are inconsistent. Then, the >> abandon of rigour in the fundamental human science makes people accepting >> inconsistencies, which lead to human catastrophes. Even the “elec

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

> On 26 Feb 2021, at 16:41, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > From a scientific point of view, awakening refers to the extrinsic > energization of the non-electric, non-entropic, bio twin formed from the > moment of conception from bio dark-matter and its chemistries. >From a scientific point of

Re: Q Anon is the tip of the iceberg

> On 25 Feb 2021, at 13:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > Am Do, 25. Feb 2021, um 10:55, schrieb Bruno Marchal: >> >>> On 24 Feb 2021, at 15:30, Telmo Menezes >> <mailto:te...@telmomenezes.net>> wrote: >>> >>> As an out

Re: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake

> On 29 Mar 2021, at 17:04, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > general_the...@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: Carlo Rovelli: The Old Fisherman's Mistake > > [Philip Benjamin] >There is no need for confounding the self-evident physical reality with an > il

Re: [Consciousness-Online] pagans vs non pagans and the hubbub about Sabbath in the US Senate

> On 27 Mar 2021, at 15:52, Philip Benjamin wrote: > > [Bruno Marchal] > “PPB: Pagan = Pan-Gaia-n, earthling, earth worshipper”. “Interesting. Are you > sure of that etymology? The Neoplatonists were called “pagan” by christians, > but they were those doubting Aristotle’s

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >