Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-17 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:30 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:44 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > > >>> *Pure numbers may not correspond to point in time and space, but >>> their relationships do. * >> >> >> >> Where and when did 2+2=4 happen? > > > *That is a category mistake.* >

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-16 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 11:44 AM Jason Resch wrote: > > *Pure numbers may not correspond to point in time and space, but their > relationships do. * > Where and when did 2+2=4 happen? Does that relationship between 2 and 4 ever change? > *> Doesn't the fact that "

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-15 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:32 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> Static with respect to what dimension? The block universe is a >> mathematical 4D object constructed in 1 dimension of time and 3 dimensions >> of space that follows Non-Euclidean geometry, and it changes in time and it >> changes in space,

What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-14 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:21 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>The block universe changes along the time dimension and special >> relativity deals with time, but the number 3 never changes with time and >> has nothing to do with it. >> > > *>Then you agree that there can be an objectively static object,*

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-13 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > An electron can change in time and space, 3 can not change in either. >> > > You are ruling out the block time view, which contradicts special > relativity. > The block universe changes along the time dimension and special relativity deals

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-12 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 4:10 PM Jason Resch wrote: > *Tell me why an electron is a thing and 3 is not.* > An electron can change in time and space, 3 can not change in either. > >>Computations "exist" in the universe of numbers in the same way that >> the Incredible Hulk "exists" in the

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-12 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 4:56 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> Without physics reality would not need a foundation because there >> would be no reality, there would be nothing. And nothing could be explained >> not only because there would nobody to explain it to but more importantly >> because there

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-11 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote: >>Without matter and the laws of physics there could be no objective >> statements or statements of any sort because there would be nobody around >> to make them. >> > > > *But we're talking about ultimate foundations of reality, * > Without

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

2018-12-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 2:02 PM Jason Resch wrote: *> Numbers come from relationships upon which objective statements can be > made* > Without matter and the laws of physics there could be no objective statements or statements of any sort because there would be nobody around to make them. > >

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2018-12-10 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 8:36 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *Since 529.Metaphysics has been done with the scientific attitude before. > It is not easy to come back to this because in this filed, since 529 we > have been brainswahedq by fairy tales, * > And the scientific knowledge that existed in 529

Re: Extended Wigner’s Friend

2018-12-08 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mason Green wrote: *> Ah, yes, multiple histories. Given only what we know now about the > universe (and not what we “remember from before”, since our memories are > actually just patterns encoded in our brain at the present moment),* I've never understood the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2018-12-07 Thread John Clark
uplicating machines who's "*THE* first person experience" do you want the prediction to be about? I've been asking this same damn question for over 5 years and I haven't got a straight answer out of you yet and I don't expect I ever will. >>I don't know who the hell Mr.He is > >

Towards Conscious AI Systems

2018-12-06 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:59 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > Your theory is a working Turing Machine can be made without using matter >> or physics, > > > *No. My hypothesis is that we can survive with a digital brain.* But, at least until recently, you maintained that a digital brain can exist

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-04 Thread John Clark
Brent Meeker wrote: > * finding the value of G depends on scaling the result by that ratio of > masses (1.37e25 lbm/348 lbm). * > The mass of the Earth played no part in Cavendish's determination of G because he was measuring gravitational attraction in a direction that was parallel to the

LIGO just announced 4 more Black Hole collisions

2018-12-04 Thread John Clark
https://www.space.com/42618-gravitational-waves-biggest-farthest-black-hole-crash.html https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0156/P1800324/006/O2RandP.pdf John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group

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

2018-12-04 Thread John Clark
You will see 2 cities. > *That is enough for the thought experience,* > I agree, but I have no doubt you will very soon retract the stuff you said above about relevant memories, it was true but if supports my position not yours. > *> He survived into both HM and HW, and both HM and HW con

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-04 Thread John Clark
Brent Meeker wrote: *> Neither does a cesium clock measure the change in strength of 2 large > gravitational fields. It measures the difference in gravitational > potential. * Same thing, a gravitational field describes the gravitational potential at every point. *> **So I compared the

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-03 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 11:54 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>If you are on the Earth's surface and you raise a clock by one centimeter >> you've increased its distance from the earth's center by one part in >> 637,000,000, it is now 1.16 times further away. The intensity of >> the gravitational

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-02 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > *> The Earth is 3.9e22 times heavier than Cavendishes cannon ball. * > The mass of the earth is irrelevant because we're talking about measuring the difference in the strength of gravity as distance increases not its absolute value. >> In

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-02 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 6:59 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > *But an ocean wave many feet high would change the gravitational field > less than would moving a centimeter relative to the Earth's center of mass.* Not so. In 1798 technology was good enough for Cavendish to measure the gravitational

Re: The most accurate clock ever

2018-12-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 6:34 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> good enough for jet fighters to automatically land on aircraft carriers >> without a pilot, even at night in a heavy fog in a bad storm with the deck >> tossing up and down. > > * > Unfortunately for that idea, the surface of the Earth,

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

2018-11-30 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:53 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>All I ask you to do is follow the scientific method. > > > *> I do, which is not so frequent in theology* > The scientific method in theology? You must be kidding. > *You are the one invoking your ontological commitment when defining real

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

2018-11-29 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:08 PM Martin Abramson wrote: > *How do they replicate themselves with the exact same memory engrams as > before? Thanks for the response. m.a.* > The exact mechanism depends on the specific example, computers have many different ways to duplicate information. In

The most accurate clock ever

2018-11-29 Thread John Clark
In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if set at the

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

2018-11-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:39 AM Martin Abramson wrote: >"Anything with the capacity to change will do and that's why one carbon > atom is a good as another." Please explain. m.a. > Science can not tell the difference between one carbon atom and another (if they are of the same isotope), good

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

2018-11-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:05 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > *What in matter is not simulatable in arithmetic is experience.* > That's just a specific example of a more general concept, change. If you have an experience you have changed, you're different than if you did not have the experience.

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

2018-11-27 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >>My commitment is with the scientific method, so when you make outlandish >> claims (*matter is not needed to make calculations Robison arithmetic >> alone can do so, Kleene’s predicate T(x, y, z) can encode information*) >> I ask you to

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

2018-11-25 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:40 AM Philip Thrift wrote: Dennett's said: “*The elusive subjective conscious experience—the redness of red, the painfulness of pain—that philosophers call qualia? Sheer illusion*.” The trouble with the above statement isn't so much that it's false, the trouble is

Re: Adam and Eve’s Anthropic Superpowers

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 5:01 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *> The best intuition pump to solve the Monte Hall problem is to imagine > that there are 100 doors and Monte opens all the doors except the one you > chose and one otherdo you switch?* 3 doors will do. If you follow the switch strategy

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

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 6:10 PM Brent Meeker wrote: *>The question is whether the AI will ever infer it is not conscious. * Perhaps reverse solipsism is true, maybe what I think of as consciousness is just a very pale reflection of the true glorious feeling of consciousness that you and

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

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > I think one problem for us is as artificial/synthetic intelligence > technology advances: When (if ever) do these entities get "rights"? > There is no point in pondering that because the question is moot. The big unknown is not what rights

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

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 11:40 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: *> Strangely you're not as hard with yourself when you advertise > manyworld... Just show us a parallel universe then... Until you apply to > your own beliefs your own methods, It will just be dismissive BS.* > I can't show you a parallel

Re: Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state.

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:08 AM wrote: *> Why do you make this gratuitous point. and on a regular basis, when you > habitually indicate which theories you like or don't like?* As I've said before I have no loyalty, if I find a idea doesn't fit the facts then regardless of my previous

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

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *in a precise context, when doing science/mathematics, it is useful to > have precise mathematical definition.* > Sure definitions can be useful but they never cause things to pop into existence or can tell you anything about the nature

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

2018-11-24 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:10 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Some in AI will say if something is just informationally intelligent (or > pseudo-intelligent) but not experientially intelligent then it will not > ever be remarkably creative - in literature, music, painting, or even > science.* >

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

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:22 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > > True intelligence is *experiential intelligence*. > What sort of intelligence do your fellow human beings have? How does true intelligence behave differently than untrue intelligence? If untrue intelligence can outsmart true

Measuring a system in a superposition of states vs in a mixed state.

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
agrayson2...@gmail.com *>** So Feynman adds this additional hypothesis to QM. Is this kosher?* It had better be kosher because it works! *> ** introducing an infinity of universes seems extraneous and confusing > for a solution to this problem. AG* Far from being extraneous Feynman's method

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

2018-11-23 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:38 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> An alternative is that consciousness (or experientiality - in the > philosophers' jargon) is intrinsic (more jargon) to matter. A change in > matter would indeed change consciousness.* > Because a change in matter changes a computation and

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

2018-11-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 4:44 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *>In logic, a model is a reality. * > If so then "reality" is a very silly thing and logicians are very silly people. *> A reality is anything which satisfies a theory* > And that is a very silly thing to say. Harry Potter flying on a broom

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

2018-11-19 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:24 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *> The notion of model “modelises” the notion of reality.* > I see. No I take that back I don't see. What does that mean, how would thing s look different if it were the other way around, what if the notion of reality realizes the notion

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

2018-11-16 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:42 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *> A practical difficulty here is that logicians used the term model like > painters: the model is the reality* > Mathematician can use one part of mathematics to model another part, for example Descartes found a way for geometry to model

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

2018-11-15 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:27 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I see precisely ZERO evidence that "phi_u(x, y)" can emulate a machine >> or emulate anything a or in fact do anything at all because "phi_u(x, y)" >> never changes, not in time and not in space. You wrote "phi_u(x, y)" in >> the above

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

2018-11-13 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:35 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> You've got it backwards, physics can simulate a Turing Machine but a >> Turing Machine can't simulate anything or do anything at all without the >> help of matter that obeys the laws of physics. > > > *> That is plainly false. If u is a

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

2018-11-10 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:09 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > Any Turing machine can emulate any Turing complete subset of physics. You've got it backwards, physics can simulate a Turing Machine but a Turing Machine can't simulate anything or do anything at all without the help of matter that obeys

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

2018-11-08 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > *for consciousness, which needs a relation between a brain, and truth.* > Hallucinations exist. > > *That needed truth needs also to be independent of the brain.* > Hallucinations are not independent of the brain. > *Information

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

2018-11-06 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:10 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> In the theology of the machine, this is the confusion between* > [... Sorry, I didn't see what you said after that, I fell asleep. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

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

2018-11-06 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *Even “Deep Blue”, the program who win Chess tournaments, would not be > interestingly described as a bunch of atoms,* > Seems pretty damn interesting to me. > *> as it do not lost his identity when run on a different machine.* > Huh?

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

2018-11-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:45 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > *I think I would feel better being outsmarted by an unconscious robot > than a conscious robot.* > I wouldn't feel bad if Einstein outsmarted me but if something that was only "pseudo" intelligent did I'd feel pretty stupid. John K Clark

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:51 AM Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>There is no evidence fire breathing dragons exist in nature but if one >> did it would not produce a logical contradiction, however Turing proved >> over 80 years ago that a oracle that could solve the Halting Problem would. >> > > *> It

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:39 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *>>> No Turing machine can solve the halting problem. You are right on >>> this. But an oracle can, or a machine with infinite speed can.* >> >> >>If such a oracle could exist > > > *In what sense?* > Whoever said there is no such thing as a

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

2018-11-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:33 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *Experience is manifested by information processing. But experience per > se is not information processing.* > A car is not "fast" but going fast is what a car does. A brain is not a mind but mind is what a brain does. Information processing

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

2018-11-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:40 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > I agree with those scientists who that say something isn't truly > intelligent unless it is also conscious. > Then you have no way of knowing if any of your fellow human beings are "truly intelligent" because you have no way of knowing if

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

2018-11-04 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> By "experience", philosophers (like Galen Strawson, Philip Goff) mean > that which you have within yourself right now: the awareness that* [...] > Awareness? But awareness is just another word for consciousness, so when you say "*It's that

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

2018-11-04 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM Mark Buda wrote: *> I put it to you that artificial general intelligence and artificial > consciousness are exactly the same thing.To construct one is to construct > the other. Any AGI is going to be able to do anything a human can do, which > includes argue

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

2018-11-04 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:45 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > It's that experience (not just information) that needs processing to > produc*e consciousness*. > A experience is a memory and memory is information so experience processing is information processing. > But I say there can be unconscious

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

2018-11-04 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:19 AM Mark Buda wrote: *> Information is only processed in minds, not in physical systems,* > A brain is a physical system. Mind is what the brain does. I think our fundamental disagreement is you think "Mark Buda" is a noun but I think you're a adjective, you're the

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

2018-11-04 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 6:23 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> If experience (Galen Strawson, The Subject of Experience) is the result > of information (only) processing, * > If? If information is not the thing that needs processing to produce intelligence then what is? > then the argument for

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

2018-11-03 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:49 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > *>Information processing can ultimately lead to just a type of > intelligence: pseudo-intelligence:* > *Artificial intelligence isn't synthetic intelligence: It's > pseudo-intelligence.* > If you're outsmarted by a pseudo-intelligence how

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

2018-11-03 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 1:13 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *>AIM AND SCOPE * I noticed they used the word "consciousness" 8 times but the word intelligence only once, and even then they meant Artificial Consciousness not Artificial Intelligence. It should have been the other way around. I think AI

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

2018-11-03 Thread John Clark
As long as both are intelligent how could you tell the difference between a conscious AI System and a non-conscious AI System? If you can't then shouldn't you be concentrating on figuring out how intelligence works rather than consciousness? John K Clark -- You received this message because you

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-02 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:45 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> No Turing machine can solve the halting problem. You are right on this. > But an oracle can, or a machine with infinite speed can.* > If such a oracle could exist then logical contradictions could too and then there would be no point in

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-02 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:16 AM wrote: *> You sound like a young fool who has no respect for his elders*. And you sound like a old fool who has placed so much respect for his elders it approaches the level of ancestor worship. But It's not just you, this entire list's reverence for the ancient

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:11 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > How does *the arrow shot at a target *(in Zeno's Paradox) *compute* the > truth of the forall-exists quantifier construct in the Caucy definition? > I know how calculus computes it, I don't know for a fact the arrow computes it the same way

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:43 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Even if spacetime is "continuous", what motion is in reality is not > resolved by a Cauchy-type of (ε, δ)-definition of limit* > Why not? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:27 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> infinite time Turing machines are more powerful than ordinary Turing > machines* That is true, it is also true that if dragons existed they would be dangerous and if I had some cream I could have strawberries and cream, if I had some

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:18 AM wrote: *> motion can't be done in finite steps* It can if Spacetime is granular, and even if it's not and Spacetime is continuous motion is still possible and Calculus tells us how. But Zeno can not tell us which of these explanations is correct and so joins the

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-11-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 3:14 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >From https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian/talks/selected/BeamerATM.pdf > > *> An accelerated Turing machine (sometimes called Zeno machine) is a > Turing machine that takes 2^−n units of time (say seconds) to perform its > nth step; we

Re: Thirty metre telescope

2018-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM Russell Standish wrote: > > *I'm surprised John Clark is not already all over this - good news from > Hawaii:* > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-0-2 Thanks Russell, that is good news!! By the way, I noticed that one of the nit

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:30 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > *More formally, a **Zeno machine is a Turing machine that* The rules of Zeno's machine never change so if its a Turing Machine it's must be a one state Turing Machine, the very simplest type. But there are only 64 different one state

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-31 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:16 PM wrote: >>What you described is a infinite number of FIXED length discrete steps, >> and if that is what motion is motion would indeed be impossible, but its >> not the infinity that makes it impossible its the fixed length. >> > > *>Of course it's the infinity

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:44 PM wrote: *> You miss the point. If the task is done in discrete steps as I > described, which is apriori conceivable, motion is impossible.* What you described is a infinite number of FIXED length discrete steps, and if that is what motion is motion would indeed

Re: Schrodinger bacteria

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:28 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > But they are really just showing that the bacterial antennae that absorb > photons are in a superposition of excited and not-excited. The bacteria > are not alive+dead. They're only alive. > The same bacteria saw something and at the same

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:29 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *> By the word "approximation" above in reference to what is being > approximating seems to assume that the natural world itself - the > materials out of which the bridge or airplane is made, the air, the > bedrock, the whole constructions

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:44:35 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: you can think of Zeno's paradox as an infinite sequence of tasks, each one > separated by a finite fixed pause. The complete task cannot be completed in > finite time Then all Zeno did was show you shouldn't think of

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:22 AM Philip Thrift wrote: *> Engineers today are ultrafintiitists in practice: They design airplanes > and bridges with computer software that runs on computers with a fixed, > finite number of bits that are ever used. * For over 40 years computers have been able to

Schrodinger bacteria

2018-10-30 Thread John Clark
A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not hitting the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do the same thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 6:48 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > To a mathematical ultrafinitist [ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrafinitism ], the standard calculus is > wrong. Then I don't want to ever cross a bridge or fly in a airplane that was designed by a engineer that is a ultrafinitist.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 5:21 PM wrote: >*If you try to traverse a unit distance in infinite steps such as 1/2, > 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 and so forth, the sum converges to 1, but you will never > traverse the distance even though the sum converges.* Never? If what you say is true then calculus is

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 2:36 PM Philip Thrift wrote: >>Zeno thought it was obvious if you added an infinite number of nonzero >> lengths or nonzero times together you would always get something that was >> nfinite, and that is the foundation of his paradox; but with modern >> calculus we know

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:46 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>gravity is 10^36 times weaker than electromagnetism > > > >*This is because the comparison is to the gravitational attraction of > elementary particles, such as two protons. But the masses of elementary > particles like protons are not

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-29 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 2:56 PM wrote: > *What's your view of Zeno's paradox which implies motion is impossible.* Zeno thought it was obvious if you added an infinite number of nonzero lengths or nonzero times together you would always get something that was nfinite, and that is the

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:45 PM Tomas Pales wrote: > *How close do atoms or subatomic particles come to each other when they > collide in particle accelerators? Is the distance between them far from > Planck scale at the moment of collision?* > Nowhere near close enough. The radius of a atom is

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:18 PM Tomas Pales wrote: *> Ok, and if it becomes as strong as the other forces below the distance > of 1 mm (as you wrote that string theory with the curled extra dimensions > suggests) why has it not been detected below the distance of 1 mm?* > Nobody knows how

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 12:02 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *You have not read after step 3, * > True, and I do not indent to do so until you fix the very silly blunder you made in step 3 which I am now quite certain you never will. I am also quite certain you will respond to this with "what

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:44 AM Tomas Pales wrote: > *Why is it too hard to measure gravity for distances less than 1 mm?* > Because gravity is 10^36 times weaker than electromagnetism and you'd need to measure the gravitational force between spheres less than 1 mm in radius and that force is

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:02 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *Assuming there is a physical reality* [...] Assume there is *NOT* a physical reality and tell me how things would be different. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 AM wrote: > > *the Eastern mystics could very well be right that the external world > is illusory.* Mystics love to say stuff like that because they think it sounds deep, but I don't think it is because they never explain how the illusion works, they don't even

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 11:41 AM wrote: *> A spherical wave asymptotically approaches a plane wave as it progresses > in space and time, but it never becomes a plane wave. This where the rubber > hits the road for the MUH; we have a mathematical construct that doesn't > exist in physical

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-27 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:40 PM wrote: *> the concept of a plane wave, one of the solutions of Maxwell's > equations. It certainly doesn't exist in THIS universe* I agree with the general point you're trying to make, just because something can be consistently described mathematically doesn't

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-26 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:36 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *>"2+2=4" is only true in the sense that there is a language that has been > created in which that sentence is labeled "true".* If there were not at least 2 physical things in existence it would be labeled neither true or false but

Re: Quantum outperforms classical

2018-10-22 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:18 AM Philip Thrift wrote: > *If you look at the sum-over-histories semantics of quantum computers, > then parallelism could increase exponentially in the number of qubits, but > in actual implementation that exponential growth might not be that much > over linear, and

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-20 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:23 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>If not by behavior then how do you determine intelligence in others? > > > >I can’t, > Baloney. You can and you have judged the intelligence in others every single day you've been alive. > >*Trump might fake its stupidity,* > Then

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-19 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:09 PM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *I never judge the intelligence from the result of test. * If not by behavior then how do you determine intelligence in others? You must have some way because I am certain at some point in your life you have met people you consider

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-18 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:21 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> the idea that there are moment where we are not conscious is very > natural, but it is not a fact, it is a theory,* Then can you name something, anything, that *IS* a fact and not a theory? > *probably selected by evolution,* Evolution

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:13 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>Nothing happened to them because neurons and hormones also have structure >> as do all complex objects, about the only things that don't (as far as we >> know) are electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos and possibly quarks >> and Black

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-16 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >> you know for a fact you're not conscious all the time, you know you're >> not conscious when you're sleeping or under anesthesia or before you were >> born and, although you don't know for certain, you probably suspect you >> won't be

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM Philip Thrift wrote: *>As I have proposed, information processing alone will not lead to > consciousness. Experience processing > must > be the basis. * > An experience is not a simple thing so

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:51 PM Philip Thrift wrote: > *There is not one method of calculation.* There is always more than one way to make a calculation in physics, but at the end of the day they all end up with the same number. And if that number doesn't match the number experiment told us

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:53 AM Philip Thrift wrote: >>I guess its *possible* the man applying for a Ph.D was a zombie, but you >> know you are not a zombie so if he is one then Charles Darwin was dead >> wrong because there is no way random mutation and natural selection could >> produce a

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-10-15 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:40 AM wrote: *> What puzzles me is this; why would the Founders assume that a system in > a superposition is in all component states simultaneously -- contradicting > the intuitive appeal of Einstein realism* > Because in physics experiment is king, and however

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >