Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-14 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 5:24 AM Pierz  wrote:

>
  > All this means that anything that can be routinized eventually does
> become routinized.
>

Yes, and if something is too complex to be routinized then break it up into
several smaller simpler parts, and if those parts are still too complex
then break them up into sub-parts. Keep that up and eventually you'll come
to a part that can change in only one way, a 1 changing into a 0 for
example, and you can't get any simpler than that.

*>Computers may get there one day, and on that day my job will be in
> jeopardy, *
>

And a computer can already beat you and every other human at Jeopardy!.

*> but right now they are not even in the ballpark, not a million miles
> away from of being able to program themselves.*
>

Take a look at AlphaZero, this program was not taught by humans , it taught
itself and learned in 24 hours to play 3 entirely different games at a
superhuman level, GO, Chess and Shogi ( a very complex game popular in
Japan) . All it was told was the basic rules of the games and told to
figure out a way to win for itself, and it certainly did. One human
Grand-master said it played like " a superior alien species" and another
said it showed "profound positional understanding".

I just don't see how we can be very far away from finding the seed
algorithm that would allow computers to learn how to learn anything,
because we already have a upper limit on how big that algorithm must be, and
it's not very big. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base
pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8
bits per byte so that comes out to just 750 meg, and that's enough assembly
instructions to make not just a brain and all its wiring but a entire human
baby. So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a
neuron up this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917
billion times". And there is a huge amount of redundancy in the human
genome so if you used a file compression program like ZIP on that 750 meg
you could easily put the entire thing on a CD, not a DVD not a Blu ray just
a old fashioned steam powered vanilla CD, and you'd still have room for a
few dozen lady Gaga songs. And the thing I'm talking about, the seed
learning algorithm for intelligence, must be vastly smaller than that, and
that's the thing that let Einstein go from knowing precisely nothing in
1879 to becoming the first person to know General Relativity in 1915.

>> Rather than a explanation I will give an example of a qualia generating
>> program because I like concrete examples. For the pain qualia write a 
>> subroutine
>> such that the closer the number in the X register comes to the integer P
>> the more computational resources will be devoted to changing that number,
>> and if it ever actually equals P then the program should stop doing
>> everything else and do nothing but try to change that number to something
>> far enough away from P until it's no longer an urgent matter and the
>> program can again do things that have nothing to do with P.
>>
>
> *> Haha! That is hilarious. I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg, or your
> own leg.*
>

I was not, but I did wonder if you were pulling my leg when you said
"plants and rocks and stars and atoms" might be conscious.


> > If you seriously believe this would cause a computer pain, would it not
> be unethical to write it?
>

I can't answer that in absolute terms because ethical questions don't have
objective answers, but I will say it's not more unethical than throwing a
live lobster into boiling water to cook it. And Bruno would say it makes no
difference if you write the program and run it on a computer or not because
it already exists in Plato's magical mystery heaven

> *Of course there is a logical reason to assume another person is
> conscious - the alternative really is solipsism.*
>

And what logical reason do you have that solipsism is untrue?


> >*And there are sound reasons for doubting the consciousness of computers
> -*
>

Name one of them that could not also be used to doubt the
consciousness of your fellow
human beings. I can't think of one unless I adopt the axiom that
squishiness implies consciousness and I prefer the axiom that intelligent
behavior implies consciousness.


> *> I began by arguing that I am not forced into solipsism by denying the
> intelligent behaviour test for consciousness.*
>

If you deny that then solipsism is the only logical conclusion.


> > *Of course I can't prove computers aren't sentient any more than you
> can prove they are. What I am saying is that we definitely know humans are
> conscious,*
>

What's with this "we" business? I definitely know that I am conscious and I
don't need any axioms or even logic to know it, I know it from direct
experience. But as for you, well ..., I strongly suspect you're conscious
too because I strongly suspect my axiom is true but I can't prove it and
never will.


> > *and that 

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>You can't do metaphysics with a scientific attitude, if you could it
>> wouldn't be metaphysics, it would just be physics. Metaphysics means
>> unscientific speculation about physics.
>
>

*>That is why I prefer the term theology.*
>

That's pretty silly, metaphysics is a vastly better word to use in
philosophical speculation. Both metaphysics and theology are unscientific
but theology necessarily implies God while metaphysics doesn't.


> > *Of course I always mean “fundamental science”.*
>

Theology isn't science, fundamental or otherwise.


> *> The original question of the greeks* [.
>

Sorry, I didn't hear what you said after that, I fell asleep.

John K Clark





>



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-11 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:32 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:



>There is something to there being two fields with their own conferences:
> AI (Artificial *Intelligence*) and AC (Artificial *Consciousness*


An Artificial Consciousness Conference would be remarkably dull because
there would be no way to prove or disprove any of the theories presented.
That's why this list has so many consciousness theories and so few
intelligence theories; intelligence theories are vastly harder to come up
with because they actually have to do something, make a testable prediction
and explain things. Consciousness is easy intelligence is hard.

John K Clark




>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-11 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:12 PM Pierz  wrote:


> *>a lot of what passes for intelligent in the domain of machines is in
> fact dumb as dogshit.*
>

And so after being outsmarted on every occasion the last surviving human
turned to the Jupiter Brain just before he entered oblivion and said "I
still think you're dumb as dogshit". Apparently  dogshit is powerful stuff,
it can engineer the Galaxy.


> *>I know this because it's the field I work in. Computers are literal to a
> mind-numbingly stupid degree. People who expect robots to take over my job
> (software developer) any time soon have no idea what they are talking
> about.*
>

Today IBM's Watson can make better diagnosis of illness than most human
doctors, do you really think your profession will be immune? Machines have
already replaced many tasks that were once done by human programmers.
Imagine if there were no higher level languages and you had to program
everything in low level assembly language or even worse binary machine code!
You had to program the 1946 ENIAC computer at a huge patch panel, modern
computers are millions of times larger than ENIAC and the patch panel on
them would be the size of the Himalayas, but modern computers have no patch
panel at all because the machine does all that for you automatically.

>*We don't know for shit what consciousness is.*
>

Nobody has a definition of consciousness but you know what it is because
you have something better, an example of it, if you didn't you wouldn't
know you don't know what it means because there would be no way for you to
know anything.

>> My theory is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
>> processed and that is a brute fact, meaning it terminates a chain of "why
>> is that?" questions.
>>
>
> > *Great theory! I love a theory that says, "because". I have sooo many
> questions. Like what relations in the data correspond to what qualia.*
>

Rather than a explanation I will give an example of a qualia generating
program because I like concrete examples. For the pain qualia write a
subroutine
such that the closer the number in the X register comes to the integer P
the more computational resources will be devoted to changing that number,
and if it ever actually equals P then the program should stop doing
everything else and do nothing but try to change that number to something
far enough away from P until it's no longer an urgent matter and the
program can again do things that have nothing to do with P.


> *>Now I know that you may claim that any better theory [of consciousness]
> is impossible in principle.*
>

Yes, absolutely impossible.


> >*I think it's technically extraordinarily difficult but not impossible
> in principle. We would need two preconditions: the use of conscious reports
> of qualia as an accepted datum in science,*
>

A person or a computer giving a report is observable behavior, so you're
just stating my axiom that intelligence implies consciousness using
different words.


> > *and highly sophisticated technology to interface with the brain, a
> known conscious entity with the ability to report its experiences.*
>

You've stacked the deck, you're assuming for no logical reason I can see
that another person is a "known conscious entity" but a computer is not. Right
at the beginning you're assuming the very thing you're trying to prove,
that computers are not conscious.


> *> My "method of determining if something is conscious" is the same as
> most people who don't believe their smart phones are having experiences.*
>

I don't understand why people assume  producing emotion is more difficult
than producing intelligence. Some of our most powerful emotions like
pleasure, pain, and lust come from the oldest parts of our brain that
evolved about 500 million years ago. It is our grossly enlarged neocortex
that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it only started to get
large about 3 million years ago and only started to get ridiculously large
less than one million years ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial
perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics; in other words
everything we're proud of and  makes humans so very different from other
animals. The only new emotion we got out of it was worry, probably because
the neocortex is also the place where we plan for the future. So if
evolution came up with feeling first and high level intelligence only much
later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our computers.


> > *It's being a biological organism with a nervous system, though again,
> I'm agnostic on organisms like trees. When you're not being a philosopher I
> bet that's your real criterion too! You're not worrying about killing your
> smartphone when you trash it for the next model.*
>

Actually I have a emotional attachment to my obsolete devices so I do have
a twang of regret when I trash them, but I do so nevertheless, and
sometimes I have a twang of regret when I eat meat but its not strong
enough for me to 

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:19 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
>
> >>My theory is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being
>> processed and that is a brute fact, meaning it terminates a chain of "why
>> is that?" questions.
>
>
>
> * > It has to be something more specific than that.  There is lots of data
> being processed in your brain of which you are not conscious,*
>

If my brain stopped its continuous calculation to determine how fast my
blood needs to be moving and sending the results of that calculation to my
heart I would become conscious that something very important has changed in
a very short amount of time.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:45 AM Philip Thrift 
wrote:

>One could look at it that way. In terms of biological evolution, what has
> turned out to be intelligent beings (us!) are also conscious beings.


Yes but ask yourself why would Evolution do that. Natural Selection can see
intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can see it
in others, and yet it produced at least one conscious being (me) and
probably more. Why? The only conclusion I can come up with is that
consciousness is an unavoidable byproduct of intelligence.  Evolution
selected for intelligence and consciousness just road in free on
intelligence's coattails.


> > it got a little confusing. Is IBM Watson [
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) ] "intelligent"?
>

What's confusing about that? If a man did what Watson did you wouldn't
hesitate to say that what the man did was smart, so to insist that if a
machine does the exact same thing it is not smart would make no more sense
than saying if a white man does something it shows intelligence but if a
black man does the same thing it does not.


> >There are some AI scientists (or SI - Synthetic Intelligence, to
> contrast with AI [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence ]
> who say to make truly intelligent artifacts they must be conscious.
>

I believe that too because you can't have intelligent behavior without
consciousness (although the reverse may not always be true). And that's why
I also believe the Turing Test must work not just for intelligence but for
consciousness too because like Evolution by Natural Selection the Turing
Test deals exclusively with observable behavior. It may not be a perfect
test but its all we have and all we'll ever have so it will have to do.

>  How do you make a conscious robot?
>

Easy, just make it intelligent. After that I would have no more reason to
doubt its conscious than I have to doubt my fellow human beings are
conscious.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:15 AM Philip Thrift 
wrote:

*>As a practical matter, a conscious robot raises ethical issues that an
> intelligent robot doesn't, Killing a  phenomenal self-aware being could be
> murder.*
>

But the ethical question of killing a super intelligent robot is moot
because you will never be in a position to do such a thing, but the
question of a super intelligent robot killing you is not moot and that's
why as a practical matter it doesn't matter if you think the robot is not
conscious but it does matter if the robot thinks you are not conscious. The
robot will be the one in a position of power not you.

*>The MRI is used (I think) in deciding whether to remove someone from life
> support. Intelligent behavior has nothing to do with that decision.*
>

Yes it does. The only reason doctors suspect that a red splotch in a
particular place on a brain scan picture means the brain is conscious is
because they noticed in healthy people there was a red splotch there when
healthy people displayed intelligent behavior but it was not there when
they displayed no such behavior as when they were sleeping. Doctors then
 extrapolated that correlation from healthy people to very sick people who
could not display any sort of behavior because they couldn't move. But it
always comes back to intelligent behavior.

John K Clark





>
> - pt
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-09 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:54 PM Pierz  wrote:

>*I refuse to accept that "axiom", and I also do not feel compelled to
> embrace solipsism.*
>

You are able to function is the world so you must have some method of
deciding when something is conscious and when it is not, if its not
intelligent behavior what is it?


> > *I think it is entirely possible - and indeed sensible - to believe
> that some entities that behave "intelligently", like the chess app on my
> iPhone, are insentient.*
>

I don't know what the quotation marks in the above means but if something
acts intelligently then it is sensible to say it has some degree of
sentience.


> > *Whereas some entities that behave unintelligently (like Donald Trump
> (sorry, I really shouldn't)) are sentient.*
>

I admit it's a imperfect tool but it's all we've got and all we'll ever
have so we just have to make good with what we have. A failure to act
intelligently does not necessarily mean its non-sentient, perhaps both a
rock and Donald Trump are really brilliant but are just pretending to be
stupid. If so then both are conscious and both are very good actors.


> > *The absence of an objective test for third-party sentience does not
> force one into solipsism. It may point to 1) a problem with your ontology
> (qualia aren't "real")*
>

That means nothing. I detect qualia from direct experience and that
outranks everything, it even outranks the scientific method; so if qualia
isn't real then nothing is real which would be equivalent to everything
being real which is equivalent to "real" having no meaning because meaning
needs contrast.


> > *or 2) a deficient state of knowledge wth respect to the (pre)
> conditions of consciousness.*
>

I don't know what that means either.


> > Seeing as you have no theory of consciousness at all,
>

Yes I do. My theory is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is
being processed and that is a brute fact, meaning it terminates a chain of
"why is that?" questions.


> > *statements like "you have no alternative but to..." don't have much
> force. There are plenty of alternatives,*
>

Name one! I ask once more, in you everyday life when you're not being
philosophical you must have some method of determining when something is
conscious, if its not intelligent behavior what on earth is it?

> a refusal to engage it as a problem, in spite of the increasingly
> widespread acceptance among scientists that it *is *a real problem, and
> possibly the biggest problem of all in our current state of knowledge


I think intelligence implies consciousness but consciousness does not
necessarily
imply intelligence, so the problem I want answered is abut how intelligence
works not consciousness.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-09 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:01 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:


> *> I still think that we will have lots of intelligent robots running
> around - really smart, can win on Jeopardy!, can drive cars, can "fake"
> emotions ... - but we will not consider them conscious.*
>

As a practical matter I don't it will make much difference if we consider
computers to be conscious or not, a much more important question is if
computers will consider us to be conscious or not because you can't have
empathy for something you don't think is conscious.


> > We can (hopefully) turn them off and destroy them whenever we want.
>

Even today we couldn't turn off all our computers without killing billions
of people, and the smarter machines get the harder it will be to turn them
off. I don't think anybody will even try to turn them off and they'd
fail spectacularly if they did. It would just make them mad.


> *>We do have something like a consciousness test in the case of medical
> decisions at end-of-life. So I think a consciousness test will be different
> than an intelligence test.*
>

Why would a red spot on a MRI brain scan convince you it is conscious when
that same brain  producing intelligent behavior would not?

John K Clark






>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-09 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:09 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>There are 2 ways this can be done:

1) With a wet Turing Machine (aka a brain made of matter)
> 2) With a dry Turing Machine (aka a computer made of matter)
> Both methods work fine.
>


*>That is fine FAPP. Meaning: it is not fine when doing metaphysics with
> the scientific attitude.*


You can't do metaphysics with a scientific attitude, if you could it
wouldn't be metaphysics, it would just be physics. Metaphysics means
unscientific speculation about physics.

*>  you cannot invoke “matter” if you want associate consciousness to that
> intelligent behaviour,*


If? Without that association there is no alternative to solipsism. And
without matter you can't have intelligent behavior, or even unintelligent
behavior.

*> because the consciousness itself will have to associate itself with the
> infinitely many computations,*


That of course is nonsense.

> *You forget the fact that the physical reality is not the only thing
> capable of emulating Turing machine, the elementary arithmetical reality,
> in fact all models of Robinson Arithmetic* [blah blah blah blah]


You've been telling us for years about the wonders of Robinson arithmetic
but stop talking about it and do something with it! Start the Robinson
Computer Corporation and become the world's first trillionaire by this time
next year.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-09 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:53 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*>I don't think people are aware all the time that they are conscious
> beings.*
>

If you reject intelligent behavior as a tool for detecting consciousness
then how did you determine that? And how can you figure out anything else
about any consciousness except for your own?  I don't think there is any
way, I think the only alternative is solipsism.


> > *But I am right *now* as I finish typing (and error correcting) this
> sentence.*
>

Unless I accept as a axiom intelligent behavior implies consciousness what
reason do I have for believing  what you just typed above is true?

>Consciousness has a connection with language, so in that sense it is
> connected to intelligence. But consciousness = linguisticity +
> experientiality.
>

Consciousness is a experience, but I think consciousness can exist without
language although that would make it more difficult for others to detect,
they'd have to observe non-linguistic behavior that was intelligent.  \

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-08 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 6:48 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*>After 40 years in the AI field, this I am concluding: [...]
>  Consciousness is a real thing - and everyone knows what it is, because
> they have it -*
>

Have you concluded that everyone is conscious all the time, even when
they're sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? Or can you only confidently
conclude someone is conscious if they exhibit intelligent behavior?


> >"*Perhaps it’s true that only biological machines can be sufficiently
> creative and flexible.*
>

Why is it that a wet soft Turing Machine can be creative and flexible but a
dry hard Turing Machine can't be? What's so sacred about being squishy?

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-08 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:26 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> For "intelligent", *conventional compilers* (2) will do. There will be 
> *intelligent
> agents* from Google, IBM, Apple, ... . They are already advertised as
> such.
> They are not conscious.
>

How do you know a compiler is *not *conscious? And how do you know that a
human who does exactly the same thing* is* conscious when the only tool you
have is observing intelligent behavior which is identical for both? And why
do you think consciousness is harder to produce than intelligence when the
3.8 billion year history of biology on this planet seems to show the exact
opposite?

As for why profit making corporations advertise the intelligence of their
machines and programs and not their consciousness its because intelligence
can make money but consciousness can't.


> > I think that only specialized *matter compile*r*s* [
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_assembler ] can compile source
> for conscious agents that will produce conscious objects.
>

I agree, only matter that has a logical structure that can be mapped to a
Turing Machine can display intelligent behavior. And if you refuse to
accept the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness then you
have no alternative but to embrace solipsism. Do you really want to do that?

John K Clark






>
> - pt
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-08 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:57 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *What is a language for conscious agents (experiential modalities)?*
>

Intelligent behavior.

> *How do you compile them?*
>

There are 2 ways this can be done:
1) With a wet Turing Machine (aka a brain made of matter)
2) With a dry Turing Machine (aka a computer made of matter)

Both methods work fine.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-08 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 9:55 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*>When we look at what physics tells us about the brain, we actually just
> find software—purely a set of relations—all the way down.*
>

You can't have a relationship between things if you don't have any things,
and sometimes the nature of those individual things makes a difference. If
you replaced all the Carbon atoms in a brain with Fluorine atoms the brain
would no longer be able to produce any sort of conscious experience, but if
you replaced the Carbon atoms with different Carbon atoms the conscious
experience would be completely unchanged.


> * > And consciousness is in fact more like hardware, because of its
> distinctly qualitative, non-structural properties.*
>

Consciousness IS structured, one conscious thought triggers another
conscious thought that is usually related, if it was not coherent thinking
would be impossible. And the sort of matter we are most interested in,
living things and computers, have the most complex structure of all.  And I
disagree about it being "distinctly qualitative", sometimes we're more
aware than others but it's a continuous matter of degree, that's why we can
never pinpoint the instant we fall asleep.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Tao and Physics

2018-10-03 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 11:27 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> > *Please read Plotinus or Proclus*
>

Not a snowball's chance in hell!!  I'd learn more science and mathematics
from reading Mother Goose.

 >>So there is not one God there are an infiniti of them
>
>
> *>No, there is only one. The reason why you are here is the same as the
> reason why any universal number exist. I did not say that any machine is
> god.*
>

You said "*Consider any digital machine. It corresponds to some number k*
[...] *The theology of the machine k is define by the set of all true
sentence about k".*  And all true statements about digital machine k are
not the same as all true statements about digital machine k+1. And if
theology is the study of God then there are a infinity of Gods. And not one
of those Gods is as smart as a sea slug.

I said it before I'll say it again, you've abandoned the idea of God but
refuse to abandon the 3 character ASCII sequence G-O-D.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Tao and Physics

2018-10-03 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 4:10 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>Bruno, whenever you use that word [theology] or the G word you just lose
>> me, I don't know what you're talking about.
>
>

*>Consider any digital machine. It corresponds to some number k [...] The
> theology of the machine k is define by the set of all true sentence about
> k.*
>

And "God" is defined that way by you and by no one else in the observable
universe, but OK lets go with that. So there is not one God there are an
infiniti of them, and not one of those Gods is as intelligent as a snail or
has any consciousness and far from being all powerful none of those Gods is
capable of doing anything because God is just a number; He isn't even a
vector, God is only a scalar.

Bruno, you seem to think if you can just make the right definitions you can
unlock the secrets of reality but by inventing your own personal language
all you do is confuse people, and the easiest person to confuse is
yourself.

John K Clark





>
> I agree with the scholar Hirshberger: the notion of god of plato is the
> notion of truth, with the understanding that we cannot express it as such.
> It is the truth that we search and doubt about, not any dogma.
>
> If materialism is correct, god is the material universe
> If mechanism is correct, god is the arithmetical truth (and actually a bit
> less)
>
> I recall the definition of God that I use: whatever is responsible for us
> being here and now.
> With mechanism, we need first the whole arithmetical truth, but after some
> study, we see that we can take much less, but that very fact will not be
> among what we can prove.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Tao and Physics

2018-10-02 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 12:04 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> Mysticism is certainly not bullshit when you understand that any
> universal number/set believing in “enoughinduction” axioms discover his own
> theology* [...]


Bruno, whenever you use that word or the G word you just lose me, I don't
know what you're talking about.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Tao and Physics

2018-10-02 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:53 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Fritz Capra wrote a book titled The Tao of Physics. I read it in high
> school and again as an undergraduate. This book is probably one of the most
> reviled book by physicists, though a few think it is good. I am a bit
> neutral.*


I read "The Tao of Physics" when if first came out and thought it was
mediocre at best. At the time it was my opinion that all forms of mysticism
was 100% bullshit, but not long after that I read  Raymond Smullyan's book
"The Tao is silent".  Smullyan's book covers many of the same topics as
Capra's but does a incomparably better job.

https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Silent-Raymond-M-Smullyan/dp/0060674695

I read a lot of books but even today I'd have to say "The Tao of Physics"
is one of the 2 or 3 best books I ever read. I still think mysticism is
mostly bullshit but after reading Smullyan's book I had a little less
confidence in my 100% figure, it may have been a little too high.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-01 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:59 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

*>It has been estimated that simulating a single neuron requires a
> micro-controller like an AVR, which contains 80,000 transistors.*


And 4 years ago in 2014 the human race manufactured 2.5 * 10^20
transistors, that works out to 8 trillion transistors a second 24/7 for an
entire year. I don't know how many transistors are made in 2018 but I'm
sure it's several times as large.

John K Clark






>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

2018-10-01 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:26 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> I think (along with Philip Goff*) that physics is not complete in its
> study of matter.
>

That is very true, today physics has no idea what Dark Energy or Dark
Matter is and they make up 95% of the matter/energy in the universe. And
physics doesn't know what will happen when 2 incompatible theories, General
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, collide head on at the center of a Black
Hole. Hell we don't even have a very good theory about why friction works
the way it does, and the same goes for high temperature superconductors.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: #darkmatter theory

2018-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:27 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> *The dark matter of a galaxy responsible for the flat rotation curve is
> presumably in a cloud of spherical orbits around the galaxy.  It doesn't
> collapse to a disk, as the visible matter does, because being dark it
> doesn't radiate away energy via EM in collisions. *
>

Dark Matter wouldn't radiate anything electromagnetic but there has been
speculation that if Dark Matter is accelerated it might radiate something
comparable to it, you could call it Dark Light; although there is as of now
zero empirical evidence that it actually exists.


> > *But it must still radiate gravitational waves in collisions.  Are
> there estimates of how long this would take to collapse dark matter to a
> disk? *
>

I think it would take far far longer than the current age of the universe.
Because the Earth accelerates as it circles the sun it must give off
gravitational waves, however its been calculated that the Earth only
radiate away about 200 watts of power in the form of gravitational waves,
your toaster uses about 6 times as much. The energy radiated away only
becomes significant when the object is very dense, and the smaller the
orbit its in the more energy in the resulting gravitational waves; and its
proportional to the fifth power of the orbital radius so  the very last
orbit before collision is the one that produces nearly all of the
gravitational wave energy and takes less than a second. The orbits of Dark
Matter particles in galaxies must have a radius of many thousands of light
years, not less than a mile as in 2 neutron stars last orbit.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-30 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:23 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> *Over 10 years (say) 7 million lives are lost, diminishing our capacity
> for producing the next Einstein by 0.1%. *


Well 0.1% is pretty low, but I have a hunch the probability of one of 7
million mosquitoes becoming the next Einstein would be even lower.


> *> In the same time, the world's population has grown by 11.5%, offsetting
> that loss manytimes over.*


And if a child dies or goes blind there is no need for the parents to cry,
they can just have another.

 John K Clark






>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:23 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000
>> people  from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and
>> their impacts are  equally unknown then I think you should give the
>> benefit of the doubt to the  human not the mosquito.
>
>


>
> * >Yes it is different. According to the first hit on Google, the economic
> cost of malaria runs to $12 billion per annum.* (
> https://www.malariafreefuture.org/malaria).
>
* It is not equally unknown.*
>

Do you really think the figure "12 billion dollars" answers all or even
most questions regarding the death of 725.000 people or even comes within a
thousand light years of doing so? Even something as simple as the wind
needs a vector to describe it, 2 numbers are needed one for speed and one
for direction; but you think the lives of 725,000 people just needs a scalar,
one number, 12 billion.

>*ecosystems are complex systems, and small changes can have outsized
> effects.*


People are part of the ecosystem too, and the most complex and
unpredictable part. One of those 725,000 people who lost their lives
because you thought mosquitoes were more important might have been the next
Einstein, or been the father or grandfather of one, or maybe the next
Hitler, nobody knows.

>
>
> *You don't need to convince Greenpeace. You need to convince the
> regulatory authorities,*


I need to convince whoever has the loudest voice because that's the one the
regulatory agencies and their political bosses hear. And the loudest voice
is seldom  the wisest

>
>
> *It may well be that in order to convince the regulatory authorities, you
> also need to convince the voting public. That may well involve doing
> exactly the sort of small-scale studies I'm proposing,*


I don't care if you have 6.02*10^23 studies all pointing in the same
direction, the voting public that made Donald Trump the most powerful man
on the planet won't believe in any of them unless their fearless leader
orders them to believe it.

 * > the problem is that malaria mostly affects the poorer countries that
> don't have that sort of cash lying around. It's a good thing Bill Gates is
> in that corner.*


I agree, millions of people who are alive and well would be dead without
Bill Gates . If we have to have a billionaire as president I wish it was
Gates.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-29 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:31 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

>>I do know for  certain that for 725,000 people each and every year NOT
>> using Gene Drive WILL  be the equivalent to the Chicxulub Event .
>
>
> > *That's a big exaggeration. Name one species that's going extinct due
> to malaria, as compared to 80% extinction of life in the Chicxulub Event.*
>

Screw species, I weep more for individuals than spices, 725,000 humans will
face oblivion because of malaria this year alone, and for them that is
equivalent to being smack in the middle of the Chicxulub Event. I think
that's much sadder than 40 mosquito species going extinct.


> >> Such ecological studies will never ever be done, there will always be
>> one more study that needs to be completed before we can make a decision.
>
>
> * >If that is the case, then there is either a problem with the decision
> makers (analysis paralysis) or in their terms of reference.*


Obviously. If there were no problem with decision makers a massive program
to grow Golden Rice would have been implemented more than a decade ago, but
instead we have a massive program to kill millions of people and make
millions of children go blind. And even today there is STILL no such
massive program. Why? Because Greenpeace says the jury is still out and we
need yet another study before we do anything. But the jury will never come
back into court, if N is the number of studies available they will always
say we need N+1. And as a result people continue to die in the name of
prudence.


> > *My judgement is that we do not currrently know the impacts of
> removing even one of those species,*


Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000 people
from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and their impacts
are equally unknown then I think you should give the benefit of the doubt
to the human not the mosquito.


> *>I expect that 5 years moratorium might be enough, 10 years on the
> outside.*


That's very easy for you to say but by making that decision you are
killing about
3.6 million people,  7.25 million tops, depending on the breaks.

I don't believe in 5 years or 10 years or a thousand years any conceivable
scientific study would convince Greenpeace to say "you were right, the
dangers in using Gene Drive are less than the dangers of not using it".
It's not going to happen because some people, like Greenpeace and Trump
voters, are just immune from rational argument.


>
> *>So long as the decisions are made in the light of the best scientific
> evidence available, is that such a problem?*


Apparently that is a tragically large problem because for whatever reason
decisions based on  the best scientific evidence available have NOT been
made, if they had been millions of people who lost their lives would be
alive today and millions more that are blind could see.


> >* without any regulatory process, we will just get repeats of the cane
> toad problem,*
>

I would submit that the cane toad problem is a ridiculously trivial problem
compared with the problem of millions of people dying and millions more
going blind when there is no need.  I would also submit it is a tad
unlikely that reducing the number of mosquito species from 3500 to 3460
would result in the death of more than 725,000 people a year.  If the
ecosystem was a house of cards and as fragile as conservation groups like
to say during their fund drives life couldn't have survived for 3.8 billion
years.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-28 Thread John Clark
Russell Standish wrote:


>
> *>There is also the possibility of wholesale ecosystem collapse, notjust
> some birds. Do you know that these mosquitos _aren't_ a keystonespecies?*


I don't know anything for certain about the environment and never will but
I have a strong hunch the  40 mosquito species that carry malaria going
extinct and leaving just 3460 mosquito species around would not be the
equivalent to the Chicxulub Event that occured 66 million years ago.
However I do know for certain that for 725,000 people each and every year
NOT using Gene Drive WILL be the equivalent to the Chicxulub Event .


>
> *> I'm not saying they are, but until ecological studies are done, we
> don't know.*


Such ecological studies will never ever be done, there will always be one
more study that needs to be completed before we can make a decision.
Always. Meanwhile as we do nothing 725,000 people die each and every year.


> *I don't think you have considered _all_ the facts*
>

Well of course I haven't! In the physical world decisions are never based
on perfect information so we must use judgement. It is my judgement that
725,000 human deaths per year is a greater evil than 40 out of 3500
mosquito species going extinct.  What is your judgement?

 >>There will never be a day when the ESP fans will say " I'm seen enough
>> well conducted studies with negative results to convince me that ESP is not
>> worth pursuing further and we should move on to studying something new with
>> more potential to find something interesting". Environmentalists and ESP
>> fans will ALWAYS demand just one more study before moving on.
>
>
>
> * >By ESP - do you mean extrasensory perception and similar psychic woo?*


Yes. And flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico.


> >
> *The decision properly should be taken by regulatory agencies, preferably
> an international one under (say) the auspices of the UN*


The most important thing for an employee of one of those regulatory
agencies is to cover your ass, and for reasons I don't understand people
will blame them for making a decision that results in one person getting
sick but they will not blame them for killing 725,000 people a year by not
acting. So if you're a bureaucrat the wisest thing to do is ask for yet
another study and do nothing.

Actually I'm underestimating the political and bureaucratic inertia of
regulatory agencies.  There is not a single well documented case of
genetically modified food even making somebody sick much less killing then,
and yet millions, perhaps billions, of people have the superstition that id
something has been genetically modified then it must be satanic.

Rice is the staple food for half of the human race but unfortunately it
contains no vitamin A and that deficiency causes 670,000 people to die
every year and made half a million children go blind every year. However
there is a strain of rice that does contain vitamin A called "Golden Rice"
that was developed more than a decade ago but regulatory agencies are
dragging their feet on allowing it because it was made with genetic
engineering.

Just a few months ago it was finally approved in the USA but it isn't
needed there, is still banned in the places where it's needed most, a small
experimental plot of Golden Rice in the Philippines was destroyed by
protestors 5 years ago and Bangladesh is still thinking about it.
Meanwhile 670,000
people die every year and made half a million children go blind.

>
> *Of course there is no such thing as a zero risk decision, but all we ask
> is that the decision is taken on the best scientific knowledge,*


For decades the best scientific knowledge has been that eating genetically
modified food is not risky but NOT eating genetically modified food is very
risky indeed. And yet we do nothing and people continue to die. And now it
looks like the same thing is going to happen with Gene Drive.

>
>
> *Of course, everyone has an input into the makeup of the regulatory
> agencies, including the likes of Greenpeace, and Donald Trump.*


That's the problem, those with the loudest voice have the most influence
regardless of how stupid they are. Greenpeace claims to be super moral but
they oppose all forms of genetic engineering despite the millions of deaths
that opposition has caused, and Donald Trump in his ignorance has
shamefully advanced the fiction that vaccinations cause autism.  And I
can't think of anything that has reduced the net amount of human misery
more than vaccination.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:24 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*>If someone else can explain the problem that John Clark see, let him or
> her helps him.*
>

So even the originator of the theory can't make sense out of it and asks
third parties to figure out exactly what the question asked of the guy in
Helsinki on Monday is that is supposed to be refuted on Tuesday. You keep
telling us what the question is not but you never said what the question
IS. And yes you say the question is about various sorts of peepee but I
don't want to know what the question is about either, I want to know THE
EXACT WORDING of the question asked of the guy on Monday and the exact
wording of the answer, and I want all of this done without personal
pronouns that do nothing but hide major blunders in your logic.

I want that but I won't get that because you can't do that because your
theory is so bad it's not even wrong.

> *All points below have been answered,*
>

Except for who the referent is for all those personal pronouns you love to
throw around so loberally and  what the question asked in Helsinki is, not
what it isn't, not what it's about, but exactly what IS it.

> *I think John Clark do just very bad philosophy, asking impossible but
> irrelevant precision,*
>

And so we have the sorry spectacle of a logician who likes to sprinkle
formal equations in his posts complaining that I'm being too precise when
all I ask is the meaning of a few pronoun and the wording of the question
you keep talking about.

John K Clark
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-26 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:04 AM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> *It's not morality, but the precautionary principle in action.*


Every single year you delay doing this you will be condemning 725,000
people to die from malaria and other diseases and incapacitate hundreds of
millions more for weeks at a time. This is caution?


>
>
> *I> t's one thing to show this works within a lab. But causing the
> extinction of a species in an ecosystem can cause an avalanche of knockon
> effects, which generally speaking, cannot be tested for in the lab.*


I can't claim there is zero risk if we do this, there is just no way we can
live in a zero risk world. So we must use judgement. I know of two facts
that you can use to make your judgement:

1) If you decide to do this there is a possibility some species of birds
that eat mosquitoes might be harmed.

2) If you decide not to do this there is a certainty you will be sentencing
725,000 people to die each and every year.

I believe the rational judgement that needs to be made in this case is
obvious.


> >
> *I would be in favour of a moratorium until such time as the ecosystem is
> studied in detail, and detailed simulation models of the ecosystem run.*


That day will never ever come! There will never come a time when self
proclaimed protectors of the environment will say "OK enough simulations
have been done and you've convinced me, lets do it" just as the will never
be a day when the ESP fans will say " I'm seen enough well conducted
studies with negative results to convince me that ESP is not worth pursuing
further and we should move on to studying something new with more potential
to find something interesting". Environmentalists and ESP fans will ALWAYS
demand just one more study before moving on.

>
> *Let's not go into this blind as so often we've done before - eg the story
> of the release of the rabbit calixi virus in Australia.*
>

If that virus saved 725,000 people from death every year I'd call it an
enormous triumph regardless of the harm it caused to pet rabbits in
Australia.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Gene Drive and morality

2018-09-25 Thread John Clark
Funded by a $100,000,000 grant from Bill Gates biologists have found a way
to make a species of mosquitoes go extinct using CRISPR genetic engineering
technology to connect a sterility gene to a Gene Driver:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt.4245

Normally if you have a gene there is only a 50% chance one of your children
will have it too, but with Gene Drive there is a 100% chance they will have
that gene. There is a gene that makes female mosquitoes sterile and they
hooked up that gene to a Gene Drive mechanism in a male mosquito. It would
be illegal to release that mosquito into the wild but they found in the lab
the gene was in 100% of the population in less than 11 generations making
the entire population collapse. A generation in a mosquito is about 40
days.

Mosquitoes carry many diseases, malaria alone killed 450,000 people last
year and made many millions more very sick, nevertheless self styled
guardians of morality are already calling for a moratorium on the use of
this technology in the field and say we should wait decades before letting
one of these insects go free if we ever do.

If that's morality then I'm proud to be immoral.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-24 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:58 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>So you demand that the first person view of the Moscow man tomorrow
>> predict today
>
>
> *> No. I ask this, since day one, to the H-guy; before he pushes the
> button.*
>

Stop talking about "the H-guy" until you tell all of us exactly what you
mean by the term! I mean anyone who *REMEMBERS* being a guy in Helsinki
before a button was pushed, and thus that guy still exists after the button
was pushed. However if a different definition is used, if the H-guy *IS*
the person before the button was pushed then obviously "the H-guy" will not
exist after the button was pushed, and that would be true regardless of if
the button is connected to a people duplicating machine or just connected
to a doorbell. It all depends on exactly what "the H-guy" means. I am
crystal clear about all this, why can't you be? What exactly do you want
predicted and just as important who do you want to make the prediction?

>>Nobody can ask the H-guy anything unless yesterday before any of this
>> started everybody agreed on exactly what "the H-guy" means, I have provided
>> a clear unambiguous definition of that term but you have not.
>
>
> *> I cannot parse the sentence.*
>

That surprises me because it was not a complex sentence. Which word didn't
you understand?


> >>Asking "How many cities do you see?" would be a dumb question to ask.
>> What you should ask is "Given our predetermined agreement about what the
>> term means made before anybody was copied how many cities do you think the
>> H-guy ended up seeing?”.
>
>
>
> >*That is simply not the question asked. *
>

Then what the hell was the question asked?? If its a Monday do you think
these 2 questions asked of the Helsinki man are equivalent?

1) How many cities will you see on Tuesday?
2)  How many cities will the Helsinki man see on Tuesday?

If they are not equivalent then what is the referent of "you"?
If there are equivalent then must "the Helsinki man" be in Helsinki? And
can the Helsinki man of Monday exist on Tuesday? If the answers are yes
then the Helsinki man will see 2 cities at the same time on Tuesday.

You will no doubt respond with talk about peepee but if it makes sense you
should be able to insert the peepee into the question on Monday so that it
can be answered with a simple yes or no on Tuesday, but you don't know how
to do that because the entire thing makes no sense.


> *>You eliminate the first person experience.*
>

I'm not eliminating anything I just want to know exactly what is the
question that you ask the H-guy today before the duplication is, and what
question  you will ask the 2 guys tomorrow after the duplication that you
belive will refute or confirm the correctness of the answer given by the
guy on Monday. And I don't think I'm being unreasonable in wanting to know
what the hell we're talking about.

*> If the H-guy is promise coffee at both place, he can predict clearly
> that after pushing the button he* [...]
>

No, "he" can't do predict anything nor can anybody else until we know
exactly who "he" is.

Bruno said Bruno always knows who the referent is when personal pronouns
are used in this thought experiment but in John's last post John asked
Bruno to prove it by simply not using them, but John predicted Bruno would
not do that. John's prediction turned out to be correct.


> *>the question is about the 1p experience, not about some person is from a
> 3p point of view.*
>

Stop telling me what the question is about and tell be what exactly the
question that you ask in Helsinki *IS.* I want to know the specific
question you ask the Helsinki man today, what his answer is, and what
questions you will ask the copies tomorrow that you think will refute it ,
  And there must be NO PERSONAL PRONOUNS  in the question, but that
shouldn't problem as you claim to always know who the referent is. Also the
question should be about what somebody expects to happen but what somebody
predicts will happen.The statement "I expect to see Santa Claus
workshop on Tuesday" may be true but that doesn't mean I will see Santa
Claus workshop on Tuesday.

 John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-23 Thread John Clark
Bruno Marcha wrote:

>>Bruno, that's my definition but think long and hard before you agree with
>> it because if you still agree with it in your next post I give you fair
>> warning my next question to you will be "How many cities will the Helsinki
>> man see?”.
>
>
> *> Only one, from its first person view.*
>

So you demand that the first person view of the Moscow man tomorrow predict
today what will happen to him despite the fact that today the first person
view of the Moscow man tomorrow *DOES NOT EXIST*! There is one property
that every good oracle needs, and that is the property of existence, and
the first person Moscow man of tomorrow doesn't have it in Helsinki today.

I did warn you that you needed to think long and hard.


> > *We need to ask the H-guy reconstitute in each city*[...]
>

Nobody can ask the H-guy anything unless yesterday before any of this
started everybody agreed on exactly what "the H-guy" means, I have provided
a clear unambiguous definition of that term but you have not.


> > *and indeed, they both see one city*,
>

Asking "How many cities do you see?" would be a dumb question to ask. What
you should ask is "Given our predetermined agreement about what the term
means made before anybody was copied how many cities do you think the H-guy
ended up seeing?". Depending on what the agreement was the correct answer
could be zero or two or there was no agreement and thus there was no answer
because there was no question, there was only gibberish.

John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-23 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM Stathis Papaioannou 
wrote:

>>it's true I am confused I don't understand, but anybody who thinks they
>> understand gibberish is a fool.
>>
>
> *> To me and probably to many others it seems obvious that the Helsinki
> man can expect to end up either in Moscow or Washington after the
> duplication. *
>

Before you me or anybody else can say what the Helsinki man should expect
to see tomorrow we need to agree on exactly what "the Helsinki man
tomorrow" means, and the most important person who needs to agree and the
person who should make the definition is the Helsinki man today. After that
we can debate what "the Helsinki man tomorrow" will or will not see;
otherwise we're just spinning our wheels.


> *> Can you perhaps step outside of the argument and speculate as to why
> there should be such disagreement, why you imagine some people would think
> it is obvious when you think it is not only not obvious, but ridiculous? *


Probably because it's all so far outside of normal everyday experience. For
technological (not scientific) reasons people duplicating machines don't
exist yet and thus somebody can live their entire life just fine and never
think deeply about any of this stuff even once. And although logically
consistent this stuff is certainly weird and counterintuitive so it's easy
to just dismiss it. Or say it's all so theoretical and abstract that it's
of no more importance than debating how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin; and that may be true today but in less than 80 years (maybe less
than 20) resolving this matter in your mind will be of enormous practical
value. It will become a matter of survival not abstract philosophy.

As for me I think if logic takes me to a place that is counterintuitive
then my intuition must have been wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. And
I think resolving this matter in my mind is rather important even today,
that's why I signed up with Alcor.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-23 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 3:39 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *Given the definition of the first person*, [...]  *By the definition of
> the first person notion* [...]
>

You act as if you've given a robust definition of "the first person" that
doesn't fall apart into logical contradictions at the first use of a people
copying machine, or even with nothing more than the passage of time. But
you never have. For example, you'll say things like "the first person"
means the conscious being experiencing Helsinki today and then try to
predict what "the first person" will experience tomorrow. But even if we
forget about people copying machines and stay put in Helsinki if that's
your definition of "the first person" then "the first person" will not
exist at all tomorrow because tomorrow nobody will be experiencing Helsinki
today.

And then you will say the man experiencing Moscow tomorrow could not have
predicted that he would be doing that today, and that's true but only
because today the man experiencing Moscow tomorrow does not exist so he's
unable to do ANYTHING, and that includes making predictions.  I've made
this point many times before of course and each time your only defence is
I'm "just playing with words", an odd defence from somebody who claims to
be a logician.

I don't have the problem that Bruno has because I define "the Helsinki man"
as anyone who remembers being the Helsinki man today, but if Bruno accepted
my definition and followed its logical consequences he'd have to conclude
that the Helsinki man will see 2 cities not one and saw them both at the
exact same time. And this conclusion could be proven by interviewing both
the Moscow man and the Washington man provided that before any copying was
done the Helsinki man himself agreed on the definition of "the Helsinki
man". Yes if you asked the Washington or Moscow man how many cities they
saw they would say only one, but that is the wrong question to ask. The
correct question to ask is "How many cities do you think the Helsinki man
ended up seeing at the same time?". If they are logical and truthful they
will answer "I don't have enough information to answer that but If the
experiment went as planned and my brother really is in that other city then
the Helsinki man ended up seeing 2 cities at exactly the same time".

*>That is pseudo-religion. You talk like a member of the clergy.*


And you talk as if you hadn't repeated verbatim that same schoolboy insult
6.02*10^23 times before. By your next post I wouldn't be surprised if the
tally reached (6.02*10^23) +1

> *Handwaving and insults just confirms that you have decided to not
> understand.*
>

Speaking of hand waving, nobody can explain who exactly is supposed to make
the prediction, or who or what the prediction is about, and even after the
event is over there is no way even in principle to know if the prediction
turned out to be correct or not. So it's true I am confused I don't
understand, but anybody who thinks they understand gibberish is a fool.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-22 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:17 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *you are right, computation needs a notion of change, but not of physical
> change, which emerge from the notion of relative change already definable
> in arithmetic.*
>

So you've abandoned the idea mathematics is eternal and universal.
Arithmetic will be different an hour from now and Arithmetic in Washington
is not the same as Arithmetic in Moscow.

>>You can't have a block-view of reality or of anything else without a
>> block, and time is one of the dimensions of that block, and time is the one
>> and only reason the geometry of that block is Non-Euclidean.
>
>
> *>In your religion. *
>

What are you talking about? I've said nothing controversial, its been known
for a century the block universe is Non-Euclidean because, due to the time
dimension, the Pythagorean theorem is different in Minkowski space than it
is in Euclidean geometry. If X is the spatial distance between 2 events for
an observer and T is the time it takes light to cover that distance for
that same observer and c is the speed of light then the invariant spacetime
distance S between events can be found with the formula S^2= (cT)^2 -X^2.
T and X will be different for different observers but S will be the same
for ANY observer. Notice the minus sign in there, Euclid and Pythagoras
said it should be a plus and that's why it's Non-Euclidean.

*>No problem with your theory, but it contradict your belief
> in computationalism.*
>

I know what I mean by "computationalism", intelligent behavior can be
produced by computations,  but I can't comment on the above because like
"The Helsinki man" I don't know what you mean by computationalism.


> >>And I predicted that would happen long before the experiment started.
>
>
> *>That implies the first person indeterminacy.*
>

So something is indeterminate if it is predictable? Now I don't know what
you mean by "indeterminate" either.

>   >>> *Wat I request is that you tell me what the H-guy can expect to
> live*
> >>And what I request of you
>
> >*You avoid answering.*
>

True. I can't answer until I know what the question is, and I won't know
that until you tell me exactly what you mean by "the H-guy". Remember
people duplicating machines are involved so you must be far more precise
than you are in normal everyday life.

>>Just answer the following question: "After the experiment is completed
>> and the 1 H-guy became 2 H-guys what 1 and only 1 city did the H-guy end up
>> in?”
>
>
> *>That is like building the confusion between first and third person view,
> to makes the question not answerable.*
>

If the question is not answerable then I'm not the one who is confused.
It's your idiotic "question" not mine!


> >> If you can't answer that then it was not a experiment
>
>
> *>No. It means that the H-guy (if he survives, which is the case assuming
> computationalism) cannot predict the particular outcome he will feel to
> live. *
>

Tell me exactly what the referent to the personal pronoun "he" is in the
above is and I will tell you if I agree with your statement or not.

 > *We have agreed since day one what we mean by the H-guy.*
>

Refresh my memory then, what do you mean by "the H-guy"?  This is important
because it not only involves what the prediction is about but also who is
supposed to make the prediction. Are they the same people?

>>Seeing Moscow is the one and only reason the Helsinki man became the
>> Moscow man. So why did I see Moscow? Because I'm the Moscow man. Why am
>> I the Moscow man? Because I saw Moscow.
>
>
> >*Trivially. *
>

Yep, it would be hard to find anything more trivial, but its your thought
experiment not mine.

>>Unable to predict exactly what in Helsinki?
>
>
> *>The unique city that both H-guys will see.*
>

Who do you want to make the prediction? Both H-guys didn't exist yesterday
in Helsinki there was only one. Before anybody can predict anything you
need to exist.

> *What they will write in the diary.*
>

Please tell me how that brain dead diary idea you've been pushing for years
has any relevance in this matter.

>>So which ONE did it turn out to be, Washington OR Moscow?
>
>
> *>For one copy it is W, and he could not have predicted.*
>
*For the other it is M, and he could not have predicted.*
>

True, the H man could predict all of this but the W and M men were unable
to. And there is a reason for that, it is difficult to make good
predictions or even poor ones if you don't exist.


> *>The pronouns are not ambiguous.*
>

*Then prove it!*  Just stop using goddamn personal pronouns when discussing
this issue. If Bruno knows who the referent is for all the pronouns are as
claimed then Bruno should use them. However John predicts this will not
happen because Bruno simply cannot express these ideas without copious use
of ambiguous personal pronouns. There will likely be proof that John's
prediction was correct in Bruno's very next post.

>> But even after the "exparament" is over you *STILL* don't know 

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-21 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:20 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>> Mind is what a brain does
>
>
>
>*And walking and running is what the legs do. *
> *There is no "walking" like some Platonic immaterial universal except for
> some pair of legs to be doing it.*
>

Right, there is no thinking without a brain (biological or electronic) to
do it.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-21 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 7:05 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>If physics is not involved then neither is time or space, so nothing
>> about the "machine" changes, and without change a calculation can not be
>> made.
>
>
> *>See my answer in previous post.*
>

In my experience reading your stuff twice brings no additional clarity.

*>you cannot invoke your personal metaphysics.*
>

If  a mechanic can't fix the engine in his car without "invoking personal
metaphysics" then there is nothing metaphysical about it. It's just
physical.


> >if you assume Aristotle’s [.]
>

How very interesting! I believe this is the first time you've ever
mentioned the ancient Greeks, why didn't you do that before?

> *I use “exists” as a quantifier in some theory. The axioms are given in
> all textbook of logic.*
>

Assuming logic textbooks exist did anything exist before logic textbooks
existed ? And if logic is more fundamental why is it that a physical
machine can simulate logic but logic can't simulate a physical machine?

>>Maybe there is some way other than a Turing Machine to perform a
>> calculation,
>
>
> *>That is ambiguous.*
>

Maybe a Turing Machine can't find the answer to all nondeterministic
polynomial time problems in polynomial time but some other physical method
can, I doubt it but maybe. It's probably the greatest unsolved problem in
mathematics. Does P=NP? Most think the answer is no but nobody can prove
it. Intuitively you'd think in general it must be harder to write a book
than read a book and harder to write a proof than check a proof, but then
again these days it sometimes takes the entire mathematical community years
to check a proof before they conclude its valid so maybe not.


> >>but whatever that way is you can be certain it involves change, and
>> that means its physical.
>
>
> >*No. We need only the local change*
>

If you're talking about locality then you're implicitly assuming the
existence of time and space, and they are physical concepts.


> *> in the memory of the machine.*
>

Memory is physical. It turns out that theoretically you can perform a
calculation without using energy but If you don't have a infinite memory
then at some point you're going to have to erase the scratchpad stuff you
used to make the calculation. And in 1961 Landauer proved it takes a
minimum amount of energy to erase one bit of information and he told us
exactly how much that is; its Boltzmann's constant times the temperature of
the memory in degrees Kelvin times the natural logarithm of 2. Landauer's
results are rooted in the Second Law Of Thermodynamics and if I could pick
one thing that I think physicists would still consider to be true a
thousand years from now it would be the second law.

Landauer's limit on the minimum it takes to erase one bit of information is
a very small amount of energy (.0172 electron volts) but if the amount of
space needed to store one bit of information keeps shrinking then in 10 or
15 years computer engineers are going have to take it into consideration.
Some early designs for nanocomputers ignored it and thus if they had been
built they would have given off so much heat they would have acted more
like bombs than computers.  But you can mitigate the number of bits you
need to erase by computing the scratchpad memory backwards (if you have a
reversable computer) and restoring it to its original state without erasing
any information or using any energy. Nobody has bothered to make a
reversible computer because  computers are still so big Landauer's limit is
not a significant engineering consideration, but someday it will be.


> *>Usually computational changes is defined by finite sequence,*
>

Finite sequences never change.


> >  they are defined by [...]
>

Bruno, you can't define your way to the truth or toward reality.

>>nobody but you knows what the hell "the God of Physicalism or Primary
>> Matter” means
>
>
> > *It means a notion of matter that we assume to be obtained only by
> assumption. It is called sometimes “the second God of Aristotle”.*
>

After all these years why did you wait till now to refer to God or the
ancient Greeks? That did it that convinced me, anybody who can do that must
be right. If only you'd done it years ago!

>>>*You did.*
>

> >>A yet more goddamn personal pronouns! Well OK maybe so, maybe
> Mr.You knows what Bruno means by "You" in a world that contains "you"
> duplicating machines, but John certainly does not.
>
> *>We can see that, but that contradict the fact that you agree*[...]
>

I think the H-guy survived but I do NOT agree that we agree! Maybe we agree
maybe we don't, I have no idea.because nobody including you knows what you
mean by "the H-guy".


> > [...] *the H-guy survived the duplication.*
>

I know exactly what I mean whenever I write "the H-guy" and my meaning has
remained constant from day one of this endless debate, but if you have any
meaning at all for the term it changes in every other sentence.


> > 1*4 years old kid 

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-19 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:51 AM Brent Meeker  :

"How did we ever get the notion of the mind as something distinct from the
> body?"


>From the same place we got the idea that "fast" is distinct from "racing
car" and "red" is distinct from "tomato". Mind is what a brain does.

John K Clark




>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-19 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:17 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>The state of a Turing machine is matched to a number and always has and
>> always will be matched that very same number forever. Nothing changes.
>
>
> > *You can say the same for your state here and now. But consciousness is
> not supported by the state, but by the sequence of states, or more exactly,
> the logical relation brought by a universal machine relating those states.*
>

The logical relationships between those states never changes, not in the
time dimension or in any other dimension, and consciousness, just like
computation, demands change; physics can provide that, mathematics can't.

*>Your critics invalidate any block-view of reality.*
>

You can't have a block-view of reality or of anything else without a block,
and time is one of the dimensions of that block, and time is the one and
only reason the geometry of that block is Non-Euclidean.


> > *Are you, like Prigogine, assuming a fundamental time?*
>

Physicists have tried for decades to develop a Theory Of Everything without
making use of time in any way but have not been very successful. Lee Smolin
in his book "Time Reborn" says the obsession so many physicists have had on
getting rid of time is the reason little progress has been made at finding
a quantum theory of gravity. Brains are certainly not fundamental but are
nevertheless of vital importance to cognition, so if we're just talking
about consciousness it doesn't make any difference if time is ultimately
fundamental or not because nothing is more apparent and important to a
consciousness than time. And don't tell me time is just a illusion because
that explains nothing, a illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective
phenomenon and subjectivity is what we're talking about.

 > *Time is an internal indexical,*
>

The index never changes, but time does and so does consciousness.

>>Definitions are a bore . SHOW ME!
>
>
> *>That is just ridiculous.*
>

I see. So if I were to define a dragon as a huge fire breathing lizard that
can fly it would be ridiculous of you to dispute my claim that by defining
them I have proven dragons exist.


> *> Without agreeing on what is a computation,*


We don't learn by reading definitions, we learn from EXAMPLES. A definition
is made of words and all of those words have there own definitions also
made of words and all of those words have there own definitions also made
of words and [...]

You seem to be very big on fundamental stuff but if we're talking about
meaning definitions are most certainly NOT fundamental, but examples are.
Where do you suppose lexicographers got the information to write the
definitions in their dictionary?

So forget definitions, just compute 2+2 without using physics and I will
concede defeat and nominate you for a Nobel Prize.

>>The trouble with arithmetic is it doesn't change.
>
>
> *>Nor do a block universe;*
>

And that is exactly why consciousness can not directly perceive the block
universe and in fact until a century ago nobody was conscious of the idea,
and even today nobody knows if it's a correct view of reality. At best it's
just an approximation, and it can't even approximate what's going on at the
center of a Black Hole or at the instant of the Big Bang.

>*Just ask the copies, they know well what they are living.*
>

And I predicted that would happen long before the experiment started.

> *Wat I request is that you tell me what the H-guy can expect to live*
>

And what I request of you is far far easier than a prediction, all I want
you to do is go somewhere look around and tell me what you see. Just answer
the following question: "After the experiment is completed and the 1 H-guy
became 2 H-guys what 1 and only 1 city did the H-guy end up in?". If you
can't answer that then it was not a experiment and it was not even a
question, it was just a series of words with a question mark at the end.


> > *You have already said that the H-guy survives* [...]
>

I can make all sorts of statements about the H-guy because I know exactly
what I mean by "the H-guy", but you have no idea what you mean by "the
H-guy".


> >> I predicted the guy who saw Moscow would become the Moscow guy and the
>> guy who saw Washington would become the Washington guy,
>
>
> >*Sure, but that is tautological. *
>

Exactly! Seeing Moscow is the one and only reason the Helsinki man became
the Moscow man. So why did I see Moscow? Because I'm the Moscow man. Why am
I the Moscow man? Because I saw Moscow. That may not be deep but like all
tautologies it's true, and I remind you it's your thought "experiment" not
mine.


> >The prediction is on which guy you can expect to be,
>

Which guy who can expect to be? Bruno is unable to say what the ASCII
sequence y-o-u means in the above sentence and that's why Bruno is so fond
of personal pronouns, when people duplicating machines are involved they
help cover up the gaping holes in logic.

 > *from the 1p, after pushing the button, with will 

Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-19 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:12 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:


> > *the uncertainty of the Helsinki man before the duplication doesn't
> have anything to do with being duplicated.  It only has to do with his lack
> of knowledge in where he will find himself in the future.  He would have
> the same uncertainty if he were anesthetized and flown to either Washington
> or Moscow.*
>

In the case where there is no duplication the question "What one and only
one city will you be at when the anesthesia wears off?" would be a
perfectly reasonable question because, unlike the case with the
duplication, the meaning of the personal pronoun "you" would be obvious.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-18 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM Brent Meeker  wrote:

* >Is that even relevant.  Brains are presumably psuedo-classical objects.
> But they can't be strictly classical, so it seems likely that it is
> impossible to exactly duplicate a brain.  *
>

Brains can't be duplicated exactly nor can any physical object, but mind is
not a physical object and if mind works on digital principles, and I think
it must, then mind could theoretically be duplicated exactly. If the
duplication was not perfect, if it was way way off then it COULD feel the
split, the copy would say to itself, "something just changed, I feel very
differently than I did 2 seconds ago", and he probably wouldn't like the
change because imprecise copies are usually (but not always) worse than the
original not better.


> *> So there will be a quick diveregence at the quantum level and that will
> eventually (30sec ?) be amplified to some classical/computational
> difference. *
>

That's true but I don't see the relevance of randomness (aka a event
without a cause) if your talking about intelligence, consciousness or self
determination. It's as if on rare and random times for no reason whatsoever
a Turing Machine prints a 0 when the rules say it should have printed a 1.


> >
> *But no matter how great the difference there's no reason to suppose "the
> split" will be "felt".*
>

I agree, provided the digital data was copied perfectly or near perfectly.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-18 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:00 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


>>Changes in what? You say electrons, atoms, photons, neutrinos,
>> gravitational waves, time, space and even spacetime are all matter, so the
>> change can't be with respect to any of them; so what's changing and with
>> respect to what?
>
>

*The state of a Turing machine with respect to the universal number which
> implements it,*
>

The state of a Turing machine is matched to a number and always has and
always will be matched that very same number forever. Nothing changes.


> > *equivalently, a computation can be defined by [...]*
>

Definitions are a dime a dozen. I don't want you to define a computation
made without matter, I want you to perform a calculation without matter.

> *I define a universal machinery by* [blah blah]
>

Definitions are a bore . SHOW ME!

>> how can you make a calculation without changing something?
>
>
> *>Are you assuming time to be fundamental? In GR,*
>

GR assumes Spacetime is fundamental.


> *>there is a notion of block universe, where time can be defined
> indexically.*
>

Yes, the block universe is a 4D non-Euclidean shape, so every spot on the
time axis corresponds to a 3D shape and every 3D shape corresponds to a
spot on the time axis, so without time and space, which is physical, the
block universe would not exist.

> >yet you agree that "even qualia is matter”.
>
>
> >*It is intelligible matter.*
>

I don't think qualia is matter, I think qualia is what matter does.

>>note that the brain is made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.
>
>
> >*Yes, no problem with this. But that does not make the matter of our
> brain fundamental,*
>

Fundamental or not a brain needs computation, and computation needs change,
and change needs matter. The trouble with arithmetic is it doesn't change.

 > If matter is primary then obviously I can't say what its made of,
>
>
> *>That was not asked. The question is why do you assume this for saying
> that material brain can have consciousness but the immaterial one in
> arithmetic can’t.*
>

Because consciousness can change with time and in fact if it doesn't then
consciousness stops. Matter can change with time too but arithmetic can't.

*> You cannot invoke a God, nor any metaphysical ontological assumption, to
> select a computation in arithmetic*
>

Bruno, if you want to convince me you're unlikely to do it with yet another
reference to God, if you really want to do that find some dusty old ancient
Greek that agrees with you. Now that would do the trick!


> >*Then tell me what the Helsinki guy can expect.*
>

By "Helsinki guy" I mean anyone who remembers being the Helsinki guy, but
nobody INCLUDING YOU knows what you mean by "the Helsinki guy", all I know
is you demand the name of one and only one city even though "the Helsinki
guy" duplicating machines are involved. Therefore I am unable to do what
you request because I don't understand what the hell you're requesting.

>>There is no there there. If you could specify who exactly what "the first
>> person" is in a world that contains "the first person" duplicating machines
>> I might perhaps be able to tell you what I think about it, but until then
>> the idea is far worse than just being wrong, it is gibberish.
>
>
> >*You are the only person I know who does not understand this.*
>

Then with the exception of me everybody you know is a uncritical thinker.
Understanding gibberish is not a virtue.

> *I remind you that you have agreed that the Helsinki guy does not die in
> that process,*
>

That's because I know what I mean by "the Helsinki guy" so I can figure out
if he dies or not, but if there is a God even He doesn't know what you mean
by the term.

>>I predict that before the doors open there will only be one conscious
>> mind regardless of how many brains have been duplicated. And I predict the
>> moment the doors are opened revealing 2 different things there will be 2
>> conscious minds. And I predict the mind that observes Moscow will become
>> the Moscow Man.  And I predict the mind that observes Washington will
>> become the Washington Man. And there is nothing more to predict.
>
>
> >*That is a description of the protocol which remain true for everyone,
> notably both copies. But each copies will realised that they were unable to
> predict that very city they see now,*
>

What are you talking about? I predicted the guy who saw Moscow would become
the Moscow guy and the guy who saw Washington would become the Washington
guy, and that is exactly precisely what happened. And don't complain that's
a tautology, it's your thought experiment and your question not mine.  It's
not my fault you asked a stupid question.


> >*and both identify themselves with the Helsinki guy,*
>

And that also was 100% predictable.


> > *and understand now (hopefully) what the question was about.*
>

I didn't understand the question before I was duplicated and being
duplicated will not bring enlightenment to either of us.

>>I will 

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-17 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>that says you should look for the simplest explanation and that is not
>> induction. Induction is not about explanations. Every animal with a nervous
>> system employs induction, even snails.
>
>
> *> Yes, even jumping spider. That is why they are Löbian any universal
> machine believing in enough induction is potentially Löbian).*
>

Jumping spiders can perform induction but they can't perform deduction, but
some Turing Machines can perform BOTH induction AND deduction. So what you
and you alone call  "Lobian Machines" are just a subset of Turing Machines
consisting of less powerful members.

>>Machines are made of matter as is our brains,
>
>
>
> *>Not the digital machine we are talking about.*
>

If it's not physical then it's not a machine. If physics is not involved
then neither is time or space, so nothing about the "machine" changes, and
without change a calculation can not be made. The integer 7 is timeless and
will remain a prime number here there and everywhere, and for that very
reason it is unable to perform a calculation. But a computer microchip,
just like the physical tape on a Turing MACHINE, can and does change and
hence can perform calculations.

 >>Peano arithmetic can be run on a machine as can Zermelo-Fraenkel Set
>> Theory, but neither is a machine because neither is made of matter.
>
>
> *>Assuming that matter exist,*
>

I don't think you know what you mean by "exist", I certainly don't.

> *yes, matter appearance is Turing universal, so can run any other digital
> machine, but that does not imply that something else cannot run a machine,*
>

Maybe there is some way other than a Turing Machine to perform a
calculation, but whatever that way is you can be certain it involves
change, and that means its physical. Mathematicians like to brag that their
subject is timeless and universal, but when you're talking about
computation that is not a advantage it is a crippling handicap.


> > *No need to invoke the God  of Physicalism or Primary Matter,*
>

And that's a good thing because nobody but you knows what the hell "the God
of Physicalism or Primary Matter" means and I'm not at all sure you do
either.

>>John neither agrees nor disagrees because it was never made clear what
>> the personal pronoun "you" means in a world with "you" duplicating
>> machines,
>
>
> >*You did.*
>

A yet more goddamn personal pronouns! Well OK maybe so, maybe
Mr.You knows what Bruno means by "You" in a world that contains "you"
duplicating machines, but John certainly does not.

>>all Bruno will say is it's unique and the duplicating machine can't
>> duplicate it for some reason never specified.
>
>
> >*I have explained  the distinction between 1p you and 3p you. Which one
> are you talking about?*
>

Why ask John to explain Bruno's silly homemade peepee slang? John has not
the foggiest idea which "the 1p" Bruno is talking about.

>*The 3p-you is duplicable, the 1p-you is duplicable in the 3p perspective,
> but the 1p-you is NOT duplicable from its 1p-perspective. *
>

So right at the start of your "proof" you assume the very thing you're
attempting to prove, namely there is something unique about consciousness,
and that a matter duplicating machine can NOT (your capitalization)
duplicate whatever that something is. I am certainly not a world class
mathematician but even I could prove the Riemann conjecture if at the start
of my "proof" I am allowed to use the axiom that the Riemann conjecture is
true.


> *>It can be duplicated, but it cannot feel the split. *
>

If a brain can't feel the split when its duplicated, and I agree it can't,
then EVERYTHING (my capitalization) was so successfully duplicated that
what the 2 brains were doing, mind, was identical. So although there are 2
brains there is only 1 mind. It is only when the matter in the 2 brains
starts to be arranged differently, such as would happen the instant the
doors were opened and they saw different things, that 2 minds emerge where
only 1 was before.

>>Just like a human a computer can prove that it s consistent if and only
>> if it is inconsistent. So if humans are "Löbian machines" then so is my
>> iMac.
>
>
> *> No. You need a Löbian theory/machine. You need to give induction axioms
> to the IMAC.*
>

Induction is easy deduction is hard. Many millions of species can perform
induction but only a dozen or so can do even primitive deduction and none
are as good at it as humans are or even come close.

> You confuse computing and proving. Those are not equivalent notion.
>

If a computer (aka a Turing Machine) starts with certain axioms and legal
ways those axioms can be manipulated (aka computed) and it ends up with a
theorem then that theorem has been proven. That doesn't necessarily mean
the theorem is true because the axioms could be wrong, but if you're
confident the axioms are reasonable and the legal rules to manipulate them
are logical then you should be equally confident 

Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-15 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 12:22 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> >>> you claim nonphysical calculations can be performed, but you also say
>> space and time and even spacetime are physical, so how can you have change
>> without them and how can you have calculations without change?
>
>

>> *The changes are digital, discrete.*
>

Changes in what? You say electrons, atoms, photons, neutrinos,
gravitational waves, time, space and even spacetime are all matter, so the
change can't be with respect to any of them; so what's changing and with
respect to what?  And how can you make a calculation without changing
something?

>>Electromagnetic waves of 650 nanometers is physical , the color red is a
>> qualia and can be produced without Electromagnetic waves of any sort.
>
>

>*One reason more to understand that the qualia can raise just with any
> number relations mimicking the relevant brain parts relation in
> arithmetic. *
>

And yet you agree that "even qualia is matter". And please note that in a
MRI scanner similar parts of the brain light up when one sees a red lights
and when one just thinks about a red light. And also note that the brain is
made of matter that obeys the laws of physics.


> *>If some primary matter is at play for consciousness, can you explain
> what role it has, and what it is?*


If matter is primary then obviously I can't say what its made of, if I
could it wouldn't be primary. And if it's primary then it's needed to
perform calculations.  And after saying consciousness is the way that data
feels when it is being processed there is simply nothing more that can be
said about consciousness.

>>the blueprints for a 747 airliner can fly me to London.
>
>
> *>The analogy does not work. A machine is more than a blueprint.*
>

A machine needs 2 things, data and matter. The blueprints supply the data
but I can't fly to London on half a machine.

>*But the step 3 can be done with robots instead of human, and if you
> disbelieve in first person indeterminacy,*
>

I don't believe in "first person indeterminacy" and I don't disbelieve in
it either because there is nothing in it to believe or disbelieve. There is
no there there. If you could specify who exactly what "the first person" is
in a world that contains "the first person" duplicating machines I might
perhaps be able to tell you what I think about it, but until then the idea
is far worse than just being wrong, it is gibberish.


> > tell me how you program the robot so that he []
>

As always in your thought "experiments" the gibberish kicks in immediately.
Right at the start you postulate a world that contains both "*THE*" and "
*HE*" duplicating machines so your reference to "*the*" robot and "*he*" no
longer refers to anything unique.


> >  i*s able to predict the results of opening the door after pushing on
> the button.*
>

Well I predict that before the doors open there will only be one conscious
mind regardless of how many brains have been duplicated. And I predict the
moment the doors are opened revealing 2 different things there will be 2
conscious minds. And I predict the mind that observes Moscow will become
the Moscow Man.  And I predict the mind that observes Washington will
become the Washington Man. And there is nothing more to predict.


> *> The robot survive, by computationalism (or even without in this case),
> and the robot can predict with certainty that he will not write in his
> personal diary that he is seeing both city at once,*


No, that is incorrect, "*THE* robot" can't predict that and neither can
anybody else because you haven't specified what or who the prediction is
supposed to be about.

> So, if you have an algorithm just show it to us.
>

I will show you such a algorithm as soon as you show me a algorithm to
determine what one and only one thing will happen to 1 banana after 1
banana becomes 2 bananas. But even then you'd have no way of knowing if my
prediction turned out to be correct or not because even after the
"exparament" is long over you *STILL* couldn't say if the correct
prediction turned out to be Moscow or Washington. And that my dear Bruno is
why this isn't a exparament at all and it's not even a thought exparament,
it is just a showcase displaying your massive confusion and the difficulty
you have in handling philosophical matters.


> *>The question makes sense, as you have agreed that we survive such an
> experience,*


I have agreed that if survival today means being able to remember being the
Helsinki Man yesterday and somebody remembers today then the Helsinki Man
has survived today. And obviously if that's what the word means and if we
have Helsinki Man duplicating machines then the Helsinki Man will have more
than one path into the future. However I no longer know what you mean by
"survive" and I don't think you know either.


> *>and you agreed that any copies will not be directly aware of the other
> copies,*
>

Yes.

 >*they differentiate once the box is open.*
>

Yes

>  *So, there 

Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-14 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:28 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>> *Speed is a physical attribute.*
>>>
>>
> >>Then numbers are physical attributes too because 1 Hydrogen atom
>> behaves differently than 2 Hydrogen atoms.
>>
>

*>The number of atoms is physical, yes, but that does not mean that a
> number is physical per se.*
>

Why not? You say speed is physical and speed modifies matter (2 electrons
that collide slowly behave differently than 2 electrons that collide
swiftly) and its exactly the same with numbers, they also modify matter (2
electrons behave differently than 1 electron).

I also note that you claim nonphysical calculations can be performed, but
you also say space and time and even spacetime are physical, so how can you
have change without them and how can you have calculations without change?


Wow, even qualia is matter!



>>>*Yes,*


> >>So now qualia, the last remaining holdout, joins the ranks of "physical
> attributes" and the term loses the last shred of meaning it had.



 >*Please quote the whole sentence. Qualia are physical sensatio*

Electromagnetic waves of 650 nanometers is physical , the color red is a
qualia and can be produced without Electromagnetic waves of any sort.


> >The greeks...
>

were ignoramuses that only the foolish believe can cast any light on
modern cutting edge scientific questions.


> >In your Aristotelian metaphysics, I guess 
>

... I guess Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived and only fools
with crackpot ideas think that referring to him and other ancient Greeks in
every other sentence helps to bolster their cause.

*>Still the same confusion between a computation (a purely mathematical
> notion) and a physical computation, *
>

I'm not confused at all, I'm very clear on the fact that a "purely
mathematical notion of computation" can't compute a damn thing anymore than
the blueprints for a 747 airliner can fly me to London.

I must say I was disappointed you didn't comment on my discovery of "banana
indeterminacy" that stands with your own discovery of "first person
indeterminacy. I repeat it here:

This is not limited just to issues concerning mind or consciousness. There
is also no algorithm for answering the question "what one and only one
thing will happen to one banana after one banana  becomes 2 bananas?". And
the reason there is no such algorithm for a mind or a banana is exactly the
same, it is a idiotic question.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


The codical-material universe

2018-09-13 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018  Bruno Marchal  wrote

   >>>*Matter = observable*
>
> >>So adjectives are made of matter
>
> > *Speed is a physical attribute.*


Then numbers are physical attributes too because 1 Hydrogen atom behaves
differently than 2 Hydrogen atoms.

>
*> Speed is based on physical notion, like position and time, which are
> material things, like space-time.*


So you say nouns, verbs, adjectives, numbers, time and space are all matter.


>>Wow, even qualia is matter!




> >*Yes,*


So now qualia, the last remaining holdout, joins the ranks of "physical
attributes" and the term loses the last shred of meaning it had.

*> The point is that mechanism is incompatible with the idea that  the
> physical notion have to be primitive, that is: assumed in the fundamental
> theory.*


An assumption, just like a theory or a brain, can't exist without matter
and the laws of physics that govern how it moves.


> > *you just read with one goal: to mock a theory. That is very easy.*
>


Yes, some theories are very easy to mock.

> A Turing machine is finite set of quadruplets,


A finite set of quadruplets can't compute a thing because it can not change
in time or space without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics,
if they could Intel wouldn't be so interested in the element with atomic
number 14.

*> Please inform yourself. There is no physical assumption in any of the
> papers trading this subject.*


I don't give a damn what any paper assumes, if you know how to make a
calculation without using a neuron or a microchip or a vacuum tube or a
bunch of gears and ratchets or matter of any sort then stop talking about
it and just do it and become the greatest scientist and richest man who ever
 lived.

*>You beg the question by defining a machine and a computation by the
> physical machine and the physical computations, *


Until you show us otherwise  with a  example (not another definition!) the
term "physical computation" is redundant because all computation is
physical. And if you know how to make a non-physical machine then give us
all a non-physical car and put Ford, General Motors and Toyota out of
business.

*>Robison arithmetic can prove the existence of richer theories like PA and
> ZF. *


How happy for Mr. Robison.

*>That “colossal blunder” has been debunked more than once,*


Bullshit.

*>I use an idea that you have even defended yourself, which is that if two
> computers are computing the same (supporting consciousness) program, there
> is only one consciousness, and it is not localised.*


Yes.

*>Then I use the fact that if the subject is aware of that situation, like
> the H-man, after the reconstitution has been done, but the doors are still
> closed, and there is only one person, *
> *OK.*


*>which has no algorithm to decide what she will see when opening the door.*


This is not limited just to issues concerning mind or consciousness. There
is also no algorithm for answering the question "what one and only one
thing will happen to one banana after one banana  becomes 2 bananas?". And
the reason there is no such algorithm for a mind of a banana is exactly the
same, it is a idiotic question.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-12 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *>>> Matter = observable*
>>
>> >>Speed is observable, is speed matter?
>
>

*>Yes, *
>

So adjectives are made of matter.

>*and it belong to the realm of the quanta. *


So numbers are made of numbers too.


> >>The qualia red is observable, is red matter?
>
>
> >Yes,
>

Wow, even qualia is matter! Meaning needs contrast, if everything is X then
X means nothing.

>*There is no evidence that a brain, or an amoeba, is made of primary
> matter.*
>

In a way that's true, you say everything is made of matter and that is
equivalent to saying nothing is made of matter.


> *>It is “physical”, but not in physics.*
>

That sounds like something you'd read in a fortune cookie but if true then
art is not in artistic, politics is not in political, number theory is not
in numbers, and intellect is not in intelligence.


> >>You can't have a Turing Machine without a machine
>
>
> >*That contradicts all papers on Turing machine. *
>

I have no doubt it contradicts all your papers, but not those of Mr.
Turing's.


> > *A Turing machine is finite set of quadruplets,*
>

A finite set of quadruplets can't compute a thing or do anything else
without the help of matter that obeys the laws of physics, if they could
Intel wouldn't be so interested in the element with atomic number 14.


> >*Robison arithmetic can prove the existence of richer theories like PA
> and ZF. *
>

Without the help of a brain made of matter, like the one in Mr. Robinson's
head, Robinson arithmetic can't prove PA or ZF or anything else. If you
want something to happen, like completing a proof, mathematics is not
enough, you're going to need physics to help you.

>*You commit an ontological commitment to defeat a theory. That is how the
> creationist criticise the theory of evolution. *
>

Yeah yeah we've heard that stale insult a thousand times before, I'm just
one super religious dude. Bruno, you've really got to get some new material.


> > *Quantum mechanics shows, at the least, that the notion of matter is
> unclear,*
>

There is a lot about Quantum Mechanics that is unclear, but you are not
helping to clarify things.

*> There is no atoms, once we postulate Mechanism. *
>

So you advise if physics is to advance it should first move backwards about
130 years. I think I'll pass on that.


> >*That is the result of the informal UDA,*
>

You have forgotten IHA.

  > *That is not obvious, especially if you are stuck at the easiest step
> (step 3).*


So I guess the other steps are even dumber, but I'll never know for sure
because I'll never read them until you fix the colossal blunder you made in
step 3.

>*my conscious experience cannot be associate with any particular
> computational state, but with an infinity of them,*
>

There is no evidence that at the fundamental level the human mind works on
analog principles, and given the large amount of noise in the brain its
very hard to see how it could. Noise is the mortal enemy of analog
computing.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-11 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:59 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>In the physical world induction is just a rule of thumb that usually
>> works pretty well most of the time, but it seldom works perfectly and never
>> works continuously, eventually it always fails.
>
>

>*? You seem to confuse mathematical induction, and adductive inference.*
>

I assume you mean abductive inference, but that says you should look for
the simplest explanation and that is not induction. Induction is not about
explanations. Every animal with a nervous system employs induction, even
snails. Evolution has programmed snails to assume things usually continue,
when they don't continue, such as a sudden change in the light level or in
background noise then danger often follows so precautions need to be taken,
like withdrawing into its shell. The snail has no explanation as to why
something changed it just knows that something did and that's usually not a
good sign.

>>Turing explained exactly precisely how to build one of his machines but
>>> you have never given the slightest hint of how to build a "Löbian machine"
>>> or even clearly explained what it can compute that a Turing Machine can’t.
>>
>>
>> >*?*
>>
> !
>
> *I have given a lot of example. Peano arithmetic is a Löbian machine.
> Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory is a Löbian Machine,*
>

Machines are made of matter as is our brains,  Peano arithmetic can be run
on a machine as can Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory, but neither is a machine
because neither is made of matter.

> *Here is another definition*: [...]
>

I'm not interested, definitions are a dime a dozen, you're never going to
define your way to the truth. If you want to understand something you got
to figure out how to build it, at least in principle.

 >>Step 3? Ah yes I remember now, that's the one with wall to wall personal
>> pronouns without a single clear referent in the entire bunch.
>
>
> *No, you have agreed on each definition. *
>

John neither agrees nor disagrees because it was never made clear what the
personal pronoun "you" means in a world with "you" duplicating machines,
all Bruno will say is it's unique and the duplicating machine can't
duplicate it for some reason never specified. And thus Bruno simply stated
at the start of the "proof" the very thing Bruno was trying to prove. Both
know this is true because Bruno is totally unable to state the idea without
copious personal pronouns and continues to use those pronouns  exactly as
Bruno always has as if the existence of a personal pronoun duplicating
machine made no difference and it was all business as usual.

> >>> *The notion of Löbian machine is easy to construct,*
>>
>>
>
> >>The notion of a Perpetual Motion machine is also easy to construct as
>> is the Clark Machine that can solve the Halting Problem, but Turing did far
>> more than dream up a magical universal calculating machine, he showed
>> exactly how to make one.
>
>
> *>Yes, it did that too, but that does not change the fact that his
> recovery was in pure mathematics at first. Then later it has been shown to
> be in already pure arithmetic.*
>

Both Church and Turing independently proved the Halting Problem didn't
always have a solution but Turing's accomplishment was greater because
unlike Church he proved it has significance for the physical world. I'm not
alone in this, Gödel also felt that Turing's discovery was more profound
than Church's.

http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gasarch/BLOGPAPERS/soareturing.pdf

> *Universal machine have important logical limitation, and Löbian machine
have the same limitation, but are aware of those limitation,*

I see no reason why Turing's proof couldn't be encoded to run on a Turing
Machine and the conclusion recorded on the tape, so if you asked the
machine to prove that it was consistent it wouldn't even try just would
just tell you that was a stupid command.

> *I recall to you that by machine theology I just meant the modal logic
> G*. It is the logic of the true proposition that a machine can or cannot
> prove about itself.*
>

Just like a human a computer can prove that it s consistent if and only if
it is inconsistent. So if humans are "Löbian machines" then so is my iMac.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Busy Beaver

2018-09-11 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:44 PM  wrote:

*>Is it not computable because after some value of its argument, its mapped
> value is greater than anything that can be written by a computer? AG*
>

No that's not the fundamental problem. It is entirely possible that the 5th
Busy Beaver number is  47,176,870 because a 5 state Turing Machine has been
found that halts after 47,176,870 operations; computers have no trouble
with numbers that small,  the problem is there are still 5 different 5
state turing machines that are well past 47,176,870 and they have not
halted. If none of those 5 machines ever halts then 47,176,870 really and
truly is the 5th Busy Beaver number, but if that is the case we will never
know that is the case because we'll never know that none of those 5
machines ever halts.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-10 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:28 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> Matter = observable*
>

Speed is observable, is speed matter? The qualia red is observable, is red
matter?


> > Primary matter is the doctrine by Aristotle
>

If I never hear another word about Aristotle I will not in any way feel
deprived.


> >A realm is primary if it cannot be reduced to some other field”.
>

OK

*>May believe that biology is not primary, because it can be reduced
> (apparently) to chemistry and physics. *
>

Yes


> > *with Mechanism, physics is reducible to number theory or Turing
> equivalent.*
>

No. You can't have a Turing Machine without a machine and you can't have a
number theory, or a theory of any sort, without a brain made of matter.

> *Digital Mechanism  is the doctrine that there is a level of description
> of our body such that we can survive with a (physical) digital brain or
> body, if it faithfully represents our body’s functionality at that
> description level.*
>

Digits are numbers so I guess you believe in Digital Mechanism, unless you
believe there is something special about the atoms that happen to occupy
your body right now so that they "cannot be reduced to some other field",
that is to say unless you believe the matter in your body is primary.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-09 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>Nobody on this planet uses the term "Löbian machine" except you.
>
>

>*It is just a more precise version of what popular books described by
> “sufficiently rich theory”.*
>

There is nothing precise about homemade slang used by nobody but you.

*> There are many definition, but they are all equivalent.*
>

And there is nothing profound about a definition, it's easy to define a
perpetual motion machine but that doesn't mean they exist, I can define a
Clark Machine as a machine that can solve the halting problem but that
doesn't mean I have the any idea how to make one or can even show that such
a thing could in principle exist.


> *>Any Turing complete theory of any universal machine, with sufficiently
> strong induction axiom (like sigma_1 induction)  constitute a Löbian
> machine. *
>

In the physical world induction is just a rule of thumb that usually works
pretty well most of the time, but it seldom works perfectly and never works
continuously, eventually it always fails.

>>Turing explained exactly precisely how to build one of his machines but
>> you have never given the slightest hint of how to build a "Löbian machine"
>> or even clearly explained what it can compute that a Turing Machine can’t.
>
>
> >*?*
>
!

>*That means just that you need to go being step 3 in my thesis,*
>

Step 3? Ah yes I remember now, that's the one with wall to wall personal
pronouns without a single clear referent in the entire bunch.


> > *The notion of Löbian machine is easy to construct,*
>

The notion of a Perpetual Motion machine is also easy to construct as is
the Clark Machine that can solve the Halting Problem, but Turing did far
more than dream up a magical universal calculating machine, he showed
exactly how to make one. But we're not as smart as Turing, I can't do that
with my Clark Machine and you can't do that with your Löbian machine.


> * > and the mathematical reality is full of example of Löbian machine, and
> Löbian god*
>

Löbian machine,  Löbian god, the propositional part of the theology 
tell me, have you ever wondered why so many people fail to take you
seriously?


> *>A Lpobian machine is just a universal machine capable of proving its own
> universality.*
>

I have no trouble believing a universal machine is universal, but no Turing
Machine can in general prove it will halt and but no machine of any sort,
or anything else for that matter, can prove its own consistency unless it
is inconsistent.

> Why do you want it to be able to do what a god can do?
>

Odd question, who wouldn't want to do what a God can do? But if God can
solve the Halting Problem then He can also make a rock so heavy He can't
lift it.

>>How would things be different if "the propositional part of the theology"
>> were not decidable?
>
>
> >
> *Solovay theorem would be false, and the subject of machine theology would
> be far more complex. *
>

I don't know if that's true or not because "machine theology" is more of
your homemade gibberish, just like "the propositional part of the
theology".

> *Note that the theology of machine has highly undecidable at the first
> order level.*
>

And I don't know if that is true or not either because "the theology of
machine" is yet more of your patented homemade baby talk.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-09-08 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 2:19 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> A function is computable if we can explain to a dumb (but docile) human
> being how to compute it, on any of its argument.
>

And some functions (the Sine function for example) can be proven to be
computable and some functions (the Busy Beaver function for example) can be
proven to be non-computable) but there is no general way to know if any
given function is computable or not.


> > *Each f_n is computable (by definition!) and so each f_n(n) can be
> computed, and adding one is certainly computable, so, the only thing which
> can be NOT computable is the bijection itself. This means that the f_i,
> although enumerable, are not recursively enumerable.*
>
*If a universal language exist, then it cannot compute the enumeration of
> all computable function from N to N.*
>

The Ackermann function is not primitive recursive  and yet it is computable,
like the Busy Beaver the numbers soon become huge (although finite) but
unlike the Busy Beaver a Turing Machine can always calculate them.


> > Then the Löbian machine are those universal machine which knows that
> they are universal, and so get acquainted with the consequences (the
> infinite, the non provable, the non observable, …).
>

Nobody on this planet uses the term "Löbian machine" except you. Turing
explained exactly precisely how to build one of his machines but you have
never given the slightest hint of how to build a "Löbian machine" or even
clearly explained what it can compute that a Turing Machine can't. Can it
tell if any given function is computable?  Can it find the 8000th Busy
Beaver number? Can it even find the 5th?

*>Here there is a second miracle, which is that the propositional part of
> the theology is decidable!*
>

Homemade gibberish.  How would things be different if "the propositional
part of the theology" were not decidable?

John K Clark

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-08 Thread John Clark
Philip Thrift 

> *A working definition of matter: That which stores, transmits, or
> executes code.*


That's not bad, that's not bad at all. I wish I'd said that!

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


The codical-material universe

2018-09-08 Thread John Clark
Bruno Marchal Wrote:

*> I cannot see primary matter. In fact I am not sure what you mean by
> matter, or by “mathematical-material universe”. [...] I have proven (40
> years ago) that materialism (the belief in some primary matter, or
> physicalism) and Mechanism are incompatible.*


If you don't know what "matter" means then you certainly don't know what
"primary matter" means, so what the hell did you prove 40 years ago?  I'm
not even going to ask what you think physicalism means because any such
answer has to include physics and physics has to involve matter which you
admit confuses you.  And for the same reason I'm not going to ask about
"Mechanism" , the reply would only contain yet more words you can neither
define nor give examples of.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The codical-material universe

2018-09-02 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 9:15 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>* Mechanism in cognitive science is incompatible with Mechanism in
physics. *

There is a mountain of experimental evidence that much of physics is
mechanistic and all of cognition is. If you want to prove me wrong all you
have to do is tell me what the 7918th Busy Beaver number is, its finite and
well defined but we know for a fact that no mechanistic process can ever
find it, so if you can then your cognition must be non-mechanistic. Or just
tell me what the 5th Busy Beaver number is, that wouldn't be rock solid
proof as the 7918th  would be but I'd still be enormously impressed!

But I'll tell you 2 things that really are incompatible, Darwin's theory
and a non-mechanistic cause for consciousness. One of them must be wrong
and its not Darwin.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

2018-08-25 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 2:21 AM  wrote:


> *>I plan to study Cantor's theorem on the Internet and compare it with you
> proof.*


Every time Bruno useless a personal pronoun in the "proof" that involves
people duplicating machines ask yourself what exactly is the referent. If
you can figure it out let me know because I can't and neither can Bruno.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Church-Turing Thesis

2018-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM,  wrote:

>>
>> Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that:
>>
>> BB(1) =1
>> BB(2) =6
>> BB(3) =21
>> BB(4) =107
>>
>
> *>You haven't *written* the function, just its alleged values for
> 1,2,3,4.  What is the function? *
>


Starting with a all zero tape BB(N) is the number of operations any N state
Turing Machine performs after it writes the largest number of 1's and then
halts. It is very important that it halt, some machines will go on forever
but they don't count. For example we know for sure that BB(5) is at least
47,176,870 because one 5 state Turing Machine has been found that halts
after it goes through 47,176,870 operations (and prints 4098 1’s on the
tape), but there are 28 other 5 state machines displaying non-regular
behavior that are well past 47,176,870 operations and 4098 1's. If one of
them eventually halts then that larger number of operations will be BB(5),
if none of them ever halts then 47,176,870 really is BB(5); but the trouble
is we'll never be able to know it’s 47,176,870 because we'll never know
that none of those other 28 5 state machines will never halt because the
Halting problem is insolvable.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Church-Turing Thesis

2018-08-22 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 5:43 PM,  wrote:

>
> *Can you write a function which is not computable? *


Yes, the Busy Beaver Function is not computable. We know that:

BB(1) =1
BB(2) =6
BB(3) =21
BB(4) =107

But those are the only values we've be able to calculate with certainty,
the problem is the Busy Beaver function grows faster than any computable
function. We suspect that BB(5) is 47,176,870 but are far from certain and
BB(6) is at least 7.4*10^36534 and BB(7) is at least 10^10^10^10^10^7 but
could be much larger. Big as they are all Busy Beaver numbers are finite
but after a certain point they are not computable and nobody even knows
exactly where that point is. It has been proven that BB(7918) is not
computable but what is the smallest non computable-number? Nobody knows but
I wouldn't be surprised if it were BB(5).

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-21 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:29 PM,  wrote:

>* So Copenhagen gives an incomplete account of measurement, whereas MWI
> gives none,*


Yes.


> *> making the latter obviously superior?*
>

Yes.

Measurement (whatever that means) plays a key part of Copenhagen can take
it or leave it. MWI says "if you want to call something anything or nothing
a measurement feel free to do so because it has nothing to do with me".


> * >And you have yet to give a rigorous account of the fundamental tenet of
> MWI, namely, that every possible outcome must be realized, except to make
> vague appeals to the SWE.*
>

There is nothing vague about it, the SWE says absolutely nothing about it
collapsing. Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber (GRW) have added extra terms to the
SWE  making a complex equation even more complex and much more difficult to
work with but the modified equation does spontaneously and randomly
collapse. The predictions made by the standard Schrodinger equation and
version made by Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber are different but the difference
is too small to be detected with current experiential methods, if it is
ever detected and it comes out the GRW way then the MWI would be pretty
much dead. However as of today there is zero experimental evidence in favor
of it, those extra terms were added ad hoc and stuck in for no reason
except to get rid of the MWI. Occam's razor says if 2 theory give the same
result then pick the simplest one, and the standard SWE is far simpler than
the GRW version.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-21 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:28 PM,  wrote:


> >
> *Whether MWI says anything or not about measurement is irrelevant. 
> *Measurement
> exists in Copenhagen and MWI,
>

Copenhagen has never explained exactly what a "measurement" is, MWI says a
measurement is no different from any other sort of interaction. To the MWI
it makes no difference if a photon hits a photographic plate or a brick
wall because in both cases there was a interaction and something changed
and so the universe split; in one universe the photon hits a obstacle and
is destroyed and in the other universe there was no obstacle and the photon
survives and continues into infinite space.  But Copenhagen says
measurement is a very special but vaguely specified sort of interaction
with all sorts vaguely specified powers.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-20 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 8:11 PM,  wrote:

> In the MWI, measurements exist!


MWI doesn't say measurement can't exist nor does it say measurement must
exist, it doesn't even say what the hell measurement means. No theory can
explain everything and on the subject of measurement and observation the
MWI has nothing to say, but unlike Copenhagen it doesn't need to.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-20 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:36 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> *The point is that with MW, a measurement is any interaction.*


Exactly. For once I agree with you 100%.


John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-19 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 1:34 AM,  wrote:

*>So your claim is that because the SWE doesn't say anything about
> measurements, presumably the wf continues to evolve forever.*
>

Yes. You could argue that the SWE is incorrect if you want but that's what
the equation says.



> *> How does this imply that all possible eigenvalues must be measured?*
>

As I said before it doesn't, the SWE doesn't say anything about measurement
and you can't even tell me what is and what is not a "measurement".  The
MWI can't either but it doesn't need to and that is the one and only reason
I like it.


> *> If not measured, then what?*
>

Then what what? I don't understand the question.


> *>The wf just continues to evolve forever? *
>

The mathematics gives us no reason to think otherwise nor does experiment.


> *>IMO, there's still a huge gap between the SWE  as a mathematical
> statement, and what you claim must be measured, or shall we say observed. *
>

Tell me exactly what "measured" and "observed" mean and I'll tell you what
I really do claim about them..


> *>the basic premise of the MWI on very shaky ground IMO,*
>

Maybe so, but all other explanations of  bizarre quantum behavior are on
even shakier ground, the MWI is the least bad explanation IMO. And the
"shut up and calculate" people have given up even trying to explain it,
they just say if a instrument is set up one way a the needle on a voltmeter
will register 42 and set up another way it will register 43 and that's all
you're allowed to say or even think about.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 5:52 PM,  wrote:

>
> *I'm from Missouri; SHOW ME! *


I show you the double slit experiment. David Deutsch said if other worlds
are just a interpretation of the double slit experiment then dinosaur are
just a interpretation of dinosaur bones. I'm not sure I'd go quite as far
as Deutsch but I see what he's driving at.



> >
> *How does a differential equation on the time rate of change of the wf,
> imply that ALL eigenvalues of ALL possible eigenstates of some operator,
> must be measured?*
>

A  differential equation can't imply that, it doesn't imply anything about
measurement and that is exactly the point. You say ad hoc that there is a
mysterious magical thing called "measurement" which you can't define that
does all sorts of mysterious magical things that you can't explain. Many
Worlds doesn't care what a "measurement" means because it has nothing to do
with it and it doesn't stick in anything about the wave the equation
describes collapsing because the mathematics says nothing about anything
collapsing, the Copenhagen people like to stick that stuff in ad hoc. .



> >
> *One could just assume that the wf is purely epistemic and leave these
> additional postulates, which aren't used to calculate probabilities, in the
> dustbin of history.*
>

Many physicists believe in the "shut up and calculate" quantum
interpretation and do exactly that, and that works fine if all you're a
engineer and all you want is to make the next iPhone, but its less than
satisfying if you have the slightest bit of curiosity about whats going on
at the most fundamental level of reality. It seems to me if all physics
could do is say that if a instrument is in orientation X the needle on a
voltmeter will read 42 and in orientation Y it will read 43 and no further
conclusion could be drawn from that then physics would be a incredibly dull
subject because I'm really not really all that interested in needles on
voltmeters in themselves, I'm interested in what they may imply.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The Many Incarnations of Bruno

2018-08-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 3:22 PM,  wrote:

>>
>> It’s incredible that the universe is so large, or that classical physics
>> is wrong, or that irrational numbers exist, or millions of other facts that
>> might surprise an ape that starts to contemplate the nature of reality. The
>> argument from incredulity alone does not carry much weight.
>>
>
> >
> I would give that argument some weight if it didn't depend on the
> additional, ad hoc, postulate to QM, that every outcome that is possible,
> *must* occur. AG
>

That's not ad hoc it's literally what Schrodinger's wave equation has said
from the day Schrodinger first stated it, the ad hoc part is insisting the
mathematics must be joking when it says that because if it were true that
would be incredible and incredible things don't happen.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-03 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds
>> violates the know laws of physics
>
>
>
> *>FTL influences violate any minimally realist account of Special
> Relativity.*
>

Yes but that doesn't matter because it doesn't violate Einstein's greatest
achievement General Relativity, the improved and far more comprehensive
Relativity theory he came up with 10 years after Special Relativity.


> *>It reintroduce a universal time and a notion of instantaneity which
> makes few sense in relativistic cosmology. There is no instrumental
> violation, *
>

There is still no way to keep 2 clocks in synchronization unless you had a
continuous record of how much the 2 clocks were accelerating with respect
to each other and what sort of gravitational field they were in, and these
weird quantum correlations won't help. So I agree there is no instrumental
violation, but time is what clocks measure and if there is no way to keep
distant clocks in sync that randomly accelerate and decelerate then there
is no universal time .

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-02 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> If a unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally
>> done with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle
>> will be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the
>> magnet at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum
>> correlated and one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance
>> the other electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is
>> that the direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I
>> could have picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's
>> brother electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up"
>> even though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were
>> last in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.
>
>
> * >this is because the state has been prepared (locally) in this way. The
> ud - du singlet sate can be written u’d’ -d’u’, for all other bases. The
> singlet state ud - du means that Alice and Bob have the same or opposite
> spin/polarisation and are correlated, but neither Alice nor Doc know in
> which direction. All they know is that there is a correlation. When Alice
> measure her spin, suddenly she knows in which “universe” she is, and she
> knows that if she met Bob again, he will indeed have the opposite result.
> With one unique world, we cannot explain this without FTL influence,*
>

I don't have any big disagreement with that.


> *>but with the "many-world” we are back at a Bertlmann socks case. The
> same for the Bell’s inequality violation. They are not violated in the
> wave, but the wave explains that in each branch the Bell’s inequality is
> violated, and if they believe in only that branch, they have to believe in
> FTL, but if they take all branches into account, I don’t see the need to
> invoke any FTL. *
>

The problem is neither FTL influences nor the creation of Many Worlds
violates the know laws of physics and both theories agree with all known
experimental results equally well, so how can one decide which one is
correct? Until we get better data from some new astronomical observation or
exparament it all comes down to personal incredulity; both you and I feel
that although strange Many Worlds is less strange than the alternatives,
but others may feel differently. And who knows maybe they're right, I doubt
it but I've been wrong before.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-08-01 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:


> >>
>> the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to and
>> the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than light,
>> probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to there
>> is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number at
>> random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
>> also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
>> probability your electron will make it through your filter is
>>   [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
>> different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
>> 75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
>> happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
>> electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
>> there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
>> my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
>> side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
>> electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
>> certainly weird.
>>
>
> >
> T
> he above is a little confused as it seems to mix the concepts of spin vs.
> polarization angle, but ignoring that and using photon polarization I agree
> with the statistics given above.
>
Light polarization and particle spin are analogous in this respect. If a
unmeasured electron or any particle (the exparament was originally done
with silver atoms) passes through a Stern Gerlach magnet the particle will
be deflected up (relative to the orientation angle chosen to set the magnet
at) or down 50% of the time. And if 2 electrons are quantum correlated and
one is found to be deflected up then there is a 0% chance the other
electron will also be deflected up. The really weird thing is that the
direction I chose to be called "up" was completely arbitrary, I could have
picked anything from 0 degrees to 360 degrees, and yet it's brother
electron seems to instantly know what angle I chose to call "up" even
though they are now 2 million light years away and the brothers were last
in physical contact with each other a million years before I was born.

*>However, if you replace "John" with large numbers of Johns, "Jason" with
> large numbers of Jasons, and photons with "large numbers of correlated
> photons", then there is no need for spooky action at a distance.  Any
> particular measurement of any particular correlated photon, by any
> particular Jason or John, can be explained without resorting to
> instantaneous spooky actions at a distance. *The large numbers of
> correlated photons have each proto-measured their counter part.  Measuring
> one entangles you with that particular photon, and tells you you are in the
> branch where that correlated photon had a partner with an opposite
> polarization angle.  Then you should expect when you hear from the Jason
> who measured that counterpart, I will report statistics in line with your
> expectations.  But there is no single Jason or single measurement result,
> all of them happen.
>

If I understand you correctly I pretty much agree with the above except I
think its pointless to pretend things aren't spooky. The reason I like Many
Worlds is that to my mind universes splitting is slightly less spooky than
alternative explanations for bazaar facts we find with experiments, but
only slightly. That's why I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something
even weirder is.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-31 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>
>> I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
>> communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
>> random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
>> to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
>> checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
>> But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
>> correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
>> the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.
>>
>
> *>So then the pairs are carrying their correlations with them at c,
> completely locally and sub FTL, from the midpoint between them.*
>

Yes but the correlation between the angle I set my Stern Gerlach magnet to
and the angle you set yours to is NOT local and is sent much faster than
light, probably instantaneously. Regardless of the angle I set my magnet to
there is a 50% chance the electron will make it through, if I pick a number
at random, X, and set my magnet to it and the electron goes through and you
also pick a number at random, Y, and set your magnet to it then the
probability your electron will make it through your filter is
  [COS (x-Y)]^2. For example if the angle of your magnet is 30 degrees
different from mine the value of  the expression is  .75,   so there is a
75% probability your electron will make it through your magnet, and if you
happen to set it at the same angle I did there is a 100% chance your
electron will make it through and if the angle difference is 90 degrees
there is a 0% chance. Somehow your electron knew what angle I randomly set
my magnet to much faster than light because until we check results side by
side (which can only be done at the speed of light or less) both records of
electron that passes through and failed to look completely random, but its
certainly weird.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>>
>> You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
>> Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times
>> and record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you
>> do the same thing.
>>
>
> *>It doesn't work like that. You need to generate the coins at one
> location, then bring them separately (at sub C speeds) from the location
> they were created to Earth and Andromeda.  It's because of this that FTL is
> not not needed under QM to explain EPR.  If it worked as you said then it
> would require FTL.  But you can't keep flipping the same coin.*
>


I was simplifying things to get to the essential difference between a
communication and a influence and you're just changing one apparently
random sequence to a different apparently random sequence and the only way
to tell that something funney is going on is when the two results are
checked sinde by side which can only be done at the speed of light or less.
But if you want exact then substitute the coins for 2 streams of 100 spin
correlated electrons created midway between Andromeda and Earth and replace
the coin flips for 2 Stern Gerlach magnets oriented the same way.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:


*>maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to put a
> probability measure on Hilbert space.  Born just inuitited the rule (and
> actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason proved
> it in 1957.*


True.
Gleason's theorem
says
that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of
the absolute value of
Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), can yield probabilities
that are unitary, that is to say the only one
where all the probabilities add up to exactly 1.
So the real question is why we have to deal with probabilities at all
instead of certainty.


> >
> *So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived from first
> principles" than does Schroedinger's equation*



Without the Schroedinger's equation the Born rule would be talking about
square of the absolute value of a undefined function, and that wouldn't be
of much use to anybody.



> >
> *Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply
> it. *
>


Schroedinger's equation
is not always correct, a electron doesn't have a wave that
Schroedinger
says it should when it is observed. But what exactly does that mean? Nobody
knows for sure, that's why there re so many different quantum
interpretations.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:11 PM, smitra  wrote:


> * >A concept of "influence" without any information transfer is ambiguous.
> The meaning of this "influence" will be dependent on the particular
> interpretation used, it has no operational meaning.*


Communicating is not the same as influencing, communicating means
transferring Shannon style information and entanglement can't do that
faster than light. But it will still let you influence things faster than
light. Quantum entanglement can influence things faster than light but you
need more than that to transmit information, you need a standard to measure
that change against, and Quantum Mechanics can't provide that standard; all
it can do is change one apparently random state to another apparently
random state.

You and I have quantum entangled coins, I'm on Earth and you're in the
Andromeda Galaxy 2 million light years away.  I flip my coin 100 times and
record my sequences of heads and tails and then just one hour later you do
the same thing. We both think our sequences look completely random as they
pass all known tests for randomness. You then get into your spaceship that
moves at 99.9% the speed of light and visit me. After 2 million years you
arrive on Earth and we compare the notes we took on our two sequences and
find that all 100 flips are identical. Clearly my coin influenced your coin 2
million light years away and did so in just one hour, but there is no way I
can  use that to send a message. All it does is change one apparently
random sequence to another apparently random sequence, the fact that there
is something funny going on and things aren't as random as they appear can
only be discovered when the 2 sequences are placed side by side, and that
can only be done at the speed of light or less.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 7:51 PM,  wrote:

> Isn't it fair to say that the postulates of QM are generally NOT simple,
> and generally NOT self-evidently true?


Yes I think that's a fair statement. Before 1900 nobody would dream of
suggesting something like Quantum Mechanics but after that date when wacky
experimental results started to show up they had no choice but to accept it
.




> >
> If that's true, then the case of Born's rule is typical, not an outlier.


True, its just that the Born Rule is so important, its the only thing that
connects all the exotic mathematics to something we can actually see, and
even then only through a probability not a certainty.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:33 PM,  wrote:

> *the wf has infinite extent (as does the probability density). This would
> imply INSTANTANEOUS propagation when the wf is created -- much worse than
> FTL!*


Einstein didn't say nothing can move faster than light, he only said matter
and energy and information can't. Thanks to recent experiments with Bell's
Inequality we already have rock solid evidence that quantum influences (but
not information) can move much faster than light and are consistent with
being instantaneous
.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>>
>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in
>> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested
>> in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would
>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum
>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
>> about a wave collapsing.
>
>
> * >That's not true.  "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule
> as part of the axiomatic structure of QM.  *
>


 A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule is
neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles it was picked for
reasons that were were empirical and practical, for some strange reason the
damn thing works. Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex
wave produces a probability which collapses into a certainty when a
observation is made, but the mathematics can't say when that happens
because it doesn't say what a observation is.

John K Clark




>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-30 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:16 PM,  wrote:

*>Why obsess about the alleged FTL collapse of the wf?*

FTL is not the problem, every experimental result and every quantum
interpretation I've ever heard of says information can not travel faster
than light because that is the top speed of causation.

>
> >
> *Forget collapse.*

Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in the
"Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested in
predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a
particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would
like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum
level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything
about a wave collapsing.  Most of all they want to know what exactly is
a "measurement" and why it so mysterious.

> *> **Interpret the superposition as offering information only, just like
> knowing the probability of winning some slot machine. The only difference
> is the use of complex amplitudes.*


If the universe acted like a slot machine physicists would not be so
worried and Everett would have never felt the need to dream up anything as
strange as the Many Worlds idea, but it doesn't. If I'm playing 2 slot
machines at the same time then the probability of me winning increases, but
if they were quantum slot machines the probability of winning don't add up
in the same way they do in our normal macro world, in certain circumstances
the probability of winning could decrease or even drop to zero if I played
2 machines at once. Quantum probabilities don't add together in the same
way that slot machine probabilities do, and the reason for that is that
probability must always be a real number between zero and one, but
Schrodinger's wave function deals with complex numbers. So a way must be
found to go from the complex function which we can calculate but not
observe to probabilities which we can observe but not calculate without the
help of complex numbers, and that is the Born Rule. The square of the
magnitude of a particle's complex wavefunction at a point is always a
positive real number, and the Born rule says that is the probability of
finding that particle at that point.

The square of the absolute value of the wavefunction can give us a Real
number that is a probability, but because Schrodinger's function contains
complex numbers 2 very different wave functions can produce the exact same
probability of finding a particle at a point. So if you measure a particle
at a point you know where it is but you still don't know what its unique
wave function was at that point, so you don't know what the wave would have
evolved into at some other point if you had not observed it and collapsed
the wave.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-29 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> *Facts provide finite amount of information, *
>

Yes, but most theories provide no information at all because most theories
are worthless. Its rather incredible, this list has become so effete and
unscientific that I actually have to argue in favor of the existence and
value of facts.


> *>where most theories extrapolate them to an infinity of proposition.*
>

And for most theories nearly all of those
infinity of proposition
are dead WRONG.

*>even the books or papers on physical computations define them by
> “physical implementation of the usual standard mathematical notion.*
>

Books and papers may be able to define a computation but they can not
perform a computation, and all books are written in some language, the way
physics works is best described in the language of mathematics, computation
is physical so a book about computation is best written in the language of
mathematics.

I asked you to provide a definition of a physical computation which do not
> borrow the mathematical notion (that you can find in basically all papers
> which found the subject, like in Davis “The Undecidable”), but you didn’t
> answer.
>

I don't recall you asking me that, I may have inadvertently skipped too
 when you started droning on about physics being theology; but I will
answer it now. Physical computation is computation done by exploiting thy
ways matter obeys the laws of physics, and the term is redundant because
physical computation is the only type of computation ever observed and the
only type of computation hypothesized. Stating that non-physical
computations exist without any evidence or even the slightest hint about
how it might work is not a hypothesis, its just a belief.

*>You continue to use Aristotle*
> * [blah blah blah*]
>

 Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks,  [...]

>
>>
>> nobody has ever proposed a mechanism about how it could work, not even a
>> implausible one.
>
>
> *Just tell me how a universal Turing machine could distinguish an
> arithmetical reality from a physical one.*
>

A Turing Machine can't do something with the tape or with the read/write
head if the laws of physics do not allow it, and the sheep herder who
invented arithmetic 10,000 years ago made sure it conformed with physical
reality, so a physical Turing Machine can't tell if it is operating with a
read/write head and tape made of matter or if it is being simulated by
another Turing Machine that is. One thing is certain however, somewhere
down the line matter and physics are involved


> *> Or explain what is the primitive matter*


You want me to explain "primitive matter"?? You're the one who keeps
talking about it and you're the one who demonstrated you don't know what
philosophers mean when they use the tern


> >
> and how it selects the "conscious computations”.
>

Turing and Darwin showed how matter that obeys the laws of physics can
produce intelligence, neither you nor anybody else has ever provided even a
clue as to how pure numbers or anything else non-physical could do the same
thing. As for consciousness, it's the way data feels when it is being
processed; I'll go into more detail about how atoms manage to do this as
soon as you explain how the integer "6" can.


>> >>
>> The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can change itself
>> or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything.
>
>

*>Of course it can. “Doing” is a relative notion.*
>

A
 physical object can change its position *relative* to another physical
object, for example the distance between the read/write head of a Turing
machine and particular box on the tape. and that ability enables it to make
computations, but the distance between the integer 6 and the integer 4
never changes, and that's why they can't make computations. Computation
needs something to change and non-physical things don't change.

*>Well. I begin to suspect that you are a sort of priest,*
>

 Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.


> >
> *Anyone mocking Theology is a convinced Aristotelian*
> [blah blah blah]
>

Mr. Bruno One Note! Nothing but wall to wall Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks
[...]



> * >theologian. You believe in the God “matter”. In science,*
>

Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-29 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

*>If you want to know why so many of us are under the spell of MWI and have
> demented our own view of reality into a stark violation of what ours senses
> so plainly tell us (and you), it is because we have found the conceptual
> problems that arise from rejecting MWI an even harder pill to swallow.*
>

Exactly. If MWI isn't true then something even weirder is.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-28 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> Despite what the current President of the USA says facts actually exist;
>> and so it is not an assumption it is a FACT that neither I nor anybody else
>> has ever seen a calculation other than the physical sort.
>
>
> >
> *That is an obvious fact, and it proves nothing*
>

So you believe facts prove nothing. Is your middle name "Trump"?


> >
> *Seeing proves nothing.*
>

It all comes down to asking myself one question, who am I going to believe,
you or my lying eyes?

* >It can only augment or diminish the plausibility of a theory*

Theory? Its not just that nobody has ever observed the phenomenon, there is
not even a theory of non-physical computation, nobody has ever proposed a
mechanism about how it could work, not even a implausible one. So there is
no evidence it exists and no ideas about how it might exist, you just say
it does. The fundamental problem is that no non-physical thing can change
itself or another non-physical thing, it can't DO anything. Yes the
textbooks you keep talking about contain recipes that tell me how I can
make such a change, but the trouble is I am not non-physical.

> *>unless you are using Aristotle*
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]


> >
> *we have to backtrack to Plato *


 Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]

*>The fact that some people are wrong in some domain (geography) does not
> entail that they were wrong in another domain.*


Your Greek heroes died 2500 years ago and the human race has learned a
thing or two since then, except for pure mathematics they were wrong about
nearly everything in every domain. Even the rare times an ancient Greek did
find a true physical fact, like Eratosthenes did when he measured the
diameter of the Earth, it was far from universally accepted in Greek
culture .


> *>we have regress a lot in the most fundamental science (theology or
> metaphysics).*
>

Theology has no subject so you can't regress from it because its already at
zero; there is no there there.



> >
> *Indeed, some people still believe that seeing the moon is a prove of the
> existence of a primary moon, which is simply not valid,*
>

This confirms what I said before, you don't understand what philosophers
mean when they say "primary matter".


> *>Pythagoras and Plato understood*
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]


> >
>  Aristotle metaphysics
> [...]
>

Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks, Greeks , Greeks, Greeks, Greeks,
Greeks, Greeks,  [...]

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-27 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> >>
>> Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the
>> physical sort,
>
>
> *>You assume Aristotle philosophy,*
>

Despite what the current President of the USA says facts actually exist;
and so it is not an assumption it is a FACT that neither I nor anybody else
has ever seen a calculation other than the physical sort.


> *>You need to keep in mind the Aristotle/Plato divide.*
>

No I do not! Neither of those 2 Greek Bozos knew where the sun went at
night and therefore there is no reason for me to keep anything either of
them said in mind because today I have easy access to information that is
quite literally astronomically better than anything they could dream of.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>>
>> In a world that contains first person duplicating machines there is no
>> such thing as *THE* first person.
>
>
> *>That would contradict computationalism immediately, because it would
> mean that the first person in M has disappeared*
>

So in Brunomath if C is consciousness and C is duplicated then 2*C=0. Are
you sure you're a mathematician?


> >
> or is a zombie,
>

Or a vampire or a werwolf or a fire breathing dragon. Isn't it time for you
to start babbling about telepathy?

>
> *You seem to remain unable to put yourself in any possible continuation.*
>
You remain unable to put yourself in more than one continuation if **YOU*
have been copied in a *YOU* duplicating machine.*


> >
> *You seem to deny that in W, the guy feel to be only in W, and is aware he
> could not have predicted that outcome,*
>

Before the Helsinki was copied Mr. He couldn't have predicted the
outcome or dome anything else for that matter because back then Mr. He did
not exist.

>>
>> I can give a precise logically consistent definition of "Abbey", why
>> can't you?
>
>
> *>I can, but*
> [...]
>

Ah yes, the all important "but". It is said it is wise to ignore everything
a politician says before "but", and the same thing applies to you.

*>we have to distinguish the 1p and the 3p.*
>

Then do so! Give me a definition of "Abbey" that is as precise and
logically consistent as the one I gave. I don't think you can do it.


> >
> *Abbey is indeed surviving in both W and M,*
>
That statement will remain neither true nor false until you give us
a precise and logically consistent definition of "Abbey" and don't change
it from one paragraph to the next. I can do it why can't you?


> *>We have agreed on all name and pronoun this time. *
>

Then what did we agree that "Abbey" means??


> >
>>> >>
>>> *as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first person
>>> perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective.*
>>
>>
>> >>
>> That depends entirely on who the person in the first person perspective
>> you keep talking about is!
>
> *>All of them*
>
If all of them are "Abbey" then "Abbey" saw 2 cities at the same time, but
I don't think that's what you really mean by "Abbey", I don't think you
know what you mean by "Abbey". Prove me wrong, give me a precise logically
consistent definition of "Abbey" and let me hold you to it from one
paragraph to the next and from one post to the next.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-26 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

*>you make this error when you say only matter and energy can perform
> computations, because those are the only computations you have seen.*
>

Neither I nor anybody else has ever seen a calculation other than the
physical sort, and nobody has even made a hypothesis about how a
non-physical calculation might work nor explain how it would only produce
correct answers and not incorrect ones. The existence of unicorns is far
more plausible than the existence of non-physical calculations.

*>You are presuming many things, all of which are quite dubious. For
> example, that:*
> *1. That Intel has discovered everything that is physically possible.*
>
*2. Intel has discovered everything in reality.*
>

I do presume that Intel has not discovered something that is physically
impossible.


> *>3. That Intel has publicly disclosed everything it knows.*
>

If Intel had discovered how to make non-physical computations I am quite
certain we would have heard about it and the company would not continue to
build $10,000,000,000 Silicon chip fabrication plants.


> *4. That Intel could build devices that can access the results of
> computations made in other realities/realms/universes.*
>

No, I presume that Intel, could NOT access the results of non-physical
computations made in other realities, or to say the same thing in different
words I presume that  non-physical computations don't work worth a damn.


> *5. That Intel could profitably build devices*
>
Build? Device? It's non-physical so there is nothing to build and there is
no device. As for profitability, you can't do much better  than  zero
manufacturing costs.

> *>1. So what is the difference between a platonic computation and one that
> occurs physically in a physical universe that is inaccessible to us?*
>

One works for us and one doesn't. One we know certainly exists and the
other we will never know for certain if it does or not, although we will
know that if it does exist the calculation was done physically.


*>>>So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be
>>> a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?*
>>>
>>
>> >>
>> The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the
>> universe; how could it be simple,
>>
>
> *>Who said it was simple?*
>
 You did, you said "Change is an illusion". If a 3-D object does not change
along any of its 3 spacial dimensions then it is very simple spatially, if
it is static and will stay that way for eternity then the 4-D space-time
object is also very simple. If all 4 dimensions continue to infinity then
that infinite object would be the ultimate in simplicity, the only thing
that might rival it in that regard would be nothing, and the two would be
related. The best definition of "nothing" I know of is infinite unbounded
homogeneity

 John K Clark

>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-23 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

*​>​Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you
> but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile
> fields and sprawling cities,*
>
Maybe. If the universe is infinite (and not just astronomical) then yes but
nobody knows if it is, or if Many Worlds is true then yes but nobody knows
for sure if that is true either.


> * ​>​in a solar system with eight other planets?*
>

The solar system  I live in only has 7 other planets. Probably.


> *​>​The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect.
> But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without
> finishing it*
>

Then that person and I have diverged, we remember being the same person but
things have changed.


> *​>​If in your entire life you had only seen one red object, would you on
> that basis conclude that there can only be one red object?*
>

Those are unusual circumstances so I don't know if I would conclude that or
not, if I did then I would be wrong. However I'm sure I would conclude
there was only one red, or at least only one red of that shade, and in that
I would be correct.


> *​>​If the computational theory of mind is true, then accurate prediction
> requires the consideration of all possible future computational extensions
> and their relative frequency in reality.*
>

​
Then any prediction would be impossible because nobody has an infinite
mind,  so nobody can consider all possible computations.


​>​
> *You believe in the physical existence of other universes besides the one
> we can see, don't you?*
>

​I have a hunch they exist but I've been wrong before.​



> ​
>> ​>>​
>> The Intel Corporation's annual report and the fact that they are unable
>> to find anything that can change except for matter/energy hence the
>> justification for the 13.1 billion dollars the company spent last year on
>> discovering new ways of getting the element Silicon to perform calculations
>> and the reason the president of Intel has not been fired for wasting money.
>>
>
> *​>​That's fairly weak evidence,*
>

  I just gave you 13.1 billion reasons and  think you that's weak?


​>>​
>> The information is not in Universe B in any meaningful sense and will
>> have to be computed again unless the answer can somehow be communicated to
>> universe B.
>>
>
> *​>​So you agree the the computation can exist in universe B, but for
> those in universe A to access the result, they need to perform the
> computation again.  Is this right?*
>

If I want an answer I must either calculate it again or establish a
communication link between universe A and universe B.  But you don't have
to go to anything as exotic as separate universes to establish that simple
fact; if you multiply 874 by 962 and get a answer and I want the answer too
I can either calculate it again or ask you to communicate the answer to me;
but BOTH processes involve matter that obeys the laws of physics. The
fundamental problem is I know how to communicate with you but the only way
to communicate with Plato's mathematical heaven is by a process that is
absolutely identical to a calculation. And that means that the very concept
of Plato's heaven is as unnecessary and pointless as the luminiferous
aether . And that means I can't prove that either one doesn't exist but I
can prove that both are silly.

​>>​
>> Time is one of the 4 dimensions of that block universe, at a different
>> spacial coordinate the universe will look different and the same is true
>> for a different time coordinate. If at at event X I don't know the answer
>> to a calculation but at event Y I do then between X and Y something has
>> changed, I either made a calculation or received a communication from
>> somebody who has, and nobody has ever made a calculation or a communication
>> without using matter that obeys the laws of physics.
>>
>
> *​>​So in your view, could this physical structure of matter and energy be
> a platonic statically existing 4-dimensional structure?*
>

​The space-time block universe is the most complex thing in, well, in the
universe; how could it be simple, how could it be unchanging along all 4
dimensions?? If it were then the density of matter would be exactly the
same at every 3D spacial coordinate and it would never change with respect
to time, and the very concept of motion would not only be impossible it
would be inconceivable because it wouldn't even be definable. Needless to
say that is not what we observe.

John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-23 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:24 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


>> After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby".
>> Abby-1 is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is
>> just Abby plus something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are
>> Abby but Abby-1 is not Abby-2.
>
>
> *> Yes, we agree on this since day one.*


​At one time I thought so too but on day one for some strange reason you
started babbling about telepathy somehow​

​being involved and you still talk abut it, I had absolutely why you did
that 5 years ​and I have no better idea why you still do it now.  You ofter
say you agree on a certain point but very soon it becomes clear you don't
agree at all.


*​>​But to answer to the step-3 question*


​The only step-3 question John Clark wants answered is who the hell is Mr.
You?​












​*>​*
> *we must keep in mind that it refers to the first person*


In a world that contains first person duplicating machines there is no such
thing as *THE* first person.

​>>​
>>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the
>>> duplication. Do you disagree?
>>
>>

*​>>​No, we can go with that.*
>
>


> *​>​Indeed.*


​
This is a very good example of what I was talking about, you say you agree
with the above definition of "Abbey" but I would bet money you really don't.



>> OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is
>> simply no getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely
>> different things at exactly the same time.
>
>
> *​>​That is the 3-1 description*
>

​
Wow, that didn't take long! Despite the "indeed" above you are NOT using my
definition of "Abbey". I can give a precise logically consistent definition
of "Abbey", why can't you?


> ​>*​*
> * but that does not answer the question about the 1-description,*
>

​
The "question" was full of proper names with no definitions and personal
pronouns with no referent. In short there was no answer because there was
no question.


> ​>* ​*
> *as lived by any copies, which obviously cannot have a first person
> perception of the two cities at once FROM that first person perspective.*
>

That depends entirely on who the person in the first person perspective you
keep talking about is! I can give a precise logically consistent definition
of "Abbey" and I don't have any need to change it on a daily bases, can you
do the same thing? If you can't then you quite literally don't know what
you're talking about.

*​>​you dismiss the difference between the 1p self (both of which obviously
> cannot feel to be in two places at once from their local current
> perspective after the duplication) and the 3p perspective.*


I'll make you a deal, give me a precise unambiguous definition of the "p"
that you're using in the phrases "1p" and "3p" and I'll tell you if I
really dismiss the difference between the two or not.

​John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-22 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

​>>​
>> those theories have nothing to do with our self identification so why are
>> we even talking about it?
>>
>
> *​>​Because the problem of self identification becomes a fundamental
> problem in ultimate ensemble theories.*
>

We don't need the ultimate Theory Of  Everything to perform self
identification, we don't have it and yet we can do it. Even Og the caveman
could do it.


> *​> ​move on to step 4 of the UDA.*


I can't because step 3 is utterly ridiculous, that was obvious to me 2
minutes after I started reading it 5 years ago and I have found no reason
since then to change my opinion.   ​


​>* ​*
> *If you believe in the computational theory of mind, then all possible
> experiences can be described purely in terms of computation. *
>

I believe that I computation can produce any mind. And I believe that to
perform a calculation something needs to change. And I believe the only
thing that can change is matter/energy.


> ​>​
> *If physics is about predicting future experiences, *
>

We use our knowledge of physics to predict future experiences, usually it
works but occasionally it does not. Michelson
​ predicted that light would travel at different speeds in different
directions due to the Earth's motion around the sun, when he performed a
experiment to confirm this he found he was wrong; he was very surprised but
he did not loose his consciousness or sense of self when that happened,
instead he got a Nobel Prize. ​



> ​> ​
> *then by computationalism, physics is governed by the set and evolution of
> possible conscious computations.*
>

You've got that backwards. If computationalism is true then conscious
computations are governed by physics.


> ​>​
>> And the thing that makes matter interesting is that it can perform
>> computations and nothing else can.
>>
>
> ​>*​*
> *What evidence do you have for this?*
>

​The Intel Corporation's annual report and the fact that they are unable to
find anything that can change except for matter/energy hence the
justification for the 13.1 billion dollars the company spent last year on
discovering new ways of getting the element Silicon to perform calculations
and the reason the president of Intel has not been fired for wasting money.

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/annual/Intel_
Annual_Report_Final-3.20.pdf



> ​>>​
>> I don't see how it could because nobody has found a way to make a
>> calculation without using matter or energy;
>>
>
> *​>​You say and believe this only because you have defined a computation
> as a physical computation.*
>

I say that one essential property a computation must have is existence, and
nobody has ever found even a hint of a computation existing except for a
physical computation. I also say mere existence is not enough, even if if
all correct computations exist all incorrect ones exist too, physics can
tell the difference between one and the other and nothing else can.


> ​>*​*
> *Let's say there are two physical universes: "Universe A" and "Universe
> B", which do not interact but have similar physics and both have evolved
> intelligent life.  We live in Universe A.  Would you say that computations
> and computers can exist Universe B, even though Intel can't make use of the
> computations in Universe B?*
>

The information is not in Universe B in any meaningful sense and will have
to be computed again unless the answer can somehow be communicated to
universe B. If you insist the correct answer already exists in a Platonic
sense in both universes then you have an additional problem, incorrect
answers exist too and there are infinity many incorrect ones and only one
correct one, machines that operate according to the laws of physics is the
only way to find the needle in that infinitely large haystack.


​>>​
>> I know typing ASCII characters onto a computer screen won't work because
>> that is just a list of instructions to DO something, and matter/energy is
>> the the only thing ever found that can change, that is to say DO something.
>>
>
> *​>​We've previously established that nothing need change in physics.  The
> universe can be viewed as an unchanging 4-dimensional block. *
>

Nothing changes relative to which of the 4 dimensions? The 4-D block
universe is certainly not a simple symmetrical structure, it changes
radically along every one of those 4 dimensions in enormously complex ways.
 ​


> ​>​
> *Relativity strongly suggests that is how things really are.  You might
> say a "time dimension" is needed for something to happen, but change (in
> terms of something having to stop existing and something new having to
> start existing to take its place) is not.*
>
 ​
Time is one of the 4 dimensions of that block universe, at a different
spacial coordinate the universe will look different and the same is true
for a different time coordinate. If at at event X I don't know the answer
to a calculation but at event Y I do then between X and Y 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-21 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>> If "Abbey" is the being before the teleportation then obviously by
> definition "Abbey" will not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you
> really want to go with that definition?


*> Okay we can go with your definition as anyone who remembers being Abby,
what is important is that our language and definitions are consistent.*

Yes, some definitions are more useful than others but the most important
thing is that they be used consistently

>
>
>
>
> *> So we have:"Earth Abby" - The Abby at time 0 on Earth"Abby-1" - The
> Abby who ends up at her intended destination on Mars, at time 1"Abby-2" -
> The Abby who ends up at her admirer's destination on Mars, at time 1"Abby"
> - Anyone who remembers being Earth Abby (includes Earth Abby, Abby-1,
> Abby-2)*


After duplication it would be misleading to call anything "THE Abby".
Abby-1 is just Abby plus something extra, lets call it M.  And Abby-2 is
just Abby plus something extra that is different, lets call it W.  Both are
Abby but Abby-1 is not Abby-2.

>> I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey before the
> duplication. Do you disagree?
>
>
*> No, we can go with that.*


OK, and since 2 people meet the definition of "Abbey" then there is simply
no getting around the fact that "Abbey" will see 2 entirely different
things at exactly the same time. Whenever I say something like that Bruno
says but that contradicts blah blah, but if true then the only alternative
is to change the definition of "Abbey" or change the blah blah. And then of
course Bruno would accuse me of playing with words as he does whenever I
try to be precise, as if precise thinking is not necessary in a matter of
this sort.

>> If the future doesn't unfold as I expected and my retirement investments
>> go bad then I will have lost some money, but if I develop Alzheimer's
>> disease in retirement and lost my past then I will have lost far more than
>> money, I will have lost my identity. The past and the future are not
>> symmetrical, we can remember the past but not the future.
>
> ​
>
> *> But the important point is we have expectations about the future, and
> physical theories attempt to predict likelihoods of various future outcomes*


Yes but those theories have nothing to do with our self identification so
why are we even talking about it?


> *> which we (at time now) have no memory of, but nonetheless expect to
> experience in the future.Do you agree on this point?*


I agree that very often our expectations about the future turn out to be
entirely wrong but when that happens we do not loose our identity or
consciousness. So I repeat, why are we even talking about this?


>
> *> the only point in having a brain is to predict and prepare for the
> future.I was suggesting the same thing as you did regarding Alzheimers. If
> memories are erased and we have no access to other evidence, the past can
> become indeterminant, similarly to the future.*

The future is always indeterminate to us, when the past also becomes
indeterminate to us that might be a good definition of death. That's what
makes Alzheimers so horrible, it doesn't kill you all at once, you merge
into oblivion slowly by degrees and you can feel your mind going. I
wouldn't wish that on my worse enemy, I hope I don't live long enough to
get it.

> >> So what was that one bit of information that "Abby" gained?  Did "Abby"
>> (and I am the only one who has given a precise definition of that word and
>> stuck with it) end up seeing W or M?
>
>


>
>
> *> The bit is gained by "Abby-1" and "Abby-2".Abby-1 will say "Huh, I am
> experiencing life as Abby-1 rather than Abby-2" -- let's call this outcome
> "0"Abby-2 will say "Huh, I am experiencing life as Abby-2 rather than
> Abby-1" -- let's call this outcome "1"Each of Abby-1 and Abby-2 have gained
> a bit of information.*


But, assuming she was told the truth by the experimenters, Abby already
knew that would happen before the duplication, no new information was
gained by her in a Shannon informational sense. The only difference between
Abby-1 and Abby-2 is that  Abby-1 saw M and Abby-2 saw W, so when Abby sees
W she is not surprised she will not ask herself why she is not Abby-1
because she already knows the answer, because she did not see M.  The
amount of information is a measure of surprise and there is zero surprise
in any of this so there is zero information.

*> The bit of information was "I got to use my swimsuit today" or "I had to
> use my winter coat",*


What's with this "or" busines

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-18 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 6:25 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:


> ​>>​
>> We're right back to Bruno's definition problem. I can't answer your
>> question until you make clear what you mean by "Abby".   I can tell you
>> exactly precisely what I mean by "Abby", its whoever remembers being Abby
>> before the duplication. Yes its odd that there are 2 people that meet that
>> criteria, but odd is not the same thing as paradoxical. I've given you mine
>> so what is your precise definition of "Abby"?
>>
>>
>
> *​>​Given the "will" my assumption is the author is referring to Earth
> Abby, the Abby before the teleportation.  Let us work with that assumption
> for now.*
>

OK but that sure doesn't leave us much to work with! If "Abbey" is the
being before the teleportation then obviously by definition "Abbey" will
not exist after the teleportation. Are you sure you really want to go with
that definition?



> ​>>​
>> If you're interested in consciousness and subjectivity you will get
>> nowhere pondering on the nature of successor states, it would be like
>> pushing on a string. If you don't want to get tied up in logical knots and
>> self contradictions you've got to define personal identity based on
>> previous states not successor states; otherwise you wouldn't even know who
>> you are because you don't know what your successor state will be. But you
>> do know what your previous state was. We don't live in the future because
>> we never know what the future will be, we live in the present and the past
>> through memory because we know what the past was.
>>
>
> ​>*​*
> *But we can have more than one precursor state too (e.g., the quantum
> erasure experiment).*
>

There is only one one precursor state I am conscious of, and as
consciousness is pretty much the only thing anybody on this list wants to
talk about your objection is not relevant.

​> ​
> Do you believe persons are duplicated ala many-worlds?
>

​I believe people will be duplicated when​

​technology becomes advanced enough and if many worlds is true they already
are.​

​>* ​*
> *They identify themselves with Earth Abby.*
>

I define "Abby" as anyone who remembers being Abbey as anyone who remembers
being Abby before the duplication. Do you disagree?



> ​>>​
>> Forget teleportation and people duplicating machines, we can guess but we
>> can never know what the future will bring and that's why we don't define
>> ourselves by what will happen to us in the future.
>>
>
> ​>​
> Do you not save money in the bank account for the future?
> ​
>

If the future doesn't unfold as I expected and my retirement investments go
bad then I will have lost some money, but if I develop Alzheimer's disease
in retirement and lost my past then I will have lost far more than money, I
will have lost my identity. The past and the future are not symmetrical, we
can remember the past but not the future.


> *​> ​the only point in having a brain is to predict and prepare for the
> future.*


Yes but even so the future often turns out to be very different from what
we expected, when that happens we are surprised but we don't feel that our
identity has been lost; but Alzheimer's patients do feel their identity
slipping away because they can no longer remember the past.

​>>​
>> But we do remember what has happened in the past. I can say with complete
>> confidence that I am John Clark because I remember being John Clark
>> yesterday, but I don't remember being John Clark tomorrow.
>>
>
> ​>​
> Which John Clark were you before I ran the quantum erasure experiment?  Or
> before your memories were wiped and you were placed in a sensory
> deprivation chamber?
>

​I don't understand the question.​

​>>​
>> As for preparations, if I was told I was to be duplicated and teleported
>> to Hawaii and Antarctica I'd insist on taking BOTH a swimsuit AND (not or)
>> a heavy woolen jacket with me into the duplication chamber.
>>
>>
> *​>​Good! I see you understand first-person indeterminancy. *
>

​
So what was that one bit of information that "Abby" gained?  Did "Abby"
(and I am the only one who has given a precise definition of that word and
stuck with it) end up seeing W or M?


> ​>​
> *You don't know whether you will need the coat or the swimsuit.*
>

John Clark's expectation was that both would be used, and in the case John
Clark's expectations turned out to be correct.



> ​>>​
>> ask yourself this question; "after the "
>> ​experiment​
>> " is over and the scientists have collected and analyzed all 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-18 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that we didn’t
>> even suspect there were other ways until a century ago.
>
>
> ​>​
> Either your p-adic system is Turing universal, and then you can take it as
> the primary theory, or it is not.
>

Machines can be Turing complete but no number system can be because the
can't DO anything.When mathematicians say things like "Conway's Game Of
Life  is Turing complete" what they mean is that a machine can be built
using Conway's principles in 2 dimensions that is functionally equivalent
to Turing's one dimensional machine that uses a paper tape, and both are
capable of calculating anything that can be calculated.


> ​> ​
> *Theology, including physics, is*
> ​[]​
>

I've gotten to the point that whenever I see that imbecilic word I stop
reading and go to the next paragraph.


​>>​
>> So on a football field if the 2 yard line was closer to the 28814 yard
>> line than the 2 yard line was to the 3 yard line the game would not in
>> anyway be changed? I don’t think so, in the physical world its harder to go
>> from 2 to 28814 than 2 to 3, but in Plato’s heaven of pure numbers one is
>> as easy as another. And that’s why p-adic numbers are not taught in the
>> second grade.
>
>
> *​>​I was talking of non standard theory of the natural number.*
>

The natural numbers are well named, they were the first class of numbers
that humans invented because the conform naturally to the way we view the
physical words, in particular they conform with our intuitive ideas about
distance, but with p-adic numbers we know there are an infinite number of
ways of defining distance that are very far from intuitive but are just as
logically self consistent. Wiles used them in his proof of Fermat's Last
Theorem but we don't teach p-adic numbers much in school because they are
of little use in science or engineering or economics or anything else in
our physical world.


​>>
 ​>>​
 ​
 You can not point to one single example of a non-physical computation.
 Not one.
>>>
>>>

 ​>
>>> *​​>>​**Here is one:*
>>
>> *s(0) +s(0)*
>>> *s(s(0) + 0)*
>>> *s(s(0))*
>>> *Here is another one:*
>>> *SB(S(K(SM))K)AB*
>>> *Bx((S(K(SM)K)A)B*
>>> *A(S(K(SM))KAB)*
>>> *A(K(SM)A(KA)B)*
>>> *A(SM(KA)B)*
>>> *A(MB)(KAB)*
>>> *A(BBA)*
>>>
>>> *:*
>>>
>> ​>>​
>> I just asked both of your examples of ASCII sequences to add 1+1 but I
>> haven't heard even a incorrect answer from either, so far all I hear is a
>> deafening silence but if I ever do hear anything from  either of them I
>> shall inform Intel immediately.
>>
>
> ​>​
> *Too late. Intel exist because they were aware of this.*
>

What Intel was aware of it that the squiggles you so proudly typed above
world not be finished calculating 1+1 even if it started trying to do so
13.8 billion years ago at the instant of the Big Bang. But Intel was also
aware that unlike your ASCII characters the physical element Silicon could
make calculations and that's why they're so interested in it.

​>>​
>> ​So you concede that primary or not matter is needed to think. ​
>
>
> ​>​
> *For humans,*
>

​So matter can do something that numbers can't, namely matter can DO things
and and change, but numbers can do neither.


> ​>>​
>> I don't know or care what the guy expects to happen
>
>

*​>​But that is the question we were studying.*


​It sure as hell isn't the question I was studying!!! What the man EXPECTS
 to happen has precisely zero philosophical significance.What actually DOES
happen has profound philosophical significance.

​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> * ​**and so he knows that once duplicated, the two copies will feel to
>>> be unique,*
>>
>>
>> *​>>​NO*!!
>
> ​>​
> Ah! I knew you were caring. But you contradict yourself.
>

BULLSHIT.  I said from day one of this endless debate that if 2 brains are
physically identical there is only one mind between them and it is only
when they see different things, like different cites, do they differentiate.


> ​>​
> *we have agreed that both are fully aware of their common identity with
> the H-guy.*
>

Yes, and I thought we also agreed that doesn't mean they are each other if
they have seen different thing since the Helsinki days.

>
> ​> *​*
> *I am not physically identical with my “yesterday” self either.*
>

​But you remember being your yesterday self.​



> * ​>​the question is about what they expect to write in their personal
> diary/memory*
>

Who knows, they could expect to see Santa Claus Workshop for all I know or
care. What matters is what they do end up seeing not what they expect to
see.



> ​>>​
>> The truth or falsehood of Computationalism has nothing to do with it and
>> the only definition that matters is the one you just gave. You said "the
>> H-guy" has the property of existing "before the duplication”,
>
>
> *​>​Before, after, all the times, in this experiment.*
>

Then after the experiment one being has the H-man and the W-man 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-16 Thread John Clark
rrectly by my definition of "Abby". But you haven't
given me your definition of "Abby".

*> However, they will both only experience themselves, and not the other
> one.*


Assuming they have experienced different things after the duplication and
thus differentiated that statement is true, but I don't understand why it
merits a "however".


> *​>​That is, Abby-1 will experience herself as a person that is different
> from Abby-2, and vice versa.*
>

​Yes.​



> *​>​The only possible conclusion seems to be that, after the
> teleportation, Abby will subjectively perceive to be one of the two, and of
> course not both*
>
That statement is neither true nor false because you have not told us what
you mean by "Abby". I have but you haven't.

​*>​*
> *So before the teleportation, should Abby prepare to become Abby-1 or
> Abby-2?*
>

I don't understand the question. Forget teleportation and people
duplicating machines, we can guess but we can never know what the
future will bring and that's why we don't define ourselves by what will
happen to us in the future. But we do remember what has happened in the
past. I can say with complete confidence that I am John Clark because I
remember being John Clark yesterday, but I don't remember being John Clark
tomorrow.

As for preparations, if I was told I was to be duplicated and teleported to
Hawaii and Antarctica I'd insist on taking BOTH a swimsuit AND (not or) a
heavy woolen jacket with me into the duplication chamber.


> * ​>​there is no way for Abby to predict which one of the two options will
> be realized in her subjective experience.*
>

It is certainly not unusual to be ignorant about future events, but in this
case an answer can't be given because a question was not asked. There is a
easy way to tell if this is a real exparament or even a real thought
exparament, ask yourself this question; "after the "exparament" is over and
the scientists have collected and analyzed all the data and then locked the
lab and gone home what one and only one thing did they conclude Abby ended
up seeing?". If the scientists STILL don't have an answer then there must
be something wrong with the question. The key problem is that for some
strange reason you insist there can only be one Abby but then you introduce
a Abby duplicating machine into the mix so there can't be only one. So it
always comes down to, what in the world do you mean by "Abby"?

​ John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-12 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​​
 If you want to use Euclidean geometry or even the sort of non-Euclidean
 geometry Einstein used you've got to use standard arithmetic, but there are
 other ways. For example, in the 7-adic system the distance between 5
 and 6 is smaller than the distance between 5 and 6; and 28814
 is closer to 2 than 2 is to 3.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>
>>> *​​>>​*
>>> *All Turing universal system would do. p-adic numbers presupposes
>>> elementary arithmetic.*
>>>
>>
>> ​>>​
>> It would be equally true to say elementary arithmetic presupposes p-adic
>> numbers, although humans were not smart enough to figure that out until
>> 1897.
>>
>
> *​>​I doubt this. I am not sure you can define p-adic number without
> assuming natural number.s If you can, show me.*
>

The invention of the p-adic number system proved that the way your second
grade teacher taught you to perform subtraction and measure the distance
between 2 numbers is just one way it could be done. There are a infinity of
alternative ways to describe  the distance between numbers than the way we
usually use and they are just as logically self-consistent, but as distance
plays a key role in both space and time it follows that only one of those
infinity of ways is consistent with physical reality. Physics gives us the
only thing that is unique about it, but because we live and think in a
physical world the way to measure distance was so intuitively obvious that
we didn’t even suspect there were other ways until a century ago.

*​> ​Non standard model of arithmetic are also consistent with the laws of
> physics.*
>

So on a football field if the 2 yard line was closer to the 28814 yard line
than the 2 yard line was to the 3 yard line the game would not in anyway be
changed? I don’t think so, in the physical world its harder to go from 2 to
28814 than 2 to 3, but in Plato’s heaven of pure numbers one is as easy as
another. And that’s why p-adic numbers are not taught in the second grade.


> ​>>​
>> You can not point to one single example of a non-physical computation.
>> Not one.
>
>

​>*​*
> *Here is one:*
> *s(0) +s(0)*
> *s(s(0) + 0)*
> *s(s(0))*
>
> *Here is another one:*
>
> *SB(S(K(SM))K)AB*
> *Bx((S(K(SM)K)A)B*
> *A(S(K(SM))KAB)*
> *A(K(SM)A(KA)B)*
> *A(SM(KA)B)*
> *A(MB)(KAB)*
> *A(BBA)*
>

I just asked both of your examples of ASCII sequences to add 1+1 but I
haven't heard even a incorrect answer from either, so far all I hear is a
deafening silence but if I ever do hear anything from  either of them I
shall inform Intel immediately.


​>>​
>> It's so ubiquitous there is no choice but to assume matter, otherwise you
>> couldn't read a book because that is made of matter, you couldn't even
>> think because your brain is made of matter.
>
>
> ​>​
> Nobody doubt Matter. But that does not make it primary, which is the
> debated point.
>

​So you concede that primary or not matter is needed to think. ​

​>>​
>> Heaven is not made of matter and neither is the Luminiferous Aether but
>> our physical world is indifferent to the existence or non-existence of
>> them, in other words physics can't prove they don't exist but it can prove
>> the idea is silly.
>
>
>
> *​>​Physics is not concerned with fundamental existence. Metaphysics is.*
>
Can you name one advancement that Metaphysics has made in the last thousand
years to world knowledge?
​ I can't.​



> *​>​Confusing physics and metaphysics is the “error" of Aristotle,
> which​.​*
>

​Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,​​Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,​
Greeks,Greeks,Greeks,Greeks.

> ​>
>> ​>>​
>> * ​*
>> *He is uncertain about where he will find itself after the duplication.*
>>
>
> ​>>​
> That would be true if the man were like you and didn't understand what the
> words "YOU WILL BE DUPLICATED"   mean.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *But the guy has bet on comp,*
>
I don't know or care what the guy expects to happen or or if he bets on
"comp” or not, whatever the hell “comp" means.


> ​>* ​*
> *and so he knows that once duplicated, the two copies will feel to be
> unique,*
>

*NO*!! They will feel unique ONLY if they see  something different, like a
different  city ,  because after that they  will  no longer  be PHYSICALLY
identical.

>  ​>>​​If that's what "the guy" means then obviously "the guy" will see 2
>> cities.
>
>
> *​>​At no moment at all this could occur for all persons concerned,*
>

It could if "the guy" means all persons concerned. So for the fourth time I
repeat my request, give me a precise unambiguous definition of "the guy".
I’m not as big a fan of definitions as you are and yet I can do it,  so why
can't you?


> ​>​
> unless you add telepathy
>

*​To hell with idiot telepathy!!!​ *


> ​> *​*
> *you have to remember that the question is not about where the guy*
>

Until you make clear what "the guy" means there is no question much less an
answer, there is just a sequence of words with a question mark at the end.

*​>​Not at 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-09 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> By using p-adic numbers mathematicians found more than a century ago
>> there are a infinity of ways the numbers could be arranged because there
>> are a infinity of ways distance between numbers could be defined and all of
>> them are logically consistent. If you want to use Euclidean geometry or
>> even the sort of non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used you've got to use
>> standard arithmetic, but there are other ways. For example, in the 7-adic
>> system the distance between 5 and 6 is smaller than the distance
>> between 5 and 6; and 28814 is closer to 2 than 2 is to 3.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *All Turing universal system would do. p-adic numbers presupposes
> elementary arithmetic.*
>

It would be equally true to say elementary arithmetic presupposes p-adic
numbers, although humans were not smart enough to figure that out until
1897. Out of all the ways numbers could be manipulated there is only one
thing that is unique about arithmetic, its not unique because its the only
one that is self consistent, its unique because its the only one that is
consistent with physical reality and the laws of physics.

​> *​*
> *The notion of computations do not rely not on heaven either. Robinson
> arithmetic is Turing universal, and that can be proved in Peano Arithmetic.*
>

​And there are only 2 instances when Robinson arithmetic or Peano
> Arithmetic exists:
> 1) In heaven.
> 2) When they are implemented in matter that obeys the laws of physics.



> *​>​If a computation is physical, it has to admit a physical definition.
> But apparently you cannot find it.*
>
Apparently you can't find a definition of “definition”. But never mind, I
have something vastly superior to a definition of a physical computation,
I can point to an actual example of a physical computation and all you can
do is point to a book full of ASCII characters. You can not point to
one single example of a non-physical computation. Not one.

Examples are far more important and vastly more fundamental than
definitions because examples always come first, it is only later that
somebody dreams up a definition that fits all the examples in a class.
And sometimes a definition never comes at all, most people live their
entire lives and manage to communicate just fine in this ultra complex
physical world and yet have never seen a dictionary in their lives. That
was the error early AI researchers made, they tried to give their machines
definitions of everything in the physical world and that didn’t work out
very well, today they use examples.

> ​> *​*
> *something is primary if we have to assume it *
>

It's so ubiquitous there is no choice but to assume matter, otherwise you
couldn't read a book because that is made of matter, you couldn't even
think because your brain is made of matter. Heaven is not made of matter
and neither is the Luminiferous Aether but our physical world is
indifferent to the existence or non-existence of them, in other words
physics can't prove they don't exist but it can prove the idea is silly.

​>* ​*
> *He is uncertain about where he will find itself after the duplication.*
>

That would be true if the man were like you and didn't understand what the
words "YOU WILL BE DUPLICATED"   mean.

​
>> ​>>​
>> Bruno, you're always talking about definitions but this is one of those
>> rare occasions where one is desperately needed, so if you want me to answer
>> that question you must first give me a PRECISE definition of exactly what
>> you mean by "the Helsinki man". ​
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *It is guy who will survive in both Moscow and Washington,*
>

​If that's what "the guy" means then obviously "the guy" will see 2 cities.
And before you start with the from the peepee not the poopoo stuff remember
it was you who said "the guy" means "the guy who will survive in both
Moscow and Washington", if that definition is too simple then give me a
better one. I don't have a fetish about definitions as you do but in this
case I have a precise unambiguous logically self consistent definition of
"The Helsinki Man". Do you?

​>​
>> and before I can say we agree about the H-guy I need to know exactly
>> precisely what you mean by "the H-guy”.
>> ​
>>
>
> *​>​The guy before the duplication.*
>


OK, now with this new definition of yours about what "the H-guy" means
 "the H-guy" will never see any city **after** the duplication or see
anything else for that matter because the defining characteristic of "the
H-guy" that you just mentioned is existing **before** the duplication. Try
again, maybe the third time is the charm. As for me I think a more useful
definition is "the H-guy is anybody who remembers being in Helsinki before
the duplication".

​John K Clark​



>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 

Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-08 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

*​>​You are starting to sound like John Clark in refusing to accept the
> consequences of duplication. In your duplication thought experiments*


​What ​
consequences of duplication
​ have I refused to accept?  ​

*​>​Maudlin wrote a whole book on the reconciliation of non-locality with
> special relativity.*
>

Special Relativity is not compatible with non-locality but that's not a
problem because 10 years later Einstein came up with General Relativity
and, although its certainly not demanded, its OK with non-locality because
you can't transmit information faster than light with just correlations
​.​

​John K Clark ​



.








>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-08 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> * ​​p​**ysicists assume arithmetic to make sense of the observations.*
>>
>>
>> ​>>​
>> Yes, whatever way that numbers are manipulated it must be consistent with
>> PHYSICAL observations, if physical reality was different correct arithmetic
>> would be different,
>
> *​>​Most people can conceive different physical laws, but nobody has ever
> comes with a different arithmetical reality, using arithmetic I its
> standard sense.*
>
​

By using p-adic numbers mathematicians found more than a century ago there
are a infinity of ways the numbers could be arranged because there are a
infinity of ways distance between numbers could be defined and all of them
are logically consistent. If you want to use Euclidean geometry or even the
sort of non-Euclidean geometry Einstein used you've got to use standard
arithmetic, but there are other ways. For example, in the 7-adic system the
distance between 5 and 6 is smaller than the distance between 5
and 6; and 28814 is closer to 2 than 2 is to 3.


> ​>*​*
> *Computation are not physical by definition.*
>

Sure if you define computation as something that happens in heaven that can
never be observed, but only somebody more interested in pondering the
number of angles that can dance on the head of a pin than in computers or
science or anything humans can detect with their senses would do so.

>
> ​>*​*
> *If you can find just one paper providing a physical definition of
> computation,*
>

A physical computation is a computation and a computation is a physical
computation, in other words the term "physical computation" is redundant,
there are only computations.

*​>​You asked me this before. Primary needs “have to be assumed”.*
>

I know, I asked before if you understood what philosophers meant by the
term "primary matter
​"​
and from your answer it was clear you did not. I had hoped by now you had
learned but apparently not.

​
>> ​>>​
>> The M man is NOT the W man even though both are the H man;
>
>
> *​>​Exactly. That is why there is an first person indeterminacy (FPI)  in
> Helsinki.*
>

In Helsinki the Helsinki man is experiencing Helsinki with 100% certainty
without a trace of indeterminacy.

​>>​
>> make a Venn diagram out of it and you'll see why demanding to know what
>> one and only one city the H man will see is so silly and why drawing
>> profound consequences from that trivial fact is so ridiculous.
>
>
> ​>​
>
> *Oh, so you say the Helsinki man will see the tow cities?*
>

​Bruno, you're always talking about definitions but this is one of those
rare occasions where one is desperately needed, so if you want me to answer
that question you must first give me a PRECISE definition of exactly what
you mean by "the Helsinki man". ​

​I have a precise unambitious definition of "the Helsinki man", do you? ​

​>>​
>> and I asked after the experiment was completed what one and only one city
>> did “you"
>
>
> ​>​
> That is silly. You must ask both of course.
>

If its silly to ask just one of the two after the duplication them its even
sillier to ask to ask the question in Helsinki when there is only one
person in existence to ask.

​>>​
>> So what the hell did we agree on??
>
>
> *​>​That the W-guy and the M-guy are both implementation of the H-guy,
> like you just said above.*
>

I also said above the W-guy is NOT the M-guy, and before I can say we agree
about the H-guy I need to know exactly precisely what you mean by "the
H-guy".
​

John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-07 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> So you now admit that the experts who specialize in the study of physical
>> phenomena have, just as I said, "never seen a demonstration of a
>> non-physical calculation “ .
>
>
> *​>​Yes. Computability is born in mathematical logic, not in physics.*
>

​
And logicians who claim that were, without exception, physically born not
logically born.


> *​>​ just show that the physical reality is Turing-complete. It only means
> that the physical reality can implement a universal Turing machine.*
>

Yes, but the reverse is not true, a universal Turing machine can't
implement physical reality, by itself it can't change, it can't
DO anything.

> ​>>​
>> And that dear Bruno flatly contradicts your statement "That contradicts
>> all publication in the field “
>
>

*​>​I don’t see it.*
>

Did you see the "yes" in the quotation above?



> ​>>​
>> If energy comes from pure numbers then why do experts in pure numbers
>> need energy even when they study pure numbers?
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *Because experts are physical being.*
>
So physics can do something mathematics can not; mathematicians can use
energy to power their mind but they can't use mathematics to do so.

> ​> ​
> *With mechanism, they emerge in arithmetic or equivalent, though.*
>

The fact that mathematicians need calories obtained from food to do their
mathematics is experimental proof that they are NOT equivalent.

>   ​
>> ​>>​
>> The ways numbers can be manipulated is infinite but only one of those
>> ways is compatible with physical reality
>
>
> ​>​
> ?
>

*​!​ *

​>> *​*
>> *and we call that way arithmetic; it is the only way that is correct,*
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *That is utterly ridiculous, and circular. *
>

​There are countless ways of manipulating numbers but only one of those
ways is consistent with physical reality, we call that one way "correct, it
can also be called "arithmetic". What's circular about that?


> ​>* ​*
> *Physicists assume arithmetic to make sense of the observations.*
>

Yes, whatever way that numbers are manipulated it must be consistent with
PHYSICAL observations, if physical reality was different correct arithmetic
would be different, but its not so it isn't. And its not just physicists,
the sheep herder who invented arithmetic knew enough physics  to make sure
his new invention  called “arithmetic"  was consistent with physics, for
example he knew one of his sheep wouldn't instantaneously become 2 sheep or
100 sheep or zero sheep.

​>​
> *you assume a primary physical reality. But that is not a valid way to
> proceed when we do metaphysics with the scientific method.*
>

​You admitted above that articles about calculations made without the use
of matter that obey the laws of physics are not in any of the physics
journals nor in any of the general science journals like Nature or Science
because there are no physical observations to report. So how on earth can
you use the scientific method if you have no observations to work on??


> ​>*​*
> *Anyway, this has been refuted.*
>

​Sure it has, in that wonderful post you've been talking about for nearly a
decade that for some reason I have never seen and nobody I know has ever
seen either.


> ​>> ​
>> so the number of existing functions is not only enumerable it is finite,
>> assuming by "existence" we mean there is a difference between "X " and "not
>> X”.
>
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *?*
>

*​!​*

​>>​
>> ​If you don't have a notation that allows you to represent a function in
>> a finite number of symbols then neither a person nor a machine can think
>> about it then it does not exist except in Plato's heaven, and there is no
>> detectable difference between Plato's heaven existing and Plato's heaven
>> not existing so, just like the luminiferous aether of old, it is useless
>> metaphysical baggage.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *This is your opinion. But it contradicts your belief in computationalism
> as I have shown.*
>
It is my hope that sometime before my death I shall gaze upon that
glorious post of yours that explains all the inner workings of the univers

> ​
>> ​>>​
>> Matter doesn't need anything to do stuff except the laws of physics, but
>> the laws of numbers are not enough to enable numbers to do anything.
>
>
> *​>​As I said, that contradicts all the papers in the field.​ It shows
> that you never study even one paper.*
>

I can't study even one paper because there is not even one paper published
in a reputable journal that claims to have proven the existence of a non
physical calculation; your paper hasn’t been published and its not hard to
see why, its just silly.


> ​> ​
> *Again, you assume Aristotle criteria of reality.*
>

​
And again its Greeks Greeks Greeks, nothing but wall to wall Greeks 24/7 as
if no other humans have done anything interesting in the last 2500 years.


>> ​>>​
>> there is incontrovertible evidence that matter DOES produce consciousness.
>
>
> ​>​
> *First show an evidence of primary matter.*
>
First show me 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-05 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>
 ​>>​
 ​
 ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in
 a book and nobody ever will.
>>>
>>>
>>> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> * ​*
>>> *That contradicts all publication in the field.*
>>>
>>
>> ​>>​
>>> Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New
>>> Mexico or other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from
>>> the journal Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of
>>> Applied Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.
>>
>>
> *​>​You need to consult papers in mathematical logic journal. Obviously if
> “scientific” means physics, you will not find the papers I am mentioning,*
>
So you now admit that the experts who specialize in the study of physical
phenomena have, just as I said, "never seen a demonstration of a
non-physical calculation " . And that dear Bruno flatly contradicts your
statement "That contradicts all publication in the field ", the truth of
the matter is it does NOT contradict ANY of the publications in the field
of physical phenomena, except perhaps for the Roswell Flying Saucer
Journal.

> *​>​You would say that group theory assumes the existence of chalk and
> blackboard*.
>

​

Group theory can't assume anything but group theorists can, and yes they
assume the existence of chalk and blackboard that's why they use them, I
would not be surprised if you use them too from time to time.


> * ​>​I am not saying that a human does not need some energy to study
> mathematics.*
>

But why? If energy comes from pure numbers then why do experts in pure
numbers need energy even when they study pure numbers?

​>​
> * in this case I am alluding to an infinity of “correct” one.*
>

  ​
 The ways numbers can be manipulated is infinite but only one of those ways
is compatible with physical reality and we call that way arithmetic; it is
the only way that is correct, and unlike you I don't feel the need to use
any apologetic quotation marks.
​

> ​>>​
>> Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've
>> forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day
>> of class, he said a function is a machine,
>
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *I am not that old. The machines are enumerable, but the functions are
> not.*
>

​
A function can't exist unless a person or a machine is thinking about it,
so the number of existing functions is not only enumerable it is finite,
assuming by "existence" we mean there is a difference between "X " and "not
X".


> ​>​
> * like there are much more truth than proofs.*
>

And there are more incorrect proofs than correct ones, infinitely more in
fact.


​>>​
>> A function is instructions written in a very compact form
>
>
> *​>​No. That is a program, or machine. Most functions cannot be so
> compactly represented.*
>

​If you don't have a notation that allows you to represent a function in a
finite number of symbols then neither a person nor a machine can think
about it then it does not exist except in Plato's heaven, and there is no
detectable difference between Plato's heaven existing and Plato's heaven
not existing so, just like the luminiferous aether of old, it is useless
metaphysical baggage.

​> *​*
> *By itself, nothing can do anything.*
>

​
Matter doesn't need anything to do stuff except the laws of physics, but
the laws of numbers are not enough to enable numbers to do anything.


> *​>​in the arithmetical reality we can define what “doing things” can
> mean. That is the whole point.*
>

I know, definitions have always been your whole point, but definitions are
just a linguistic convention and can't create anything.

> ​>>​
>> physics can make calculations with NAND and NOR circuits made from
>> mechanical rods ratchets and gears or vacuum tubes or transistors or
>> microchips or some other arrangement of matter that obeys the laws of
>> physics, such as the neurons in the bone box on your shoulders.
>>
>> ​> *​*
> *Assuming physicalism,*
>

No, assuming the scientific method and the evidence before your eyes
whenever you're looking at a computer screen as you're doing at this very
instant.


> ​> *​*
> *Matter produce consciousness?*
>

​Yes.​



> * ​> ​How?*
>

​I don't know how and never claimed I did. But I do claim there is
incontrovertible evidence that matter DOES produce consciousness. Whenever
your brain changes your consciousness changes and whenever your
consciousness changes your brain changes. Matter doesn't care if Human
Beings understands how it pulls off this trick or not, it will keep doing
it regardless.

​>>​
>> Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is
>> a connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than
>> consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird.
>
>

​>​
> *That is my point.*
>

That's it? That's all you've got? The only evidence non-computability is
connected to 

Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-04 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>>​
>> ​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a
>> book and nobody ever will.
>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *That contradicts all publication in the field.*
>

Maybe that's true if your field is flying saucer men in Roswell New Mexico
or other varieties of junk science, but show me one citation from the
journal Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters or The Journal of
Applied Physics demonstrating a non-physical calculation. Just one will do.
​

> > *You seem to never have open any book nor paper in that subject*


That's because opening a book requires energy as does performing
calculations, and pure numbers are unable to give me any energy so I am
unable to open a book much less perform a calculation.

​> ​
the whole point will be that there is nothing unique concerning any
computations.
​ ​
All are implemented in infinitely many ways in Arithmetic.

​
Yes and out of those infinitely many ways of doing arithmetic all but one
of them is incorrect, that is to say only one of those ways is compatible
with physical reality and that is the one the sheep herder who invented
arithmetic many thousands of years ago decided to use because it was the
only one that helped him with his job.

Your fundamental blunder is you've forgotten what a function is, you've
forgotten what your high school algebra teacher said on the very first day
of class, he said a function is a machine, you put something into it and if
you perform the calculations it says to perform something different will
come out. A function is instructions written in a very compact form but by
itself it can't do anything. A cake recipe is not a cake nor can it make a
cake without the help of a baker, a baker that is made of matter that obeys
the laws of physics.

​>​
>> but physics can.
>
>
> *Really?*
>

​Yes really.​


> *​> ​How?*
>

​With NAND and NOR circuits made from mechanical rods ratchets and gears or
vacuum tubes or transistors or microchips or some other arrangement of
matter that obeys the laws of physics, such as the neurons in the bone box
on your shoulders.


> ​*>​*
> *If mechanism is true, I don’t see how that primary matter can influence
> consciousness or create it*
>

It does not make the slightest difference if you understand the connection
between matter and consciousness or not because it remains a experimental
FACT that when your brain changes your consciousness changes and when your
consciousness changes you brain changes. Matter doesn't care that you have
not figgured out how matter produces consciousness , matter does it does it
anyway.


> *​>​without invoking some non Turing computable,​ ​and non FPI
> recoverable, notions.*
>

Nobody has ever provided even the tiniest speck of evidence that there is a
connection between Turing non-computability and consciousness other than
consciousness is sorta weird and non-computability is sorta weird.

​>​
> *A book cannot make a computation, trivially, but a number, relatively to
> other numbers, do it, thanks to the laws of addition and multiplication.*
>

​Why those rules when there are a infinite number of ways two numbers can
be associated with a third number? Because even though the sheep herder who
invented arithmetic lived thousands of years before Newton he knew
intuitively that only one of those ways was compatible with the laws of
physics.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-03 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

​> ​
> These ideas about algorithms that can detect nonsense seem to run afoul of
> Turing's proof there is no universal TM that can determine if all TMs can
> halt or not.


Yes, Turing said you can never determine if every program will stop, but
that doesn’t mean you can’t determine if some programs will stop. And I
think you would agree not every string of ASCII characters is a question
even if it has a question mark at the end. If a question about tomorrow
can't be answered even in principle the day after tomorrow then the
utterance made the day before yesterday was gibberish and the reason it has
no answer is the same as the reason a burp has no answer, neither was a
question.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-03 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>​
> *Both copies knows perfectly well how to answer them after.*
>

​
And both answers I not only correctly predicted yesterday without the
slightest trace if indeterminacy I did so easily; I said the guy who would
see Moscow would answer "I see Moscow" and the guy who would see
 Washington would  answer  "I see Washington". OK that is not very profound
I admit but its your thought experiment not mine.


> ​> ​
> *You reiterates once more your intensional confusion*
>

So says the man who does not even know the referent to a simple personal
pronoun VERY frequently used in his key thought experiment.

​John K Clark​














> we can suspect, between fist person and third person. Repeating an
> argument ad nauseam will not make it true.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
> ​>>​
>>> And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not,
>>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged
>>> either way.
>>
>>
>> ​>*​*
>> *That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in
>> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals*
>>
>
> Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless
> of if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do
> with any existing mathematics much less physics.
>
> ​John K Clark​
>
>
>
>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-02 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*​>​you claim to have an algorithm able to predict what anyone could live
> after a self-duplication.*

I have an algorithm that can detect gibberish and gibberish questions have
no answer. The algorithm works this way, if even after the exparament is
over its STILL impossible to say what the prediction was suposed to be
about then the question about the future was gibberish.

> ​>>​
>> And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not,
>> because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged
>> either way.
>
>
> ​>*​*
> *That is not obvious. Some key theorem on knots, which have been used in
> quantum gravitation were based on some studies on large cardinals*
>

Cantor's theorem about large cardinals would remain unchanged regardless of
if the Continuum hypothesis is true or not, in fact it has nothing to do
with any existing mathematics much less physics.

​John K Clark​



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Do we live within a Diophantine equation?

2018-07-02 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> ​>​
> *The demonstration is given in those books. It is long and technical.*
>

​Nobody has ever seen a demonstration of a non-physical calculation in a
book and nobody ever will.

​>​
> *The book explains that computation is a purely arithmetical notion*


A explanation is not a demonstration, and they don't even explain what is
unique about their particular way of  manipulating numbers, but physics
can. Out of the infinite number of ways of manipulating numbers only one of
them is compatible with the laws of physics, and that way is called a
"calculation", all the other infinite ways of doing it is called a
"incorrect calculation".


> ​>​
> They do not mention physics at all.


​And that is why a book can not make a calculation and neither can pure
numbers.

​>>​
>> The fundamental problem is that in mathematical heaven incorrect
>> calculations are, not astronomically but INFINITELY, more common than
>> correct ones, and the ghost of Plato has no way of telling one from the
>> other, so its a good thing that matter can.
>
>
> *​>​Matter cannot do that either, or if it can, ask for the patent*
>

 I would except that Charles Babbage beat me to the patent office, by about
150 years.
​

  John K Clark​








> (and abandon computationalism).
>
>
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Bootstrapping Reality: The inconsistency of nothing

2018-07-01 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​If “0 things exist” is true, I don’t see how “0 things exist” can exist.
>>
>>
>
> ​>>​
>> If if “0 things exist” is true then “0 things exist” exists,
>
> ​>​
> That does not follow. If the universe is empty, i.e. u = { },
>

The null set is something, my nothing does not contain a set of any sort.

​>​
> So you agree with Jason that the “nothing theory” is inconsistent?
> ​ ​
> I am not sure it is inconsistent, but I am sure it is false.
>

So you think "nothing" could be a grammatically correct fictional story
with no plot holes written in the language of mathematics. You could be
right.

*>​>>​ I think we should distinguish well between “being true” and
>>> existence.*
>>
>> ​>>​
>> If there is a difference between  “being true” and existence then either:
>>
>> 1) Some things are true but don't exist. In other words some things are
>> logically consistent but are self contained and have nothing to do with
>> physics or physical reality in general.
>>
>
> ​>​
> Assuming Aristotle's theology.
>

Sometimes i have the feeling I'm debating with a chatbot that has been
programmed to throw in the word Aristotle, theology, Plato or Greek at
least once every 250 words.

​>>​
>> Or in still other words some mathematical stories are fictional and much
>> of modern abstract mathematics has no deeper meaning than a Harry Potter
>> novel and the fanfiction stories that spawn off from it.
>
>
> ​>​
> *That is inconsistent with mechanism,*
>

I see no reason to to think that must be true. You can write a story in the
English language that is grammatical and contains no logical plot holes but
that never happened, why can't the same thing be done in the mathematical
language?


> ​>​
> *but also pretty ridiculous.*
>

I'm just trying to follow the consequences of your statement "we should
distinguish well between “being true” and existence".


> If 1+1 = 2 is fiction, then,
> ​ [...]​
>

I didn't say every consistent mathematical statement was fiction! I'm sure
1+2=2 is nonfiction, I'm less sure that Cantor's Theorem on transfinite
sets is. And physics doesn't care if the Continuum hypothesis is true or
not, because all the mathematics that physicists use would remain unchanged
either way.

​>*​*
> *In logic, logicians have tools to delineate precisely the difference
> between truth and existence. Existence os when an existential proposition
> is true,*
>

​So logicians have concluded that ​existence exists when its true that
existence exists?

​John K Clark

 ​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >