Re: computationalism and supervenience
Stathis, According to Wikipedia, "Platonia" is a tree. That isn't what you mean. Could you furnish a definition? Thank you, Norman Samish ~~~- Original Message - From: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] . . . Computationalism is the theory that consciousness arises as a result of computer activity: that our brains are just complex computers, and in the manner of computers, could be emulated by another computer, so that computer would experience consciousness in the same way we do. (This theory may be completely wrong, and perhaps consciousness is due to a substance secreted by a special group of neurons or some other such non-computational process, but let's leave that possibility aside for now). What we mean by one computer emulating another is that there is an isomorphism between the activity of two physical computers, so that there is a mapping function definable from the states of computer A to the states of computer B. If this mapping function is fully specified we can use it practically, for example to run Windows on an x86 processor emulated on a Power PC processor running Mac OS. If you look at the Power PC processor and the x86 processor running side by side it would be extremely difficult to see them doing the "same" computation, but according to the mapping function inherent in the emulation program, they are, and they still would be a thousand years from now even if the human race is extinct. In a similar fashion, there is an isomorphism between a computer and any other physical system, even if the mapping function is unknown and extremely complicated. That's not very interesting for non-conscious computations, because they are only useful or meaningful if they can be observed or interact with their environment. However, a conscious computation is interesting all on its own. It might have a fuller life if it can interact with other minds, but its meaning is not contingent on other minds the way a non-conscious computation's is. I know this because I am conscious, however difficult it may be to actually define that term. The conclusion I therefore draw from computationalism is that every possible conscious computation is implemented necessarily if any physical process exists. This seems to me very close to saying that every conscious computation is implemented necessarily in Platonia, as the physical reality seems hardly relevant. Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~--- -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: computationalism and supervenience
Stathis Papaioannou writes: That's right, but with a fixed input the computer follows a perfectly deterministic course, like a clockwork mechanism, however many times we repeat the run. Moreover, if we consider the recording of the input as hardwired into the computer, it does not interact with its environment. So we have the possibility that a perfectly deterministic physical system that does not interact with its environment may be conscious. And since the computer may be built and programmed in an arbitrarily complex way, because any physical system can be mapped onto any computation with the appropriate mapping rules, we have the possibility that any physical system could be implementing any computation. That would be a trivial result given that we are unable to interact with such a computer and would never be able to use it or recognise it as a computer - except that such a computer can be conscious, self-aware in its own segregated virtual world. NCS: If the computer is conscious I don't see how it could be a deterministic or predictable physical system. To me, consciousness means it is self-aware, capable of modifying its responses, and therefore not predictable. What are the ingredients of a conscious computer ? Perhaps one essential component is a central processing unit that depends on quantum randomness to arrive at a decision when other factors balance out. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Mysteries
Brent: ". . . It seems to me that an information
theoretic analysis should be able to place a lower bound on how small a
probability can be and not be zero."
Norman: Doesn't a lower limit on probability repudiate the
notion of Tegmark, Vilenkin, et al, that there are necessarily duplicate worlds
to ours, if only we go out far enough?
Brent: I don't see why these questions are related. There are only *necessarily* duplicate worlds if there is an
infinity of worlds of a higher order than the information content of a
world.
Norman: I don't understand what "higher order than the
information content of a world" means.
Norman: If you repudiate duplicate worlds, do you also
repudiate infinite space?
Brent: Space could be infinite without there being duplicate
worlds. "Repudiate" is too strong a word. I doubt they are
relevant.
Norman: I asked that because my understanding is that
"In infinite time and space, whatever can happen must happen, not only once but
an infinite number of times." Do you disagree?
Norman: E.g., Alex Vilenkin ("Beyond
the Big Bang," Natural History, July/August 2006, pp 42 - 47) says, "A new
cosmic worldview holds that countless replicas of Earth, inhabited by our
clones, are scattered throughout the cosmos." Vilenkin's view is that this conclusion arises from Alan Guth's theory of
inflation and "false vacuum" put forth in 1980. The unstable false vacuum
(which eternally inflates exponentially) has regions where random quantum
fluctuations cause decay to a true vacuum.
Brent: You can't "go to" those different
universes. Their supposed existence is entirely dependent certain theories
being correct. But those theories are contingent on suppositions about a
quantum theory of spacetime - which is not in hand. So, while I'm willing
to entertain them as hypotheses, I neither accept nor deny their existence.
Norman: The difference in energy of the false vacuum and the
true vacuum results in a "big bang." In the infinity of the false vacuum there
are, therefore, an infinity of "big bangs." The big bangs don't consume
the false vacuum because it inflates faster than the big bangs expand.
Vilenkin figures the distance to our clone at about 10 raised to the 10^90
power, in meters. (This roughly agrees with Tegmark's number.) (An
unanswered question is where and why did this initial infinity of high-energy
false vacuum originate?)
Brent: If one can originate, then any number can. But I
don't see that such an infinity has any implications.
Norman: To me, an initial infinity of high-energy false
vacuum, without an origin, is not logical.I ask the question because
I'm hoping for anhypothesis that is logical.
Norman: Now 10 raised to the 10^90
power is a big number. Therefore the ratio of duplicate Earths to all
worlds is exceedingly small - but not zero! Do you think it should be
zero?
Brent: I think it might be of measure zero. Or there
might not be any duplicate universes.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Are First Person prime?
Brent, That's an interesting explanation of a zero-information universe, which you suggest is implicit in the MWI of QM - yet (like me) you don't necessarily buy MWI.In your view, are there other explanations for quantum mysteries that are more credible? Norman Samish ~~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Well, if 'experience' is the fact of *being* differentiable existence, and 'the physical' is the observable relations thereof, then both ultimately 'supervene' on there being something rather than nothing. No. There being something rather than nothing is only 1 buit of information: not enough for a universe to supervene on. This may not be the problem you think it is. In quantum mechanics there can be negative information and there are some (speculative) theories of the universe that have it originating from at state with only one bit of information. It would still have to generate localised information, and complex supervenient properties would still need something complex to supervene on. A supervenience-base is more than a necessary precondition. Then complexity we see is due to the separation of entangled states by the inflation of the universe. Unitary evolution of the wave-function of the universe must preserve information. In these theories, as my friend Yonatan Fishman put it, "The universe is just nothing, rearranged." But entanglement must generate localised information. It's a somewhat beyond my expertise, but as I understand these theories of cosmogony it's analogous to Hawking radiation: Pair production produces a virtual quantum particle/anti-particle pair. Inflation is so rapid that it pulls them apart and provides the energy to make the virtual particles real particles. They are entangled but they are now separated by billions of lightyears. So the information (complexity) of the world we see can in principle be cancelled out (net zero information as well as matter) as in a quantum erasure experiment, but in practice we cannot access the entangled particle to do so. I think this idea of a zero-information universe is implicit in the MWI of QM. Whenever a random event happens it provides information (per Shannon's defintion), but in MWI everything happens and that provides no information (not that I buy the MWI). Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Quantum Weirdness
Serafino, I regret that I am unable to answer your question - perhaps another list member will volunteer his opinion. Norman ~ - Original Message - From: "scerir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 1:08 PM Subject: Re: Quantum Weirdness Norman Samish:A while back Peter Jones and Brent Meeker independently pointed outthe illogicality of my non-acceptance of both MWI AND "wave-collapse" as explanations of "quantum weirdness." Since the word 'weirdness' is in the subject line, may I ask the following?Has the 'axiom of choice' (I know very little about it, only that famousparadox)something to do, from some epistemic point of view, with the quantum 'collapse/reduction/projection'? -serafino --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Can we ever know truth?
In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I asked my parents andwas discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensicalquestions. I asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say,I still cannot know that what I experience is reality. I can onlyassume that reality ishow things appear to me - and I might be wrong. Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quantum Weirdness
A while back Peter Jones and Brent Meeker independently pointed out the illogicality of my non-acceptance of both MWI AND "wave-collapse" as explanations of "quantum weirdness."They seemed to say that the explanation had to be one or the other. Now I've read whatColin Hales has to say. I find his statements express the reservations I feel. He writes (slightly paraphrased), ". . .a mathematical model (quantum mechanics) that seems to imply multiple universes does not mean that they exist. . . Only that the model makes it look like they do. I can imagine any number of situations where the fuzziness of the ultra-scale world obeys the rules of a QM-like model. For example, the perfectly deterministically repeated trajectory of whatever an electron is made of through 35.4 spatial dimensions is going to look awfully fuzzy to critters observing it as . . .three dimensions. QM depicts fuzziness... and 'aha' the universe is made of QM? Not so. It merely appears to obey the abstraction QM provides us."QM says nothing about what the universe is actually constructed of. It is not constructed of quantum mechanics! It is constructed of something that behaves quantum mechanically." Thank you, Colin Hales. I believe yourremarks apply to any theory. Theories are descriptions of what we think reality may be - they are not reality. Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your statement. It seems to boil down to Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum superpositions. Fair enough. When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. Norman Samish ~~~` - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:35 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: 1Z, I don't know what you mean. That is unfortunate, because as far as I am concerned everyhting I am saying is obvious. (Have you read The fabric of Reality ?) Perhaps I can understand your statement, but only after I get answers to the following questions: 1) What do you mean by Quantum computer? A computer that exploits quantum superpositions to achieve parallelism. 2) What do you mean by Quantum universe? A universe (or multiverse) in which quantum physics is a true description of reality. 3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe? It exploits quantum physics. 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without computational assistance? Superpositions are an implication of quantum mechanics. Schrodinger's Cat was mooted decades before anyone even thought of quantum computaion. Norman - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
I read Fabric of Reality several years ago, but didn't understand it well. I intuitivelyagree with Asher Peres that Deutsch's version of MWI too-flagrantly violatesOccam's Razor. Perhaps I should read it again. I even attended a lecture by John Wheeler, David Deutsch's thesis advisor. He gave me the same sense of unease that FoR did. While I have no better explanation for quantum mysteries,I remainagnostic."MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds." (Wikipedia)I also can't buy "wavefunction collapse." Perhaps some undiscovered phenomenon is responsible for quantum mysteries - e.g., maybe the explanation lies inone or moreof the ten dimensions that string theory requires. Maybe these undiscovered dimensions somehow allow the fabled paired photons to instantly communicate with each other over astronomical distances. This is a WAG (wild-ass guess) of course, but it's more believable to me than new universes being constantly generated. However, I CAN see some logic to the idea that Tegmark introduced me to - the idea that, in infinite space, a multiverse exists containing all possible universes - and we inhabit one of them. I believe that, in infinite time and space, anything that can happen must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. I freely admit that there are a lot of things I can't understand, e.g. more than three physical dimensions, the concept of infinity, time without beginniing or end, and the like. The reason I lurk on this list is to try to gainunderstanding. I sit at the feet of brilliant thinkers and listen.Norman~~- Original Message - From: "1Z" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Everything List" everything-list@googlegroups.comSent: Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:06 AMSubject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: Thanks - with your help plus Wikipedia I now have an hypothesis about your statement. It seems to boil down to "Schrodinger's Cat has nothing to do with quantum computers other than they both depend on quantum superpositions." Correct. Fair enough. When I read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer, it enlarged my concept of all possible realities to include all possible states of quantum superpositions. In half of these S.C. is alive; in half it is dead. That's just standard MWI. BTW, you didn't answer my question about FoR. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
1Z, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps I can understand your statement, but only after I get answers to the following questions: 1) What do you mean by Quantum computer? 2) What do you mean by Quantum universe? 3) Why is a Quantum Computer only possible in a Quantum Universe? 4) Why is Schrodinger's Cat possible in quantum universes without computational assistance? Norman - Original Message - From: 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp Norman Samish wrote: I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Quantum computers are only possible in quantum universes, and in quantum universes, S's C is possible without computational assistance. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Does Heaven exist?
Hi WC, I look forward to seeing your math formulas/theorems etc. supporting the Perfect Universe. Your Perfect Universe sounds like the heaven that many true believers aspire to. There can apparently be as many Heavens as there are Believers, since each believer is free to define the specifications of his particular Heaven. Maybe, if all possible realities exist (as many on this list suggest), everybody's heaven DOES exist - as long as it is possible. I'm told that a lot of people on earth believe that their heaven is a place where qualified male humans would have some number of virgin women at their disposal. Is such a place possible? I can't imagine that it is - but what I can imagine has little to do with the reality we inhabit. Norman - Original Message - From: W. C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 3:58 PM Subject: RE: Bruno's argument - Comp From: Quentin Anciaux Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection. OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*. This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have different special functions. But they are all perfect. They are born with highest self-fulfillment and happiness (if needed) and all resources, no need to follow life cycles (born, aged, sick, death etc.). So a PU is without any wars/crimes/conflicts, any bad things, any natural disasters ... etc. If you want even more, I think I need to write down some math. formulas/theorems etc. But it takes time. Thanks. WC. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bruno's argument - Comp
I recently read somebody's speculation that the reality we inhabit is may be a quantum computer. Presumably when we observe Schrodinger's cat simultaneously being killed and not killed, we are observing the quantum computer in action. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument - Comp To All: I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. What kind of computing unit (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic 'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an intelligent design? Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? Are we reinventing the religion? John Mikes --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
If the characters bother you
John, you can download a freelittle program at http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm that strips all those things from any file you feed it. If the "" characters bother you, give it a try. Norman - Original Message - From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 1:43 PM Subject: Re: Bruno's argument . . . Those marks drive me crazy. too. John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Theory of Nothing available
- Original Message - From: "Russell Standish" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Prof. Standish, Congratulations on publishing what is, at least so far,a fascinating book! I particularly appreciate thatyouhavetaken pains to make it intelligible to non-specialists. I'm looking forward to perusing it. I bought the PDF version from http://www.booksurge.comand they allowed an immediate download. Thanks and best wishes, Norman Samish I'm pleased to announce that my book "Theory of Nothing" is now for sale through Booksurge and Amazon.com. If you go to the Booksurge website (http://www.booksurge.com, http://www.booksurge.co.uk for Brits and http://www.booksurge.com.au for us Aussies) you should get the PDF softcopy bundled with the hardcopy book, so you can start reading straight away, or you can buy the softcopy only for a reduced price. The prices are USD 16 for the hardcopy, and USD 7.50 for the softcopy. In the book, I advance the thesis that many mysteries about reality can be solved by connecting ideas from physics, mathematics, computer science, biology and congitive science. The connections flow both ways - the form of fundamental physics is constrained by our psyche, just as our psyche must be constrained by the laws of physics. Many of the ideas presented in this book were developed over the years in discussions on the Everything list. I make extensive references into the Everything list archoives, as well as more traditional scientific and philosophical literature. This book may be used as one man's synthesis of the free flowing and erudite discussions of the Everything list. Take a look at the book. I should have Amazon's "search inside" feature wokring soon. In the meantime, I have posted a copy of the first chapter, which contains a precis of the main argument, at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/ToN-chapter1.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Number and function for non-mathematician
DearBruno,You have, more than once, referred to somethingI (jokingly) said a month ago: "I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get back to something I can understand!" I said this because I am hungry for more informed speculation on "Why does anything exist?" and related questions. Most recently you have very kindly offeredto help me understand some of the foundation concepts you are so proficient at. I have spent years doing scientific Fortran programming, andamalready familiar withelementary math concepts such astrig, number bases, statistics, differential equationsand the like.It even makes sense to me thatnatural numbers are countable and real numbers are not. However my aged brain is unable, or perhaps unwilling, to exert the time and effort it would take for me to learn concepts such as eigenvalues, diagonalization, Godel's incompleteness theorem,Turing's proof that no algorithm can solve the halting problem, the Universal Dovetailer Argument, etc. I accept those and many otherconceptson faith - enough respected experts(such as yourself) affirm their truth that I have no doubt that they arecorrect. Computationalism makes sense to me, andI do not acceptthis quote from a recent book: " human cognition is too rich to be simulated by computer programs" (Horgan and Tienson 1996, p. 1). Thanks again for your offer, but I do not want you to spend your valuable time attempting to get blood from a turnip. Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: A calculus of personal identity
Interesting notion. I recently read a science fiction story set in the distant future where people could be replicated at will. In the story, it was not uncommon to meet one's clone. The cloneswere treated as separate individuals- perhaps analogous to how identical twins are treated in our society. This seemed reasonable to me. In this contextI think I would NOT be especially disturbed to meet my clone. Norman ~~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: A calculus of personal identity Stathis Papaioannou wrote:Indeed, I would personally find the idea of clones of myself that I could run into quite disturbing, and the more like me they were, the worse it would be. A sobering reflection. ;-) Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Fermi's Paradox
We can all agree, I think, that many among us humans are irrational. What's more, many are obsessed with killing others who don't agree with them. The Conquistadors who killed the Aztecs and Incas because God wished it so and the radical Muslims who kill the infidels because God wishes it so are of the same stripe. It's occurred to me that senseless killings argue for one particular solution of the Fermi Paradox (If aliens exist, where are they?). This solution is that it is the nature of intelligent organisms to destroy themselves as soon as they attain the capability.. The diverse life forms on Earth suggest that the universe is probably teeming with low-order life forms. The lack of evidence to the contrary suggests that there are only a few intelligent life forms. Is this because, as soon as the intelligent life form evolves, it starts warring with itself and self-destructs? This may happen rapidly - there may be only a short time interval (100 or 200 earth-years) where radio transmissions that would be detectable on Earth are made. We haven't detected any transmissions from now-expired societies because the evolution of high-order life forms occurs only rarely, so alien radio transmissions are very rare. If this hypothesis is correct, mankind may be approaching its last days. I hope it's not correct. What do you think? Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fermi's Paradox
Hi Brent, You say, "They (the Spanish)subjugated the Aztecs and Inca for king and gold. European disease may have killed a lot ofthem, but killing them off was not a purpose of the conquistadors - though they were certainlyrevolted by the bloody sacrificial rites of the Aztecs."I am revolted too. And I am also revolted by the bloody treachery of Cortes. One web site said, "Cholula, with a population of 100,000, was the second city of the Aztec empire. It had thrived for more than a millennium. In 1519, Cortés chose Cholula to demonstrate his Christian credentials. He massacred several thousand unarmed members of the Aztec nobility in the central plaza and then burned down much of the city." If you Google "Spanish atrocities Inca Aztec" (without the quotes) you'll find many references. The Spanish Conquest not only subjugated the Aztecs and Inca but destroyed them - along with the cultures of the Caribbean islands. Anyway, all this is beside the point I wanted to make, which is that True Believers, whether Muslim, Christian, or heathen, cause harm, destruction or misfortune, and are therefore evil. My principal question is this: Is this evil inevitable in intelligent life? I suspect it is. And when life gets intelligent enough, and evolved enough, it figures out how to make A-bombs and other WMDs. Then it may exterminate itself or, as you suggested, use up the raw materials accessible to it- and this explains Fermi's Paradox. Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: *THE* PUZZLE (was: ascension, Smullyan, ...)
Gentlemen: I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get back to something I can understand! "Why?" you'll ask. I'll reply, "Because your audience is shrinking! I've plotted the Audience vs. Topic, and find that, in 12.63 months, there is a 91% probability that, if the topic doesn't become understandable to one with an IQ of 120, your audience will be zero, and the only expositor will be Bruno. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but we must acknowledge that Bruno speaks a language that very few of us can understand. Bruno, and probably Russell and a few others, are clearly Homo Superior, while the rest of us are mere Homo Sapiens." You will then say, "Our discourse is meant for Homo Superior. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I'll reply, "Damn! I was hoping to learn something!" Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers
Vic Stenger's site at http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/index.html has much well-presented information and speculation. Thanks for the reference. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] You would like this book by Vic Stenger: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html Vic defends the view that physical laws are based on point-of-view-invariance; that is a constraint we place on what we call a law. As such, they are not really laws constraining nature, they are symmetries that are an absence of 'law' (i.e. structure). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Fw: Numbers
Are you saying that a tape of infinite length, with infinite digits, is not Turing emulable? I don't understand how the 'compiler theorem' makes a 'concrete' machine unnecessary. I agree that the tape can contain an encoding of the Turing machine - as well as anything else that's describable. Nevertheless, it seems to me there has to be a 'concrete' machine executing the tape, irrespective of the contents of the tape. Norman ~ - Original Message - From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:37 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Numbers But the tape can also hold an encoding of the Turing machine to perform the interpretation. This is the essence of the compiler theorem. One can simply iterate this process such that there is no concrete machine interpreting the tape. I think this is another way of putting the UDA. Cheers On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0800, Norman Samish wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hal Finney wrote: The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem. When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7. But they are not really typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to the integers, the information content of the average number is enormous; by some reasoning, infinite. Most numbers are a lot bigger than 2 or 7! They are big enough to hold all of the information in our whole universe; indeed, all of the information in virtually every possible variant of our universe. A single number can (in some sense) hold this much information. How ? Surely this claim needs justification! ~ The single number can be of infinite length, with infinite digits, and can therefore contain unlimited information. One could compare the single number to a tape to a Universal Turing Machine. Granted, the UTM needs a head and a program to read the tape, so the tape by itself is not sufficient to hold information. Norman ` --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Fw: Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: "Hal Finney" wrote: The first is that numbers are really far more complex than they seem. When we think of numbers, we tend to think of simple ones, like 2, or 7. But they are not really typical of numbers. Even restricting ourselves to the integers, the information content of the "average" number is enormous; by some reasoning, infinite. Most numbers are a lot bigger than 2 or 7! They are big enough to hold all of the information in our whole universe; indeed, all of the information in virtually every possible variant of our universe. A single number can (in some sense) hold this much information.How ? Surely this claim needs justification! ~ The single number can be of infinite length, with infinite digits, and can therefore contain unlimitedinformation. One could compare the single numbertoatape to a Universal Turing Machine. Granted, the UTM needs a head and a program to read the tape, so the tape by itself is not sufficient to hold information. Norman ` --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers
(Norman Samish)I don't see how a list of numbers could, by itself, contain anymeaningful information. Sure, a list of numbers could be an executable program,but there has to be an executive program to execute the executableprogram. The multiverse has to therefore consist of more than a matrix ofnumbers which amount to an executable program. (Bruno Marchal)I am not sure what you mean by matrix of numbers. (Norman) I made the implicit assumption thateverything in the multiverse can be precisely described by a tape feeding a universal Turing machine. The tape feeding the UTM is the "matrix of numbers." However, Bruno says the following, which, if I understand him, means he does not agree with my implicit assumption. I'm not clear on what Bruno means by "If comp is true. . ." My notion is that "comp" is the "computation hypothesis," which is that we first-person observers cannot tell if we are a computer simulation. If everything in the multiverse can be precisely described by a tape feeding a UTM, then it seems to me that "comp" must be true. (Bruno, commenting on Georges Quenot) If comp is true the multiverse should not be entirely describable (in any third person term) by any mathematical object. If we are numbers our possibilities go beyond what we can describe in term of mathematical object (and that is why I insist that comp is antireductionist). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:"Another note about numbering. It seems to be that if you repeatedly make descriptions of descriptions, you eventually end up with all 0's or all 1's, showing that numbers describing numbers is meaningless. Does this also prove that numbers do not have a Platonic existence?" I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that descriptions of descriptions must lose accuracy? If so, why must it?Suppose that somethingis described by a tape run on a computer - a universal Turing machine. It seems to me that a "true description" of that tape could only be an identical copy. How could a true description of that tape degenerate into a string of all 0's or all 1's?Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Unprovable Physical Truths and Unwinnable Arguments
Gentlemen: George Levy's moral is correct. George's encounter with his wife reminds me of a similar encounter with my wife. I told her, "Some people feel that there is something rather than nothing because everything can be represented by strings of numbers, and numbers must exist. Do you think that numbers must exist?" She thought about it for a moment then replied, "Yes." I then asked, "Do you agree that this is a reason that something must exist?" She replied, "We've had this discussion. The reason that something must exist is 'Because.' " I have to admit that this seemsas valid a reason as any other I've heard. Norman - Original Message - From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Unprovable Physical Truths and Unwinnable Arguments George: Thanks for this delightful story (..ies?) I met Chaitin once for a brief chat and did not like him: he was too sharp for me (though very friendly). His quoted idea is something I will keep to useagainst closed-minded physicists (or provide it to open-minded wifes of them). John Mikes ~ --- George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a great article entitled "The Limts of Reason" by Gregory Chaitin in the March Issue of Scientific American page 74. I quote: "So perhaps mathematicians should not try to prove everything. Sometimes they should try to add new axioms. That is what you have got to do when you are faced with an irreducible fact. Physicists are willing to add new principles, new scientific laws, to understand new domains of experience... " This caused me to think about unprovable physical truths or impossible measurements. A simple one includes a nice reflective component: "What do you look like in the mirror with the eyes closed?" I tried it on my wife when she was in a good mood. "Darling", I said, "did you ever think about what you look like in the mirror with your eyes closed?" "I know what I look like," she said. "I can imagine it." "Yeah, but you don't really know for sure." "I can find out by taking a photograph of myself with my eyes closed, if I wanted to, but that would be a really stupid thing to do." Ah ha! Now we are getting somewhere, I thought. Maybe I could squeeze in the concept of simultaneity a la Einstein. Then I turned to her and gave her the coup de grace, "Yeah but you won't know what you look like at the precise time you look in the mirror." She looked at me straight in the eyes and said, "George, you are giving me a headache!" The moral of the story is: Do not experiment or argue with your wife. You always come out the loser, even if you win. George Levy Date: 3/3/2006 This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Thanks to all who replied to my question. This question has bothered me for years, and I have hopes that some progress can be made towards an answer. I've heard some interesting concepts, including: (1) "Numbers must exist, therefore 'something' must exist." (2) "Something exists because Nothingness cannot non-Exist." Perhaps the above two are equivalent. With respect to (1) above, why must numbers exist? With respect to (2) above, why can't "nothingness" exist? The trivial answer is that even "nothing" is "something." However, I don't think that this addressesthe real question. A state of pure "NO THING" would forbid eventhe existence of numbers, or of empty space, or of an empty set. It would be non-existence. Non-existenceseems so much simpler thantheinfinity of things, both material and immaterial, that surrounds us. So why are thingshere? (I'm grateful that they are, of course.) Is this a self-consistent, ifunanswerable, question? Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there something rather than nothing? When I heard that Famous Question, I did not assume that nothing was describable - because, if it was, it would not be nothing. I don't think of nothing as an empty bitstring - I think of it as the absence of a bitstring - as no thing. Given that definition, is there a conceivable answer to The Famous Question? Norman --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Belief, faith, truth
Bruno, Thanks for your response. I don't understand why you say my argument is not valid. Granted,much of what you write is unintelligible to me because you are expert in fields of which I know little. Nevertheless, a cat can look at a king. Here is what we've said so far: (Norman ONE) My conjecture is that a perfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible. If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible. (Bruno ONE) This could be a reasonable conjecture. I have explain on the list that if we are a simulation then indeed after a finite time we could have strong evidence that this is the case, for example by discoveries of discrepancies between the "comp-physics" and the "observed physics". (Norman TWO) Humans have not made the discovery that they are simulations, therefore the mostPROBABLE (emphasis added)situation is that we are not simulations.(Bruno TWO) This argument is not valid. The reason is that if we could be "correct" simulation (if that exists), then that would remain essentially undecidable. (Then I could argue the premise is false. Violation of bell's inequalities could be taken as an argument that we are in a simulation (indeed in the infinity of simulation already "present" in the "mathematical running" of a universal dovetailer, or arithmetical truth.) (Norman THREE) I don't understand the part of "Bruno TWO" in parentheses - I'm not asking you to explain it to me. Are you saying that a perfect simulation would not necessarily discover it was a simulation? If so, I agree. This is supported in"Bruno ONE" where you said it was reasonable that if we are a simulation we would, in finite time,discover that this is the case. Therefore it seems to me that mystatement in "NormanTWO" is correct - note my inclusion of the word "probable."Do you agree? Or am I missing your point? Norman
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
- Original Message - From: "Quentin Anciaux" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 2:59 AM Subject: Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth Hi Norman, Le Jeudi 2 Février 2006 07:14, Norman Samish a écrit : (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicatemy brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. Buteven if it did,this would not be "me" returning from the dead - it wouldbe a simulation by a AI.What is "you" then? How do you define it? Like I said in an earlier mail, "me" seems to be an instantaneous and emerging concept... The Norman in the simulation would say he is "him"... Talking about indexical reference when talking about future/past/copied self has no meaning... Or please define what is "you".Quentin Anciaux ~ Hi Quentin, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I have to guess what you mean by"instantaneous and emerging concept" and "indexical reference." I'm unskilled in the nuances of scientific philosophy. Nevertheless, I am able to reason and draw conclusions. I agree that nothing is certain- we all deal in probabilities. I think that it is highly probable that I am aunique (in our universe) self-aware organism writing this note. That's what I define as "me." I think it is highly unlikely thatsome hypothetical AI could makea Norman simulation that is unaware it is a simulation. Such a simulation would, of course,think it was "me." But it would be mistaken. I think there is one"truth," which is thatit is a simulation and I am the real thing. My conjecture is thataperfect simulation by a limited-resource AI would not be possible.If this is correct, then self-aware simulations that are perpetually unaware that they are simulations would not be possible.Humans havenot made the discovery that they are simulations,therefore the most probable situation is that we are not simulations. Norman
Re: Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi Danny, Thanks for your interesting comments. I've responded below. Norman Norman Samish wrote: Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is. Actually, with all due respect to John, I failed to see how his original message (below) in any way illustrated "how ridiculous" the concept of heaven is. It may suggest that it is inconceivable that we could live for eternity leading anything like the life we know now, but his points aren't in the slightest pursuasive to me. I think the problem is a lack of imagination. Why would I have to choose to spend the afterlife with a certain spouse. I would assume the ties that bind us together here probably wouldn't apply. Why would I need to choose a body to be in that matched something from this earlier stage? I'll readily concede all of this is pure speculation, and so I'll just stop here and say that I think assumptions that an afterlife would be ridiculous is as much speculation as assumptions in a specific afterlife experience. (NS) OK, I can't speak for you, only for me. The concept of an afterlife - heaven, hell, or whatever - is ridiculous TO ME. I can't prove anafterlife doesn't exist - maybe it does with some minute probability - but if so it's existence is immaterial to me since I can't communicate with it. - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be cognizant. Now this statement is fraught with all kinds of issues and problems for me. Clearly you do not accept the QTI. No problem there. I've never really sold myself on that either. But if it is true that our focus for understanding should be on the first person, is there any meaning in saying you are dead "never again" to be aware? Isn't it just crazy speculation on your part that anything is continuing? (NS) No - I don't think it's "crazy speculation." That term, in my view, would apply to after-death awareness. This viewpoint is logical because it is supported by my experience, which tells me that there is no convincing evidence that anybody's awareness has continued beyond their death. And even if we accept there is some "reality" or "truth" to the world "out there"- the objective appearing environment that we seem to interact in- are you saying we are to assume that it will continue for ever and ever, but never replicate your experiences that you had in your life? Or perhaps we should assume that it should end at some point, and that there will never be another multiverse. Was all of this a one time deal? If so, how do you explain such a "miracle" without invoking some intelligence. How can something (big bang) happen only once in all of existence and be a natural phenomenon? (NS) I can't speak for a multiverse. I agree that a multiverse consisting of all possible universes may exist, and may even be required if space-time is infinite. All possible universes must include an infinity of universes identical to this one. But, to me, this is meaningless speculation since there is no way to communicate between these hypothetical universes. My doppelganger in an identical universe can have no influence on my fate in my own universe. He is irrelevant.It seems to me that at least from a perspective, the "block multiverse" view makes sense. It must exist eternally- I just can't wrap my mind around a "pre-existence" era or a "post existence" era. A careful examination of time does seem to suggest that, as D. Deutsch says, "different times are just special cases of different universes," each existing eternally from at least some perspective.I'm not so sure that there are yes/no answers to many of the questions that we ask. Even a question such as "is there a god" may have an answer that depends on your location in time or in the multiverse. If it is ever possible in the future to replicate my experiences on a computer through artificial intelligence, and the AI me asks the question, then obviously the answer should be yes. But perhaps there really was a natural, fundamental reality in which the original me existed in which the answer would be no. Or take a Tipler-like theory that has the universe evolving to the point that it can replicate or emulate itself. The question "is there a god" at the point that a universal computer exists would be yes, while the question at some prior point would be at best "unknown." (NS) I don't deny that a future AI might be able to accurately replicate my brain and thought patterns. I can't imagine why it would want to. But even if it did, this wou
Fw: belief, faith, truth
Hi John, Your rhetorical questions about "heaven" point out how ridiculous the concept is - and no, I don't think heaven, hell, etc., are even remotely likely. I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead, never again to be congnizant. The thing I'm agnostic about (defining "agnostic" as"without knowledge") is whether aninfinitely powerfulGod isreponsible for the universe we see. And if this God exists, why? And where did IT come from? If you havean answerto "Why does anything exist?" I'd be glad to hear it. With respect to the personal gods that much of humanity prays to and hasfaith in,I think they're the result of human nature, fables, fiction, and the machinations of priests. The fact that so many have "faith" that these gods exist is dire testimony about a flaw inhumanity that embraces the irrational. Even though I don't think that personal gods exist, there arebenefits to having faith that they do. As Kevin Ryan said, there is comfort in submission. Norman ~ - Original Message ----- From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Norman Samish" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Norman:just imagine a fraction of the infinite afterlife: to sing the pius chants for just 30,000 years by 'people' in heaven with Alzheimers, arthritis, in pain and senility? Or would you choose an earlier phase of terrestrial life for the introduction in heaven: let us say: the fetal age? or school-years with the mentality of a teenager? Would you love spouse No 1,2,or 3? Would you forget about the biggest blunder you did and regretted all your life? Or would you prefer the eternal brimstone-burning (what a waste in energy) without a painkiller?I did not ask about your math, how many are involved over the millennia? I asked a Muslim lately, what the huris are and what the female inhabitants of heaven get? An agnostic has to define what he does 'not' know, hasn't he? Just as an atheist requires a god 'not' to believe in. We are SOOO smart!Have a good dayJohn M--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if thereis no God, those that decide to have faith, and havethe ability to have faith, in a benign God havegained quite a bit. They have faith in anafterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph ofgood over evil, etc. Without this faith, life formany would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and theyget a zero. If there is a God, there is an afterlife and they get infinity. So how can they lose?Maybe Pascal's Wager deserves more consideration. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Even within the context that Pascal intended it isfallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham andthere is no god, you have given up freedom ofthought, you have given up responsibility for yourown morals and ethics, you have denied yourself somepleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of theflesh.It's a bad bargain. Brent Meeker “The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed toeverything I hold in veneration- courage, clearthinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love ofthe truth.” --- H. L. Mencken Stathis Papaioannou wrote: . . . if you believe in the Christian Godand are wrong, the real God (who may be worshippedby an obscure group numbering a few dozen people, orby aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and maypunish you. An analogous situation arises whencreationists demand that the Biblical version ofevents be taught alongside evolutionary theory inschools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths ofevery religious sect should be taught. - StathisPapaioannou
Re: belief, faith, truth
I'm agnostic, yet it strikes me that even if there is no God, those that decide to have faith, and have the ability to have faith,in a benign Godhave gained quite a bit. They have faith in an afterlife, in ultimate justice, in the triumph of good over evil, etc. Without this faith, life for many would be intolerable. If there is no God, there is no afterlife and they get a zero. If there is a God, there is an after life and they get infinity. So how can they lose?Maybe Pascal's Wagerdeserves more consideration. Norman Samish ~~ - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:25 PM Subject: Re: belief, faith, truth Even within the context that Pascal intended it is fallacious. If you worship the God of Abraham and there is no god, you have given up freedom of thought, you have given up responsibility for your own morals and ethics, you have denied yourself some pleasures of the mind as well as pleasures of the flesh.It's a bad bargain.Brent Meeker “The Christian religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth.” --- H. L. MenckenStathis Papaioannou wrote: That's right: if you believe in the Christian God and are wrong, thereal God (who may be worshipped by an obscure group numbering a fewdozen people, or by aliens, or by nobody at all) may be angry and maypunish you. An analogous situation arises when creationists demand thatthe Biblical version of events be taught alongside evolutionary theoryin schools: if we are to be fair, the creation myths of every religioussect should be taught. - Stathis Papaioannou On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:36:46AM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: [Incidently, can you see the logical flaw in Pascal's Wager as described above?] I always wondered why it should be the Christian account of God andHeaven that was relevant.
Re: Technical paper on 3-dimensional time
I realize that there are unsolved problems in quantum mechanics that can be solved by adding dimensions, whether spatial or time. I also know that added dimensions are describable mathematically, and that some (Tegmark) hold that this makes them real. However, as Jonathan points out with respect to Geddes's speculation, extra dimensions are not yet testable. Until they are, we can just as well invoke fairy dust - or God - or whatever - to explain the QM problems. ~Norman - Original Message - From: Johnathan Corgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Marc Geddes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:23 AM Subject: Re: Technical paper on 3-dimensional time Marc Geddes wrote: This is very recent (late 2005): http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0510010 I've read this and the author's prior two papers on multi-dimensional time. It appears that his mathematical formulation is able describe a variety of quantum-mechanical properties by adding one or more additional time dimensions to the classical derivations of motion, momentum, energy, etc. As a result he ends up with a 3-space, 3-time dimension theory that is simple and elegant. (The additional two time dimensions are closed loops on the scale of the Plank length.) I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on the subject to pick out any logical errors. However, the papers are somewhat disorganized so it's hard to see what assumptions are being made or what contradictions with established theories or experiment there might be. This also may be a language issue as it's clear English is not the author's native tongue. But--the papers do not make any testable predictions that I can see, which is a big red flag. In addition, the author is a wave function collapse kind of guy. I'm curious how his derivation would hold up from the MWI perspective. -Johnathan
Re: Lobian Machine
Stathis, Yes, it is frightening, especially since (I think) I am an engineer, married with adult children, own the house you are living in and the car in the driveway, and so on. That is a vivid description. But even as I am being hauled away to the psychiatric ward, can I not logically cling to at least one belief? According to Wikipedia, Rene Descartes said, But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17) Norman ~~ If I am sane, it is impossible to know for sure that I am sane. Everybody believes he is sane, whether he is sane or not, and nobody can prove he is sane. In psychiatry, this is the key problem with delusions. If it were possible in general to prove one's own sanity, then deluded patients, who more often than not retain their ability to think logically, would be able to demonstrate to themselves that they were deluded. But by definition of a delusion, this is impossible. If you want to know what it is like for a psychotic patient to have forced treatment, imagine that people from the local psychiatric facility knock on your door tonight and, after interviewing you, politely explain that your belief that you are an engineer, married with adult children, own the house you are living in and the car in the driveway, and so on, is actually all a systematised delusion. All the evidence you present to show you are sane is dismissed as part of the delusion, and all the people you thought you could trust explain that they agree with the psychiatric team. You are then invited to start taking an antipsychotic drug which, over time, will rectify your deranged brain chemistry so that you come to understand that your current beliefs are delusional. If you refuse the medication, you will be taken to the psychiatric ward with the help of police, if necessary, where you will again be offered medication, perhaps in injection form if you continue to refuse tablets. Frightening, isn't it? Stathis Papaioannou
Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes: If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. ~~ I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it any more pointless than anything that can happen (or a subset thereof) happening only once, or a finite number of times? --Stathis Papaioannou ~~ That's a good question, forcing me to realize that I have an irrational fuzzy feeling that there should be a point to it all that I can understand, and that a sequence of events should occur only once. Implicit in these feelings is the assumption that there is some kind of God which designed the multiverse for some reason, and keeps track of all events. I suppose my early first cause training is at work. I think now that the premises of the First Cause argument are unproven.
Re: Let There Be Something
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe has been played in the past, and will be played in the future, over and over again. How strange and pointless it all seems. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Let There Be Something Tom Caylor writes: I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense to me.) Rather, what it explains better than many other theories is why the universe looks the way it does. Why is the universe like THIS rather than like THAT? Why are the physical constants what they are? Why are there three dimensions rather than two or four? These are hard questions for any physical theory. Multiverse theories generally sidestep these issues by proposing that all universes exist. Then they explain why we see what we do by invoking anthropic reasoning, that we would only see universes that are conducive to life. Does this really not explain anything? I would say that it explains that there are things that don't need to be explained. Or at least, they should be explained in very different terms. It is hard to say why the universe must be three dimensional. What is it about other dimensionalities that would make them impossible? That doesn't make sense. But Tegmark shows reasons why even if universes with other dimensionalities exist, they are unlikely to have life. The physics just isn't as conducive to living things as in our universe. That's a very different kind of argument than you get with a single universe model. Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do. The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory principle that has real value in helping us understand why the world is as we see it. In time, I hope we will see complexity theory elevated in a similar way, as Russell Standish discusses in his Why Occam's Razor paper. Ideally we will be able to get evidence some day that the physical laws of our own universe are about as simple as you can have and still expect life to form and evolve. In conjunction with acceptance of generalized Occam's Razor, we will have a very good explanation of the universe we see. Hal Finney
Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*
Hi John, Good question: Do I "prefer theunprovable proof or the hypothetical reality?" Unfortunately,an "unprovable proof," or a "hypothetical reality"are, to me at least, self-copntradictory, hence meaningless - (as you meant them to be). However, I suspect that"unprovable proofs" and "hypothetical realities" are acceptable to some.For example, in one versionof an unprovable, unfalsifiable, hypothetical reality, I can't tell if I'm a computer simulation or if I'm in the "real" universe. If it hasn't been proposed before, let me offer the "Norman Hypothesis." It's probably not falsifiable or provable, but I haven't let that slow me down. In the Norman Hypothesis,there is no "real" universe. Turing Machine X simulates Turing Machine Y, which simulates Turing MachineZ, . . ., which simulates Turing Machine X. But seriously, folks, I'm not mockinganybody who reads this list.You people have taught me a lot, and my over-taxed brain is full of sore muscles. I'm grateful, if annoyed I can't understand it with less effort. Norman ~~~~~~~- Original Message - From: "John M" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Norman Samish" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 11:39 AMSubject: Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*Norman, I wonder which one do you prefer:The unprovable proof, or The Hypothetical reality?John M
Re: What Computationalism is and what it is *not*
Hal Finney, You say, . . . the Church Thesis, which I would paraphrase as saying that there are no physical processes more computationally powerful than a Turing machine, or in other words that the universe could in principle be simulated on a TM. I wouldn't be surprised if most people who believe that minds can be simulated on TMs also believe that everything can be simulated on a TM. I'm out of my depth here, but this doesn't make sense to me. My understanding is that the Turing Machine is a hypothetical device. If one could be built that operated at faster-than-light or infinite speed, maybe it could, in principle, simulate the universe. However, this isn't possible. Does this mean that the Church Thesis, hence computationalism, is, in reality, false? Norman Samish
Re: subjective reality
Hi Saibal, While my simple mind believes that mathematical existence = physical existence, I do not assume that we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it. To me, the reason that mathematical existence means physical existence is that in infinite space and time, everything that can exist must exist. If it's describable mathematically, then it can exist, somewhere in the multiverse - therefore it must exist. Tegmark claims, for example, that in his Level I multiverse, there is an identical copy of (me) about 10^10^29 meters away. (arXiv:astro-ph/0302131 v1 7 Feb 2003) Norman ~~ - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 7:10 AM Subject: Re: subjective reality Hi Godfrey, It is not clear to me why one would impose constraints such as locality etc. here. Ignoring the exact details of what Bruno (and others) are doing, it all all boils down to this: Does there exists an algorithm that when run on some computer would generate an observer who would subjectively perceive his virtual world to be similar to the world we live in (which is well described by the standard model and GR). The quantum fields are represented in some way by the states of the transistors of the computer. The way the computer evolves from one state to the next, of course, doesn't violate ''our laws of physics''. It may be the case that the way the transistors are manipulated by the computer when interpreted in terms of the quantum fields in the ''virtual world'' would violate the laws of physics of that world. But this is irrelevant, because the observer cannot violate the laws of physics in his world. Also, if you believe that ''mathematical existence= physical existence'', then you assume that we owe our existence to the mere existence of the algorithm, not a machine that executes it. Saibal
Re: How did it all begin?
Hi Godfrey, Thanks for the ID. Now I know that Godfrey is one of the mind-stretchers on this list. I hope that Saibal will eventually tell us the reason(s) for Dishonorable Mention. I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the beginning of It to Inflation. But he didn't appear to address how, or why, Inflation got started. I guess his definition of It ends with our Big Bang. Thinking of Big Bangs, or anything else, as a logical process that occurs without causality isn't something I'm able to do. But I'll keep reading! Norman ~~ - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:04 AM Subject: Re: How did it all begin? Hi Saibal, Norman I did not mean to intervene but so that my name is not called in vain (:-) I would like to mention that, yes, I read Tegmark's paper and enjoyed it much though I could not help but notice that, though he promises, he never gets to Level IV (my favorite) on this paper, to my regret. I don't think that was the reason for the dishonorable mention, though! I surely wasn't heard about it.. As to whom am I? Still trying to find out... Regards, Godfrey Kurtz (New Brunswick, NJ) ~~ -Original Message- From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:57:54 -0700 Subject: Re: How did it all begin? This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention? Who is Godfrey? - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:14 AM Subject: How did it all begin? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429 Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
Re: How did it all begin?
Hi Stephen, Thanks for your comments. I'm not a physicist. Still, my logic tells me you must be right about Existence having no Beginning - what could the alternative be? Nevertheless, I have to confess that the concept of something that is eternal, without beginning or end, is, to me, impossible to comprehend in other than an abstract way. And, I'm told, in infinite time and space, anything that can exist must exist, not only once but an infinite number of times. This is another key concept I'm not equipped to understand. I was greatly impressed by Tegmark's article in Scientific American about the multiverse. In fact, my curiosity about this led me to the Everything List. Could you explain why it is you feel that he misdirects thoughts? Norman - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: Re: How did it all begin? Dear Friends, Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning? We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big Bang Event Horizon, but this event itself must have some form of antecedent that Exists. Remember, existence, per say, does not depend on anything, except for maybe self-consistency, and thus it follows that Existence itself can not have a beginning. It follows that it is Eternal, without beginning or end. IMHO, Tegmark's paper, like the rest of his papers, is not worth reading if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts. Onward! Stephen ~~ - Original Message - From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 5:19 PM Subject: Re: How did it all begin? Hi Godfrey, Thanks for the ID. Now I know that Godfrey is one of the mind-stretchers on this list. I hope that Saibal will eventually tell us the reason(s) for Dishonorable Mention. I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the beginning of It to Inflation. But he didn't appear to address how, or why, Inflation got started. I guess his definition of It ends with our Big Bang. Thinking of Big Bangs, or anything else, as a logical process that occurs without causality isn't something I'm able to do. But I'll keep reading! Norman
Re: How did it all begin?
This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention? Who is Godfrey? - Original Message - From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:14 AM Subject: How did it all begin? http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429 Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) ) How did it all begin? Authors: Max Tegmark Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention How did it all begin? Although this question has undoubtedly lingered for as long as humans have walked the Earth, the answer still eludes us. Yet since my grandparents were born, scientists have been able to refine this question to a degree I find truly remarkable. In this brief essay, I describe some of my own past and ongoing work on this topic, centering on cosmological inflation. I focus on (1) observationally testing whether this picture is correct and (2) working out implications for the nature of physical reality (e.g., the global structure of spacetime, dark energy and our cosmic future, parallel universes and fundamental versus environmental physical laws). (2) clearly requires (1) to determine whether to believe the conclusions. I argue that (1) also requires (2), since it affects the probability calculations for inflation's observational predictions.
Re: subjective reality
Bruno, I don't know what you mean by this comment. Could you please go into more detail? I realize this is speculation, nevertheless I'd like to know what your speculation is. Thanks, Norman Samish ~~~ - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 10:54 AM Subject: Rép : subjective reality . . . The next millenia? It will be pschhht! or, something like an uncontrollable creative big bang, from what I smell from comp.
Re: subjective reality
Bruno, You speak of God. Could you define what you, as a logician, mean? Thanks, Norman ~~ An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e asyness comes from the fact that it does not really explained how to make the derivation. The second part is a translation of that argument in the language of the universal machine itself. This, by the constraints of theoretical ccomputer science, makes the proof constructive, so that it gives the complete derivation of physics from computer science. Of course God is a little malicious, apparently, and we are led to hard intractable purely mathematical questions. You are welcome, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Re: Re: subjective reality]
Even though the theory of relativity says that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, why does that make it nonsensical to talk about objective reality? I realize that different observers must see different versions of events, but so what? In our 3+1 dimensional universe, couldn't objective reality be defined as the state of events at a time slice, as though the universe had frozen at the instant chosen? Granted, we can't know what this distant objective reality is until we wait for the photons to reach us, but that doesn't make it nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the discovery. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: danny mayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything list everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: [Fwd: Re: subjective reality] Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to even talk about reality.? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the only reality you say, is forever separated from what it is possible for us to experience, or to know. Therefore, in contemplating objective reality, we might as well be contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In a way you are certainly right, but in another way I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about objective reality either. For instance, under the theory of relativity different observers can observe the same events happening in alternative sequences, and happening at different times. Yet neither observer is wrong. So, for example in that event you can not speak of an objective sequence of events or time. And of course we are all aware of the role the observer plays in the development of quantum events. It seems to me that the observer is so intimately entagled with the reality of what he is observing that it makes just as little sense to talk about objective reality as it does subjective. However, this is not to say I do not believe in something like an objective reality; a way in which our world works that can be understood and studied and applies to all observers. But by the same token I believe in the concept of a subjective reality as complementary to that and as something with meaning. Danny Mayes John M wrote: Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the subject phrase. Does it make sense? Reality is supposed to be something independent from our personal manipulations (=1st person interpretation) and so it has got to be objective, untouched by our experience and emotions. Eo ipso it is not subjective. Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its own distortions it is subjective, not objective anymore. So it looks like subjective reality is an oxymoron. I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the 'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we CAN handle in our feeble minds. I would not call THAT a 'reality'. It seems to be a 'virtuality' as generated (even if only in modifications if you insist) WITHIN our mind, subject to our personal mental structure and content. I am not ashamed to say: I dunno, but it seems to me... in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'. John M (the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion) -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 8/7/2005
What if computation is unrepeatable?
http://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.AO/0506030 shows the following abstract, suggesting that complex computations are not precisely repeatable. Doesn't Bruno's Computation Hypothesis imply that computations ARE precisely repeatable? Modern computer microprocessors are composed of hundreds of millions of transistors that interact through intricate protocols. Their performance during program execution may be highly variable and present aperiodic oscillations. In this paper, we apply current nonlinear time series analysis techniques to the performances of modern microprocessors during the execution of prototypical programs. While variability clearly stems from stochastic variations for several of them, we present pieces of evidence strongly supporting that performance dynamics during the execution of several other programs display low-dimensional deterministic chaos, with sensibility to initial conditions comparable to textbook models. Taken together, these results confirm that program executions on modern microprocessor architectures can be considered as complex systems and would benefit from analysis with modern tools of nonlinear and complexity science.
Re: How did he get his information?
Bruno, Stathis et al, What you say is clearly true. It's as though expertise in one field convinces some people, often those in charge surrounded by sycophants, that anything they say must be true. This is deplorable because these aberrant statements undermine all the true statements they have made. Just because Einstein or Marchal or Samish says it's so doesn't make it so. That's hard to accept. That means that everything I'm told I have to personally reason through in order to accept it - I can't accept things at face value - if I do I make mistakes. (I make mistakes in any case, but try to minimize them!) I hope that contributors to this list will keep this in mind. If you want to convince me of something, please make your argument convincing - include references, avoid jargon. I can't accept it just because you say so. Norman ~~~ - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 1:23 AM Subject: Re: How did he get his information? Le 03-juil.-05, à 06:55, Stephen Paul King a écrit : Charlatan, maybe... I have discovered that *many* scientist can be serious in a field and very bad or even charlatan in another field. It is certainly a reason to be skeptic of all authoritative arguments. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
How did he get his information?
Dr. Raj Baldev has explained the history of over 1 trillion 250,000 billion years before the Big Bang. . . Read more at http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=641
Re: How did he get his information?
Lee, Stephen, Stathis, Jonathan, Thanks for your illuminating responses. I went to http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=641 and left a message telling them that I objected to the slur on Hawking, and that I thought Dr. Baldev was a charlatan. I also rated the article as Bad, the worst available rating. Somebody responded with thanks. In addition to their gratitude, I noticed that my Bad rating of the article had been magically transformed into Good. Norman - Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 8:59 PM Subject: RE: How did he get his information? After about 9 months from the release of the book of Dr. Raj Baldev, Stephen Hawking, one of the noted authorities on Black Hole changed his idea about the Black Hole. Hawking was of the firm opinion that nothing could escape from the Black Hole, not even light and nothing could come out of it. But in July 2004, at 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, he admitted his mistake that he was wrong for thirty years. Hawking wrong about nothing could escape black holes? Has the writer never heard of Hawking radiation? Hawking began writing about black holes evaporating as far back as the 1970s. I think he's talking about Hawking changing his mind as to whether information can escape from black holes. Hawking always said radiation can escape, but believed all information was destroyed. He changed his mind about that. The above quote is pure bovine excrement. Baldev probably got his doctorate in farming technology. Jonathan Colvin
Re: How did he get his information?
Thanks for the interesting detective work. He seems to have had a very distinguished career - one that is not that of a charlatan. But how could somebody with such a distinguished record suddenly promote all these weird ideas? Is he becoming unbalanced? Is my information incorrect? If the attack on Hawking occurred as reported, that behavior is unprofessional at best. Norman - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 9:55 PM Subject: Re: How did he get his information? Hi Norman, On a lark I Googled and found: http://www.igcar.ernet.in/igc2004/balbio.htm His specializations include materials characterization, testing and evaluation using nondestructive evaluation methodologies, materials development and performance assessment and technology management. He has steered and participated in many national programmes of great significance namely DST project on Intelligent Processing of Materials, Characterization of Cultural Heritage, IAF programmes of ageing management, Dept. of Space and Dept. of Defence programmes. He has 33 years of experience, which has led to many first of its kind observations and discoveries in the field of materials characterization and applications. He is known for his contributions to KAMINI Reactor, hot cell facilities for examination and reprocessing of fuels and reactor technology particularly in the area of materials and manufacturing technologies. Charlatan, maybe... Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 12:27 AM Subject: Re: How did he get his information? Lee, Stephen, Stathis, Jonathan, Thanks for your illuminating responses. I went to http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=641 and left a message telling them that I objected to the slur on Hawking, and that I thought Dr. Baldev was a charlatan. I also rated the article as Bad, the worst available rating. Somebody responded with thanks. In addition to their gratitude, I noticed that my Bad rating of the article had been magically transformed into Good. Norman -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005
Have all possible events occurred?
Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. Stathis, When you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible events have occurred? Norman
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? Brent Meeker writes: Spacetime could be infinite without everything possible existing. It might even depend on how you define possible. Are all real numbers possible? Norman Samish writes: Brent, to me this is cryptic. Can you enlarge on what you mean? Your statement seems to contradict what I've read, more than once; In infinite space and time, anything that can occur must occur, not only once but an infinite number of times. I don't know the author or source, but I've assumed this is a mathematical truism. Am I wrong? As for Are all real numbers 'possible'? According to the definitions I use, the answer, of course, is yes. I obviously do not understand the point you are trying to make. Norman
Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Stephen Paul King, Thanks for your kind reply, which I am struggling with. You seem to be saying that something can exist yet not occur. Whether it occurs depends on relations and context. Can you give me supporting information, hopefully intelligible to one who does not have degrees in math, physics or philosophy? Perhaps I can learn something important. This somehow reminds me of Schrödinger's Cat, which I also struggle with. I'm a hard-headed engineer. To me, Schrödinger's Cat must be either alive or dead - I can't believe this both-alive-and-dead-until-observed stuff! There's got to be another answer to the questions that the dual-state cat resolves. Norman - Original Message - From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:06 AM Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred? Dear Norman, You ask a very important question! As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to occurance. I would argue that *occurance* is relational and contextual and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all possible OMs, Copies, Worlds, or whatever, DOES NOT NECESSITATE *Occurance*. It merely allows the *possibility*. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 11:22 AM Subject: Have all possible events occurred? Stathis Papaioannou writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there will always be at least one version of you who will definitely experience whatever outcome you are leaving to chance. Probability is just a first person experience of a universe which is in fact completely deterministic, because we cannot access the parallel worlds where our copies live, and because even if we could, we can only experience being one person at a time. Stathis, When you say if you believe that everything possible exists are you implying that everything possible need NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time? If you believe that everything possible exists, does this not mean that there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible events have occurred? Norman -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.1/28 - Release Date: 6/24/2005
Re: copy method important?
I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: rmiller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: copy method important? All, Though we're not discussing entanglement per se, some of these examples surely meet the criteria. So, my thought question for the day: is the method of copying important? Example #1: we start with a single marble, A. Then, we magically create a copy, marble B--perfectly like marble B in every way. . .that is, the atoms are configured similarly, the interaction environment is the same--and they are indistinguishable from one another. Example #2: we start with a single marble A. Then, instead of magically creating a copy, we search the universe, Tegmarkian-style, and locate a second marble, B that is perfectly equivalent to our original marble A. All tests both magically avoid QM decoherence problems and show that our newfound marble is, in fact, indistinguishable in every way from our original. Here's the question: Are the properties of the *relationship* between Marbles A and B in Example #1 perfectly equivalent to those in Example #2? If the criteria involves simply analysis of configurations at a precise point in time, it would seem the answer must be yes. On the other hand, if the method by which the marbles were created is crucial to the present configuration, then the answer would be no. R. Miller -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.8/22 - Release Date: 6/17/2005
Re: copy method important?
Hal, Isn't it possible that decision processes of the brain, hence consciousness, DOES depend critically on quantum states? My understanding of the workings of the brain is that my action, whether thought or deed, is determined by whether or not certain neurons fire. This depends on many other neurons. So the brain can be in a state of delicate balance, where it could be impossible to predict whether or not the neuron fires. We all have to make decisions where the pluses apparently equal the minuses. It would take very little to tip the balance one way or the other. Perhaps, at the deepest level, the route we take depends on whether an electron has left or right polarization, or some other quantum property - which we agree can't be measured. If this is true, then perhaps Free Will (or at least behavior that is, in principle, unpredictable) does exist. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: Re: copy method important? I'm no physicist, but doesn't Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle forbid making exact quantum-level measurements, hence exact copies? If so, then all this talk of making exact copies is fantasy. Norman Samish You can't *specifically* copy a quantum state, but you can create systems in *every possible* quantum state (of a finite size), hence you can make an ensemble which contains a copy of a given quantum system. You can't say which specific item in the ensemble is the copy, but you can make a copy. That may or may not be sufficient for a particular thought experiment to go forward. In practice most people believe that consciousness does not depend critically on quantum states, so making a copy of a person's mind would not be affected by these considerations. Hal Finney
Re: collapsing quantum wave function
Thank you for the fascinating quantum analogue of my ten ball experiment, where you use electrons instead of steel balls. You destroy the electron in the third Penning trap and then point out that electron number 3 was NOT destroyed, because electrons are not individuals. Instead, (If I interpret correctly) we have 9 electrons distributed among ten Penning traps, with equal probability in their distribution. If we now examine each of the Penning traps for the existence of an electron, what do we find? My guess is that we would find nine electrons in the ten traps, and one empty trap. The identity of the empty trap would presumably be unpredictable. Is my guess correct? I don't dispute this, but you are certainly correct when you say This may sound ridiculous. . . This vividly demonstrates quantum weirdness. Norman Samish - Original Message - Patrick Leahy wrote: Quantum uncertainty is better thought of as both at once rather than either or. Here's a quantum analogue of your experiment. Take ten electrons held in a row of Penning traps (magnetic bottles that can hold single electrons) labelled 1 to 10 (the label is attached to the trap). Introduce an anti-electron into trap number 3, causing an annihilation, so we now have 9 electrons, held in traps 1, 2 and 4 to 10. Does this mean that electron number 3 was destroyed? No, because since electrons *are* genuinely identical, they are not individuals. The wavefunction for any group of electrons is always a perfect mixture of all possible identity assignments, e.g. electron 1 in trap 1, 2 in trap 2 etc plus electron 2 in trap 1, 1 in trap 2 etc. This may sound ridiculous, but without this feature matter as we know it simply wouldn't exist, since it underlies the Pauli exclusion principle and hence the structure of atoms and all chemical properties. Paddy Leahy
collapsing quantum wave function
Jonathan Colvin wrote: If I take a loaf of bread, chop it half, put one half in one room and one half in the other, and then ask the question where is the loaf of bread?, we can likely agree that the question is ill-posed. Depending on definitions, this may indeed be an ill-posed question. On the other hand, with appropriate definitions, the question might be answered by The loaf is half in one room and half in the other, or The loaf no longer exists. This reminds me of my problems trying to understand the collapsing quantum wave function. I've heard of Schrödinger's Cat, which I'm told is half alive - half dead until the box is opened and the cat is observed. This observation collapses the quantum wave function, and the cat at that point is either alive or dead. Here's a variation. Is my interpretation correct? Suppose we take ten apparently identical ball bearings and put stickers on each with the identifiers 1 through 10. We leave the room where the balls with stickers are, and a robot removes the stickers and mixes the balls up so that we don't which ball is which. However, the robot remembers which sticker belongs on which ball. We come back into the room and pick one ball at random to destroy by melting it in an electric furnace. If at this point we ask What is the probability that the destroyed ball is ball '3'? we can truthfully answer My memory tells me that the destroyed ball has a one in ten probability of being '3.' However, by reviewing the robot's record we can see that 6 was, in fact, the one destroyed. Does this mean that the quantum wave functions of all ten balls collapsed at the moment we viewed the record and observed what happened to 6? Or did the wave function never exist, since the robot's record always showed the identity of the destroyed ball, irrespective of whether a human observed this identity or not?
Re: objections to QTI
Hal, I agree. It seems clear to me that the urge of nature to increase the entropy of the universe is the engine behind everything we see happening, including life and evolution. Why did life occur? Why, to increase the entropy of the universe! How did life occur? Well, you mix some chemicals together and cook them and proteins appear. Then the proteins assemble themselves into RNA, which starts replicating. It sounds so simple - why, I wonder, haven't we been able to do it ourselves? Maybe if you did this a million times, varying the recipe slightly each time, one of them WOULD work - in a sterile environment which no longer exists on earth. The entropy of the universe was zero or close to it at the moment of the Big Bang, and approaches infinity as expansion makes the universe ever larger and colder. If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller, which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an argument in support of perpetual expansion. And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told. What, exactly, does that mean? Why? How can 10^119 particles at an extremely hot temperature originate from nothing? So many questions - so little time. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: objections to QTI Hi All: In my view life is a component of the fastest path to heat death (equilibrium) in universes that have suitable thermodynamics. Thus there would be a built in pressure for such universes to contain life. Further I like Stephen Gould's idea that complex life arises because evolution is a random walk with a lower bound and no upper bound. The above pressure will always quickly jump start life at the lower bound in such universes by rolling the dice so to speak as much as necessary to do so. Hal Ruhl
where did the Big Bang come from?
Norman Samish wrote: And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told. On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote: Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as fact--in fact there is no agreed-upon answer to the question of what, if anything, came before the Big Bang or caused it. Patrick Leahy wrote: Maybe Norman is confusing the rather more legit idea that the fluctuations in the Big Bang, that explain why the universe is not completely uniform, come from quantum fluctuations amplified by inflation. This is currently the leading theory for the origin of structure, in that it has quite a lot of successful predictions to its credit. Norman Samish writes: Perhaps I didn't express myself well. What I was referring to is at http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/planck.html, where Sten Odenwald hypothesizes that random fluctuations in nothing at all led to the Big Bang. This process has been described by the physicist Frank Wilczyk at the University of California, Santa Barbara by saying, 'The reason that there is something instead of nothing is that nothing is unstable.' . . . Physicist Edward Tryon expresses this best by saying that 'Our universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.'
Can the arrow of time reverse?
Norman Samish wrote: If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller, which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an argument in support of perpetual expansion. On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote: From what I've read, if the universe began contracting this would not necessarily cause entropy to decrease, in fact most physicists would consider that scenario (which would mean the 'arrow of time' would reverse during the contraction) pretty unlikely, although since we don't know exactly why the Big Bang started out in a low-entropy state we can't completely rule out a low-entropy boundary condition on the Big Crunch. Paddy Leahy wrote: This is quite correct. The idea that there are future as well as past boundary conditions is an extreme minority one. Norman Samish writes: Thank you for your comments. My reasoning was that if a volume of gas contracts, its temperature must go up because particle collisions will occur more frequently. Since entropy is inversely proportional to temperature, the entropy must get smaller. If an entropy decrease upon contraction of our universe does not occur, does this mean that the 'arrow of time' would reverse during the contraction? Wouldn't this violate causality?
Do things constantly get bigger?
Hal, Your phrase . . . constantly get bigger reminds me of Mark McCutcheon's The Final Theory where he revives a notion that gravity is caused by the expansion of atoms. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM... Saibal Mitra writes: This is actualy another argument against QTI. There are only a finite number of different versions of observers. Suppose a 'subjective' time evolution on the set of all possible observers exists that is always well defined. Suppose we start with observer O1, and under time evolution it evolves to O2, which then evolves to O3 etc. Eventually an On will be mapped back to O1 (if this never happened that would contradict the fact that there are only a finite number of O's). But mapping back to the initial state doesn't conserve memory. You can thus only subjectively experience yourself evolving for a finite amount of time. Unless... you constantly get bigger! Then you could escape the limitations of the Bekenstein bound. Hal Finney
Re: objections to QTI
Thanks for the reference - but I had a problem with it. It shut down my Internet Explorer for some reason. I found this article, which may be the same thing, at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9903045 Norman ~~~ General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract gr-qc/9903045 From: Carlo Rovelli [view email] Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999 15:05:25 GMT (40kb) Quantum spacetime: what do we know? Authors: Carlo Rovelli Comments: To appear on: Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck scale, C Callender N Hugget eds, Cambridge University Press This is a contribution to a book on quantum gravity and philosophy. I discuss nature and origin of the problem of quantum gravity. I examine the knowledge that may guide us in addressing this problem, and the reliability of such knowledge. In particular, I discuss the subtle modification of the notions of space and time engendered by general relativity, and how these might merge into quantum theory. I also present some reflections on methodological questions, and on some general issues in philosophy of science which are are raised by, or a relevant for, the research on quantum gravity. - Original Message - From: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:55 PM Subject: Re: objections to QTI Norman Samish wrote: This scenario that you are discussing reminds me of this interview with Julian Barbour where he proposes that time is an illusion. This reminds me of a good paper by Carlo Rovelli (about quantum gravity, GR, space-time, etc.) http://ws5.com/copy/time2.pdf in which he suggests that the temporal aspects of our world have a statistical (thermodynamical) origin, rather than dynamical. Time is our incomplete knoweldge of (the state of) the world. Not sure, though, whether the motto Time is ignorance can solve the question, by SPK, about the quantum, or indeterministic, block universe. s. ~
Re: objections to QTI
Hi Brent, There's no doubt that my imagination is not up to the task of coming up with reasonable explanations of all that I see. I could never imagine relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, singularities, the Big Bang, infinite space, the multiverse, and Günter Wächtershäuser's recipe for life. (Boil water. Stir in the minerals iron sulfide and nickel sulfide. Bubble in carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulfide. Wait for proteins to form. - from http://www.resa.net/nasa/links_origins_life.htm#common%20origin). These explanations are too far-fetched for me to ever dream up. Yet if I'm asked to provide answers, these are the only ones I can offer. I think they all qualify as marvelous circumstances. Norman Samish ~~ (Norman writes) However, the part that I have trouble with is figuring out exactly how that first living organism was created. (Living means it has the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform the energy for growth and reproduction.) Living requires a highly organized and complex mechanism - that humans, so far, have not been able to create. I can't imagine how such an organism could occur accidentally. I would call that first living organism a miraculous circumstance. (Brent writes) Maybe it's just a failure of imagination. Could you have imagined quantum mechanics? There are several good theories of how life may have originated on Earth. See The Origins of Life by Maynard Smith and Szathmary and Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson for two of them. Brent Meeker
Re: objections to QTI
Dear Prof. Standish, Thanks for the quibbles, which sound reasonable. However, I'm going to stand my ground. You gave this reference about life's origins. (I found it at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0209/0209385.pdf) This article, as you point out, asserts that the rapidity of biogenesis on Earth suggests that life is common in the Universe. This assertion is shown to be probably correct with some reasonable assumptions. One of the assumptions is that if life occurs here, it must also occur on other terrestrial planets. However, the part that I have trouble with is figuring out exactly how that first living organism was created. (Living means it has the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform the energy for growth and reproduction.) Living requires a highly organized and complex mechanism - that humans, so far, have not been able to create. I can't imagine how such an organism could occur accidentally. I would call that first living organism a miraculous circumstance. As for all of today's humans coming from 2000 breeders 70,000 years ago, you point out that this may merely mean that natural selection caused other, inferior, Neanderthal lines to disappear. This does not necessarily mean that some disaster had reduced the numbers of our breeding ancestors to 2,000, as I assumed. However, a natural disaster did occur approximately 70,000 years ago, according to http://www.olympus.net/personal/ptmaccon/pif/time_lines/time_lines_4.html This source says, Largest volcanic eruption in 400 million years, producing 2500-3000 kilometers of ash, and 1 trillion tons of aerosols. Cloud was more than 34 kilometers high. Ash covers India between 1 and 6 meters deep. (May have started folllowing cooling period). 6 year period during which the largest amount of volcanic sulphur was deposited in the past 110,000 years, followed by 1000 years of the lowest ice core oxygen isotope ratios, temperatures were colder than during the Last Glacial Maximum at 18 - 21,000 years ago. Sea level was 160 feet below current. Global temperature drops average of 21 degrees. Volcanic Winter lasted about six years. It was followed by 1,000 years of the coldest Ice Age on record. Warming begins again 1,000 years later. Believed that the 1% human genetic variation stems from this time. No other species shows such a small variation. Genetic evidence suggests only 1,000 adults survived world wide. May be event which caused rise in modern racial differences - Professor Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois. This article suggests that near-extinction of humans did occur. Norman Samish Minor quibbles, which don't actually detract from your argument: On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 01:19:28PM -0700, Norman Samish wrote: 1) How did life originate if not through a miraculous circumstance? In other branches of the multiverse, perhaps most of them, there is no life. There is evidence that life might arise fairly easily, given the right conditions. This is the so-called early appearance of life argument. See arXiv:astro-ph/0209385. 2) An article at http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may28/humans-528.html suggests that all of earth's present human inhabitants originated from about 2,000 breeders, about 70,000 years ago. Humans were then very close to extinction. In many other branches of the multiverse extinction did, in fact, occur. Endangerment of a species does not follow from a genetic bottleneck. Consider a beneficial mutation arising 70,000 years ago, and rapidly increasing to 100% fixation within the human population. The genetic data would point to us all being descended from a single Adam or Eve at the time, and the number of individuals whose descendants ultimately breed with Adam or Eve's descendents. All other germ lines are eliminated from the population by natural selection. Thus a genetic bottleneck. However, the breeding population may have been any number - eg 1 million, hardly an endangered species. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 () UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: objections to QTI
Hi Saibal and Stathis, This scenariothat you are discussing reminds me of this interview with Julian Barbour where he proposes that "time" is an illusion. If you agree or disagree with Barbour,I'd like to hear why. http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=183 Norman Samish - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Monday, May 30, 2005 8:28 AMSubject: Re: objections to QTIHi Stathis,I think that your example below was helpful to clarify the disagreement. You say that randomly sampling from all the files is not 'how real life works'. However, if you did randomly sample from all the files the result would not be different from the selective time ordered sampling you suggest, as long as the effect of dying (reducing the absolute measure) can be ignored. If I'm sampled by the computer, I'll have the recollection of having been a continuum of previous states, even though these states may not have been sampled for quite some while. I'll subjectively experience a linear time evolution. The order in which the computer chooses to generate me at various instances doesn't matter. There are a few reasons why I believe in the ''random sampling''. First of all, random sampling seems to be necessary to avoid the Doomsday Paradox. See this article written by Ken Olum: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009081He explains here why you need the Self Indicating Assumption. The self indicating assumption amounts to adopting an absolute measure that is proportional to the number of observers. Another reason has to do with the notion of time. I don't believe that events that have happened or will happen are not real while events that are happening now are real. They have to be treated in the same way. The fact that I experience time evolution is a first person phenomena. Finally, QTI (which more or less follows if you adopt the time ordered picture), implies that for the most part of your life you should find yourself in an a-typical state (e.g. very old while almost everyone else is very young). -Saibal-- Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Stathis Papaioannou" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Aan: everything-list@eskimo.comVerzonden: Monday, May 30, 2005 04:02 PMOnderwerp: objections to QTI I thought the following analogy might clarify the point I was trying to makein recent posts to the "Many Pasts? Not according to QM" thread, addressingone objection to QTI.You are a player in the computer game called the Files of Life. In this gamethe computer generates consecutively numbered folders which each containmultiple text files, representing the multiple potential histories of theplayer at that time point. Each folder F_i contains N_i files. The firstfolder, F_0, contains N_0 files each describing possible events soon afteryour birth. You choose one of the files in this folder at random, and fromthis the computer generates the next folder, F_1, and places in it N filesrepresenting N possible continuations of the story. If you die going fromF_0 to F_1, that file in F_1 corresponding to this event is blank, andblank files are deleted; so for the first folder N_0=N, but for the nextone N_1=N, allowing for deaths. The game then continues: you choose a fileat random from F_1, from this file the computer generates the next folderF_2 containing N_2 files, then you choose a file at random from F_2, and soon.It should be obvious that if the game is realistic, N_i should decrease withincreasing i, due to death from accidents (fairly constant) + death fromage related disease. The earlier folders will therefore on average containmany more files than the later folders. Now, it is argued that QTI isimpossible because a randomly sampled observer moment from your life is veryunlikely to be from a version of you who is 1000 years old, which has verylow measure compared with a younger version. The equivalent argument forthe Files of Life would be that since the earlier files are much morenumerous than the later files, a randomly sampled file from your life (ascreated by playing the game) is very unlikely to represent a 1000 year oldversion of you, as compared with a younger version. This reasoning would besound if the "random sampling" were done by mixing up all the files, or allthe OM's, and pulling one out at random. But this is not how the game worksand it is not how real life works. >From the first person viewpoint, itdoesn't matter how many files are in the folder because you only choose oneat each step, spend the same time at each step, and are no more likely tofind yourself at one step rather than another. As long as there is at least*one* file in the next folder, it is guaranteed that you will continueliving. Simila
Re: objections to QTI
Hal, I believe that many miraculous circumstances have already occurred. This comes about because of Tegmark's hypothesis that space is infinite and that any universe that is mathematically describable must exist. (I particularly love the part where he computes the distance to a universe identical to this one.) 1) How did life originate if not through a miraculous circumstance? In other branches of the multiverse, perhaps most of them, there is no life. 2) An article at http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may28/humans-528.html suggests that all of earth's present human inhabitants originated from about 2,000 breeders, about 70,000 years ago. Humans were then very close to extinction. In many other branches of the multiverse extinction did, in fact, occur. 3) Would humans have survived if the cold war had erupted into a nuclear exchange? In other branches of the multiverse, humans did self-destruct (and may do so in this one). 4) In my personal history, there are several close calls where I could easily have been killed. In some branches of the multiverse I was, in fact, killed. In this branch I survive. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 9:23 AM Subject: Re: objections to QTI Let me pose the puzzle like this, which is a form we have discussed before: Suppose you found yourself extremely old, due to a near-miraculous set of circumstances that had kept you alive. Time after time when you were about to die of old age or some other cause, something happened and you were able to continue living. Now you are 1000 years old in a world where no one else lives past 120. (We will ignore medical progress for the purposes of this thought experiment.) Now, one of the predictions of QTI is that in fact you will experience much this state, eventually. But the question is this: given that you find yourself in this circumstances, is this fact *evidence* for the truth of the QTI? In other words, should people who find themselves extremely old through miraculous circumstances take it as more likely that the QTI is true? Hal Finney
Re: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
Gentlemen, Thank you for many illuminating replies to the Why does anything exist? question. Three are shown below. It's clear that some hold that there is an identity between physical and mathematical existence (although Patrick Leahy may disagree). If so, we can phrase the big WHY as Why do numbers exist? (Answer: Because such existence is a logical necessity.) The question (at least as I mean it) can also be phrased as Why is there something instead of nothing? Or perhaps I am really asking What is the First Cause? I think the big WHY must be an unanswerable question from a scientific standpoint, and that Leahy must be correct when he says . . . there is just no answer to the big WHY. Stephen Paul King says it, maybe more rigorously, when he says, Existence, itself, can not be said to require an explanation for such would be a requirement that there is a necessitate prior to which Existence is dependent upon. Norman Samish ~~ Stephen Paul King writes: Existence, itself, can not be said to require an explanation for such would be a requirement that there is a necessitate prior to which Existence is dependent upon. Pearce's idea is not new and we have it from many thinkers that the totality of the multiverse must sum to zero, that is the essence of symmetry. It is the actuality of the content of our individual experiences (including all of the asymmetries) that we have to justify. Patrick Leahy writes: I find this a very odd question to be asked on this list. To me, one of the main attractions of the everything thesis is that it provides the only possible answer to this question. Viz: as Jonathan pointed out, mathematical objects are logical necessities, and the thesis (at least in Tegmark's formulation) is that physical existence is identical to mathematical existence. Despite this attractive feature, I'm fairly sure the thesis is wrong (so that there is just no answer to the big WHY?), but that's another story. Bruno Marchal writes: You can look at my URL for argument that physical existence emerges from mathematical existence. I have no clues that physical existence could just be equated to mathematical existence unless you attach consciousness to individuated bodies, but how? I can argue that without accepting natural numbers you cannot justify them. So any theory which does not assumes the natural numbers cannot be a theory of everything. Once you accept the existence of natural numbers it is possible to explain how the belief in both math and physics arises. And with the explicit assumption of Descartes Mechanism, in a digital form (the computationalist hypothesis), I think such explanation is unique. Also, it is possible to explain why we cannot explain where our belief in natural numbers come from.
WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
Quentin Anciaux, Thanks for the explanation. Unlike much that is said here, I am able to understand what you mean. But it's not satisfying, and the core mystery remains. Even if Pearce is correct and everything in the multiverse self-cancels and adds up to zero, so what? That is not an explanation of existence. Obviously, we don't know THE answer - do you (or anybody) think there CAN be an answer that does not require supernatural intervention? What might it be? My wife says the answer is Because. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 7:21 AM Subject: Re: Fw: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST Le mardi 17 mai 2005 06:56 -0700, Norman Samish a crit : Hi Jonathan, You say that Because it is necessarily true is the answer to Why does the integer series -100 to +100 exist? However, you seem to say that this is NOT the answer to Why does anything exist? In this latter case, you seem to say the question is meaningless because the sum of everything is equivalent to nothing. I think it is meaningless because the question is Why is there something/anything instead of nothing? The answer as given by Jonathan is that something/anything and nothing are the same... So if there are the same object, the question is meaningless. Quentin Anciaux
Fw: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
Hi Jonathan, You say that Because it is necessarily true is the answer to Why does the integer series -100 to +100 exist? However, you seem to say that this is NOT the answer to Why does anything exist? In this latter case, you seem to say the question is meaningless because the sum of everything is equivalent to nothing. I'm afraid I don't understand why this makes it meaningless. To me, an example of a meaningless question is one which cannot possibly have an answer, such as standing on the North pole and asking Which way is North? I agree that comparing anything to an integer series that sums to zero is not quite the same, since anything covers so much more than an integer series. However, it seems to me that the same answer ought to apply to both cases. Can you prove that there is no possible answer to WDAE? Such a proof would, indeed, make the question meaningless. Thanks for your assistance. Norman ~~ - Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:39 AM Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST Hi Jonathan, You say that if something and nothing are equivalent, then the big WHY question is rendered meaningless. But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking WHY does the integer series -100 to +100 exist? Even though the sum of the integer series is zero, that doesn't render the question meaningless. I don't think that's quite an equivalent question, because the answer is simply because it is necessarily true. I think that's a different observation (and question) than Pearce's free lunch (or observation that the sum of everything is equivalent to nothing). Jonathan Colvin Norman - Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:20 PM Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST Norman wrote: Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he was co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist Association. I have a lot of respect for Bostrom's views. However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST that I'm interested in. This viewpoint is expressed at http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm His conclusion seems to be that everything in the multiverse adds up to zero, so there are no loose ends that need explaining. Even if true, this doesn't answer the WHY question, however. If you or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them. I wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible? Pearce is a little tongue-in-cheek here, I think, but surely Pearce does answer the *big* why question (why is there something rather than nothing?). O is nothing, so if everything adds up to zero, something and nothing are equivalent, and the big why question is rendered meaningless. All other why questions (as in, why this rather than that?) are answered by the standard UE (ultimate ensemble), which Pearce seems to assume. Jonathan Colvin
Re: Tipler Weighs In
Hal, Thanks for an illuminating explanation of Tipler's paper. I wonder if you and/or any other members on this list have an opinion about the validity of an article at http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm This is a discussion of WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST? (The author is apparently a David Pearce. There are many with that name and I am unable to determine which one.) His conclusion is that . . . the summed membership of the uncountably large set of positive and negative numbers, and every more fancy and elaborate pair of positive and negative real and imaginary etc terms, trivially and exactly cancels out to/adds up to 0. . . . Net energy etc of Multiverse = 0 = all possible outcomes. . . if, in all, there is 0, i.e no (net) properties whatsoever, then there just isn't anything substantive which needs explaining. (Please go to the URL to avoid misinterpretations which I may have introduced by my editing.) Norman Samish - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:16 PM Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In Lee Corbin points to Tipler's March 2005 paper The Structure of the World From Pure Numbers: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/68/4/R04 I tried to read this paper, but it was 60 pages long and extremely technical, mostly over my head. The gist of it was an updating of Tipler's Omega Point theory, advanced in his book, The Physics of Immortality. Basically the OP theory predicts, based on the assumption that the laws of physics we know today are roughly correct, that the universe must re-collapse in a special way that can't really happen naturally, hence Tipler deduces that intelligent life will survive through and guide the ultimate collapse, during which time the information content of the universe will go to infinity. The new paper proposes an updated cosmological model that includes a number of new ideas. One is that the fundamental laws of physics for the universe are infinitely complex. This is where his title comes from; he assumes that the universe is based on the mathematics of the continuum, i.e. the real numbers. In fact Tipler argues that the universe must have infinitely complex laws, basing this surprising conclusion on the Lowenheim-Skolem paradox, which says that any set of finite axioms can be fit to a mathematical object that is only countable in size. Hence technically we can't really describe the real numbers without an infinite number of axioms, and therefore if the universe is truly based on the reals, it must have laws of infinite complexity. (Otherwise the laws would equally well describe a universe based only on the integers.) Another idea Tipler proposes is that under the MWI, different universes in the multiverse will expand to different maximum sizes R before re-collapsing. The probability measure however works out to be higher with larger R, hence for any finite R the probability is 1 (i.e. certain) that our universe will be bigger than that. This is his solution to why the universe appears to be flat - it's finite in size but very very big. Although Tipler wants the laws to be infinitely complex, the physical information content of the universe should be zero, he argues, at the time of the Big Bang (this is due to the Beckenstein Bound). That means among other things there are no particles back then, and so he proposes a special field called an SU(2) gauge field which creates particles as the universe expands. He is able to sort of show that it would preferentially create matter instead of antimatter, and also that this field would be responsible for the cosmological constant (CC) which is being observed, aka negative energy. In order for the universe to re-collapse as Tipler insists it must, due to his Omega Point theory, the CC must reverse sign eventually. Tipler suggests that this will happen because life will choose to do so, and that somehow people will find a way to reverse the particle-creation effect, catalyzing the destruction of particles in such a way as to reverse the CC and cause the universe to begin to re-collapse. Yes, he's definitely full of wild ideas here. Another idea is that particle masses should not have specific, arbitrary values as most physicists believe, but rather they should take on a full range of values, from 0 to positive infinity, over the history of the universe. There is some slight observational evidence for a time-based change in the fine structure constant alpha, and Tipler points to that to buttress his theory - however the actual measured value is inconsistent with other aspects, so he has to assume that the measurements are mistaken! Another testable idea is that the cosmic microwave background radiation is not the cooled-down EM radiation from the big bang, but instead is the remnants of that SU(2) field which was responsible for particle creation. He shows that such a field would look
WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
Stathis, Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he was co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist Association. I have a lot of respect for Bostrom's views. However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST that I'm interested in. This viewpoint is expressed at http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm His conclusion seems to be that everything in the multiverse adds up to zero, so there are no loose ends that need explaining. Even if true, this doesn't answer the WHY question, however. If you or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them. I wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible? Norman Samish ~` - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In Dear Stephen, Pearce spends considerable time in his thesis discussing the harm that Brave New World has done to Utopian causes. I rather suspect that Huxley would not have been disapproving, given his libertarian sympathies and fondness for hallucinogens in his later work. Orwell is completely different; there's nothing even superficially pleasant about his dystopian vision. The others I would have to look up; do you mean Frank Dune Herbert or another Frank Herbert? Pearce's thesis is freely available on his website, and it really is very well written, addressing just about every possible objection before you think of it. --Stathis Hi Stathis, Nice review! I wonder about Pierce, has he read Huxley or Orwell? He and all should read the advice of Eric Hoffer, Frank Herbert and others, warning us of the dangers of trying to push utopias. More modern treatments include Philip Ball's Critical Mass. Stephen - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Tipler Weighs In David Pearce is a British philosopher with Utilitarian leanings, and his extensive HedWeb site has been around for many years. His main thesis is contained in a book-length article called The Hedonistic Imperative, in which he argues that the aim of civilization should be the ultimate elimination of all suffering in sentient life. He proposes that this be done not primarily through traditional methods, such as banning animal cruelty (although he has much to say about that as well), but by directly accessing and altering the neural mechanisms responsible for suffering, through pharmacological and neurological means initially, and eventually through genetic engineering so that no organism is physically capable of experiencing suffering. Pearce's thesis does not really address the next stage after neuroengineering often discussed on this list, namely living as uploaded minds on a computer network. The interesting question arises of how we would (or should) spend our time in this state. It would be a simple matter of programming to eliminate suffering and spend eternity (or however long it lasts) in a state of heavenly bliss. The obvious response to such a proposal is that perpetual bliss would be boring, and leave no room for motivation, curiosity, progress, etc. But boredom is just another adverse experience which could be simply eliminated if you have access to the source code. And if you think about it, even such tasks as participating in discussions such as the present one are only really motivated by anticipation of the complex pleasure gained from it; if you could get the same effect or better, directly, with no adverse consequences, why would you waste your time doing it the hard way? --Stathis Papaioannou
Re: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST
Hi Jonathan, You say that if something and nothing are equivalent, then the big WHY question is rendered meaningless. But isn't the big WHY question equivalent to asking WHY does the integer series -100 to +100 exist? Even though the sum of the integer series is zero, that doesn't render the question meaningless. Norman - Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 10:20 PM Subject: RE: WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST Norman wrote: Thanks for your identification of David Pearce - I see he was co-founder (with Nick Bostrom) of the World Transhumanist Association. I have a lot of respect for Bostrom's views. However, it's Pearce's viewpoint about WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST that I'm interested in. This viewpoint is expressed at http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm His conclusion seems to be that everything in the multiverse adds up to zero, so there are no loose ends that need explaining. Even if true, this doesn't answer the WHY question, however. If you or others have opinions on WHY, I'd like to hear them. I wonder if your opinion will be that no opinion is possible? Pearce is a little tongue-in-cheek here, I think, but surely Pearce does answer the *big* why question (why is there something rather than nothing?). O is nothing, so if everything adds up to zero, something and nothing are equivalent, and the big why question is rendered meaningless. All other why questions (as in, why this rather than that?) are answered by the standard UE (ultimate ensemble), which Pearce seems to assume. Jonathan Colvin
Re: many worlds theory of immortality
If the multiverse is truly infinite in space-time, then all possible universes must eventually appear in it, including an infinite number with all 10^80 particles in it identical to those in our universe. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 8:55 PM Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality Jonathan Colvin writes: That's putting it mildly. I was thinking that it is more likely that a universe tunnels out of a black hole that just randomly happens to contain your precise brain state at that moment, and for all of future eternity. But the majority of these random universes will be precisely that; random. In most cases you will then find that your immortal experience is of a purely random universe, which is likely a good definition of hell. But it's not all that unlikely that someone in the world, unbeknownst to you, has invented a cure; whereas for a universe with your exact mind in it to be created purely de novo is astronomically unlikely. Look at the number of atoms in your brain, 10^25 or some such, and imagine how many arrangments there are of those atoms that aren't you, compared to the relative few which are you. The odds against that happening by chance are beyond comprehension. Whereas the odds of some lucky accident saving you as you are about to die are more like lottery-winner long, like one in a billion, not astronomically long, like one in a googleplex. Especially if you accept that it is possible in principle for medicine to give us an unlimited healthy lifespan, then all you really need to do is to live in a universe where that medical technology is discovered, and then avoid accidents. Neither one seems all that improbable from the perspective of people living in our circumstances today. It's harder to see how a cave man could look forward to a long life span. I should add that I don't believe in QTI, I don't believe that we are guaranteed to experience such outcomes. I prefer the observer-moment concept in which we are more likely to experience observer-moments where we are young and living within a normal lifespan than ones where we are at a very advanced age due to miraculous luck. Hal Finney
Re: Implications of MWI
Mark, What does happening right now mean in the MWI concept? Einstein showed that there is no universal right now. Are you confusing this with a saying that I've seen attributed to C. A. Pickover, in his book Keys to Infinity? It goes In infinite time and infinite space, whatever can happen, must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. Norman - Original Message - From: Mark Fancey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Implications of MWI Hal: You say that you are more careful now (and everyone should always be more careful!); but is it not, in fact, irrelevant? This is because the worlds in which you cause great tragedy exist even before you arrive at a branch point that could take you to them. I am taking this from the saying: 'everything that can happen does happen and is happening right now' It is also my understanding that time travel (travelling along timelike curves) is quite possible; I have always grown up being told that it is not possible. Altering my worldview on that one is taking some time! To me it is the ultimate surveillance tool and makes me quite jittery! Mark
Re: many worlds theory of immortality
- Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: RE: many worlds theory of immortality In general worlds are not effective (computable) objects: we cannot mechanically (even allowing infinite resources) generate a world. Hmmm..but then if such worlds are not effective objects, how can they be said to be instantiated? If we extend this to Tegmark, this implies that even given infinite time, a world can never be complete (fully generated). Which implies that even given infinite time, not everything that *can* happen *will* happen; which was my argument to begin with. Jonathan Colvin Jonathan, I have seen it stated that, given infinite time, everything that CAN happen MUST happen, not only once but uncountable times. You argue that this is incorrect. Can you show why it is incorrect? Thanks, Norman Samish
Re: Free Will Theorem
I have somewhat arbitrarily defined free will as voluntary actions that are both self-determined by a Self-Aware Object, and are not predictable. My reasoning is that if something is completely predictable, then there is no option for change, hence no free will.. On this issue, Jonathan Colvin apparently disagrees, since he states that There is no contradiction between determinism / predictability and free will, so long as free will is viewed as self-determinism. But free will would be a meaningless concept in a deterministic universe. If the future were completely predictable then how could there be free will? Everything would be pre-ordained. But, as Heisenberg shows us, the future cannot be predicted. Unpredictable choices are made by SAO's, therefore free will exists. Norman Samish ~ - Original Message - From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:28 PM Subject: Re: Free Will Theorem Norman Samish wrote: If free will simply means self-determination then Jonathan is right, and to the extent we are self-determined we have free will. He says, the only relevant question as to whether our will is free is whether our conscious minds (our selves) determine our actions. But what about the sufferers of schizophrenia who Stathis Papaioannou referred to? They exercise self-determination, and their mental state is such that their actions, at least in some cases, are completely predictable. Do they have free will? I don't see that the actions of schizophrenia patients are any more predictable than yours or mine. In fact, people suffering from this disease are often *less* predictable (which is why schizophrenia can sometimes be dangerous). To the extent that their actions are controlled by their conscious minds, they have free will. If they feel they are being forced to act contrary to their will (speculatively, perhaps by *random* excitation of parts of their brain), I would suggest that they do *not* have free will in such cases, because their actions are not willed by their conscious minds. In this case randomness is contrary to free will, illustrating why basing free will on unpredictability is a fallacy. Another example might be a self-aware computer of the future that would be programmed to have predictable actions as well as self-determination. Would it have free will? Yes. Although what do you mean by predictable? Its actions might be predictable only insofar as an identical program subjected to identical stimulus would give identical actions (its actions might be predictable / deterministic but computationally irreducible). In both cases, the actions of the Self-Aware Organism are predictable, hence their will is not free. They are bound by their destiny. I don't see how mere predictability is incompatible with free will. Your actions too are predictable. If I set you in the middle of a highway with a large bus heading for you, I predict you will move out of the way, unless you are suicidal. Does that mean *you* do not have free will? To have free will, the actions of a SAO cannot be completely predictable. Why not? There is no contradiction between determinism / predictability and free will, so long as free will is viewed as self-determinism. Jonathan Colvin
Re: Free Will Theorem
If free will simply means self-determination then Jonathan is right, and to the extent we are self-determined we have free will. He says, the only relevant question as to whether our will is free is whether our conscious minds (our selves) determine our actions. But what about the sufferers of schizophrenia who Stathis Papaioannou referred to? They exercise self-determination, and their mental state is such that their actions, at least in some cases, are completely predictable. Do they have free will? Another example might be a self-aware computer of the future that would be programmed to have predictable actions as well as self-determination. Would it have free will? In both cases, the actions of the Self-Aware Organism are predictable, hence their will is not free. They are bound by their destiny. To have free will, the actions of a SAO cannot be completely predictable. To be free of complete predictability, at least some of the SAO's actions must ultimately depend on some kind of random event. At the most fundamental level, this must be quantum indeterminacy. Norman Samish ~~~ From: Jonathan Colvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] This discussion is exhibiting the usual confusion about what free will means. The concept itself is incoherent as generally used (taken as meaning my actions are not determined). But then in this case they must be merely random (which is hardly an improvement), or we require recourse to a Descartian immaterial dualism, which merely pushes the problem back one level. The only sensible meaning of free will is *self-determination*. Once looked at in this manner, quantum indeterminacy is irrelevant. Our actions are determined by the state of our minds. Whether these states are random, chaotically deterministic, or predictably deterministic is irrelevant; the only relevant question as to whether our will is free is whether our conscious minds (our selves) determine our actions. In most circumstances, the answer is surely yes, and so we have self-determination and hence free will. Sleepwalking, reflexes, etc. are examples of actions that are not consciously self-determined, and so are not examples of free will. Jonathan Colvin
Re: John Conway, Free Will Theorem
The answer to Statis' question seems straightforward. Given quantum indeterminacy, thought processes cannot be predictable. Therefore, genuine free will exists. ...Can someone please explain how I can tell when I am exercising *genuine* free will, as opposed to this pseudo-free variety, which clearly I have no control over? Norman Samish
Re: Belief Statements
I can't conceive of space-time being anything other than infinite. The existence of all logically possible worlds seems necessary in infinite space-time, where . . . anything that can happen must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. The difficulty, as Hal Finney points out, is that we so far do not know what can happen. Why does infinite space-time exist? Perhaps because it must - what alternative could there be? Norman Samish . - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Belief Statements Alastair Malcolm writes: For my own part, I give strong credibility (50%) to the existence of many worlds in some guise or other, and in particular to the existence of all logically possible(*) worlds (alpw). For me the existence of one world (ours) so conveniently life-suited - sufficiently spatio-temporally extended and quiescent but with particular properties enabling wide diversity in chemistry etc - demands a specific explanation, and the only other candidate final explanation - a Creator (say a God, or a 'higher' civilisation) - suffers (at least) the problem of requiring an explanation for *it*. That's a great question. I agree that assuming that this is the only world is quite problematic. On the other hand it does not necessarily follow that all possible or conceivable worlds exist. From hearing some physicists speak, I get the impression that they are being dragged kicking and screaming towards many worlds and anthropic ideas, but are resisting. They still hope to come up with some kind of mathematical or philosophical reason to at least restrict the number of possible worlds. snip All in all I'd say that I see too much confusion and uncertainty to hold to any position regarding the existence of multiple universes. Hal Finney
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal, With reference to your inconsistent TOE model (which I do not claim to understand), you state My approach solves these issues for ME . . . You also state All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as self aware and free will etc. at least for ME. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak. (My capitalizations.) Are you implying that your model is NOT universal? Are you saying that reality is subjective? Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:56 AM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model Hi Jesse You wrote: Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of evolving Somethings, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected meaning. That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently. But in this case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own theory in the first place need not agree that there's any reason to think a theory of everything would involve everything being inconsistent. I do not believe in TOE's that assume structures such as just an Everything thus yielding a theory with that assumption as irreducible information. After all where did that come from? I do not believe in TOE's that assume a dynamic such as computers simulating universes without a justification for a dynamic. I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from? If you select a particular meaning out of its spectrum of possible meanings and assign it to a system is that not even more information in any such TOE? My approach solves these issues for me and has only few small prices to pay: Computer simulations or other dynamics will suffer random input. But so what? For example a CA that tends to an attractor can be stabilized in a reasonably self similar behavior off the attractor with the right amount of random input. Such an input to a universe is a decent explanation for an accelerating expansion of that universe given a max info storage and a fixed or increasing susceptibility to such input per unit volume. One could not do a statistical extract of information [there is none] say re why we find ourselves in this particular kind of universe. But again so what? Why would that be a believable expectation of a TOE in the first place? All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as self aware and free will etc. at least for me. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal, I'm way out of my depth, but if I'm correctly interpreting what you are saying, it looks to me that your multiverse model cannot be valid. This is because it answers the question Why does anything exist? with the answer Because it's not possible to conceive of Nothing, since the concept of Nothing is Something. However, this answer requires Something that conceptualizes. Suppose that Something is not there? If there were Nothing, there could be no Something. Norman
Re: The FLip Flop Game
Hi Eric, I'm laughing, not at you, but at the tendency we may have to see what we want to see and not what's really there! Kory's explanation is a good one. Maybe this even has something to do with Observation Selection Effects! Norman - Original Message - From: Eric Cavalcanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Everything List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 1:15 AM Subject: Re: The FLip Flop Game AAAghhh!!! I didn't read it carefully again!!! Yes, it is not even-money. In the infinite players case, even though you are equally likely to win or lose, you win money in the long run. I am going to sleep... :) Eric. On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 17:52, Kory Heath wrote: At 12:20 AM 10/11/2004, Norman Samish wrote: For example, if there are 3 players then the long-term odds are that each game costs each player 25 cents. If there are 5 players, the average cost goes down to 6.3 cents per game. If there are 7 players, they make on the average 3.1 cents per game. If there are 9 players they make about 9 cents per game. It isn't clear to me why this should be so. The issue is in the payout structure you suggest, which is that if you win you get $2, and if you lose, you pay $1. This is not an even-money proposition. If your chances of winning are exactly 1/3, then for every three times you play you will (on average) pay $1 twice and win $2 once, which is break-even. Therefore, you have a positive expectation if your winning chances are any greater than 1/3. In three-player Flip-Flop, your winning chances are only 1/4, so the three-player game is a bad bet even given this generous payout structure. However, as you add players, your chances of winning tend towards 50% (but never quite reach it). Very quickly, your winning chances will become greater than 1/3, and the game will suddenly have a positive expectation for you, and a negative one for the house. If the casino wants to guarantee profits, it must adjust its payout structure to an even-money proposition. In other words, losers pay $1, and winners get $1. As you add more players, your winning chances improve, but they're still always slightly less than 50%, so the game will always have a negative expectation for the players. As a side note, the common parlance in betting is that you pay a certain amount up front (the bet), and then if you win you get a certain amount back, while if you lose you get nothing. In this way of speaking, an even-money proposition would be to bet $1 and get $2 back if you win. The bet that you proposed was equivalent to betting $1 and getting $3 back when you win, which is better than even-money. -- Kory
Re: Omega Point theory and time quanta
Perhaps mathematics, which is digital, is incapable of precise simulation of reality, which is not digital. Norman Samish - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 9:36 PM Subject: Omega Point theory and time quanta There has been some discussion in recent posts about Tipler's Omega Point theory, which postulates that an infinite amount of subjective time can be squeezed into the last few moments of a collapsing universe. This is straightforward mathematically using infinite series, but if time is quantised, it would not work in reality; and it seems to be widely accepted that time is indeed quantised. Is there a way around this difficulty? Stathis Papaioannou
Math Problem
Stathis, Thank you for the explanation. Yes, it is indeed surprising to discover that if something CAN happen, it may NOT happen, even in infinite time - provided that the chance of it happening decreases with time. Nevertheless, the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, randomly hitting the keys, must eventually write all the works of Shakespeare, as well as everything that has been written or will be written, provided he spends eternity at the task. As you suggested, I used the spreadsheet to determine the product of (1-1/4)(1-1/9)(1-1/16)...(1-1/n^2) with n going from 1 through 65,536 and got 0.500,007,629,510,935. Extending n to 131,072 resulted in 0.500,007,596,291,283. It looks like n would have to get to a large number before the product would be 0.5, but I'm now convinced that it would eventually get there. It is counter-intuitive to me that the spreadsheet sum of 1/n^2, with n going from 1 through 131,072 , is 0.644,918,874,381,156 rather than 0.5. We live in a marvelous universe! Norman - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:11 PM Subject: RE: Math Problem Norman, Perhaps the term cumulative probability was misleading. I meant the probability that P will occur at least once between t=2 and t=infinity. Suppose you enter a strange lottery in its second week, when the probability P that you will win is Pr(P)=1/(t^2)=1/(2^2)=1/4. The lottery runs every week from now until eternity, but your chance of winning continuously falls so that after t weeks Pr(P)=1/(t^2); that is, in the third week you have a 1/9 chance of winning, in the fourth week 1/16 chance, and so on. Note that Pr(P)0 for all integers t, no matter how large. Now, the question is if you play this lottery forever, what is the probability that you will win at least once? (This is what I meant by cumulative probability.) It is easier mathematically to rephrase this question as, what is the chance that you will NEVER win (Pr(~P)) after t consecutive weeks as t-infinity? Since Pr(P)=1/(t^2), Pr(~P)=1-1/(t^2). So the infinite product (1-1/4)(1-1/9)(1-1/16)... gives the probability that you will play this game forever and never win. If you multiply out the above sequence, you will see that it limits to 1/2. What this means is that there are events which are possible at all times, but nevertheless will NEVER occur, even given an eternity. This is what I found surprising. So whether a particular event does or doesn't actually occur in the future of the universe depends less on the absolute probability (if we have infinite time) than on how the probability varies as a function of time. I have not posted this to the list as you only posted your question to me; if you think this reply would be of interest to the list, please feel free to forward it. Stathis Papaioannou From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Math Problem Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:36:13 -0700 Stathis Papaioannou, I don't understand your statement For example, if Pr(P)=1/(t^2), as t goes from 2 to infinity, the cumulative probability that P will occur at some point is 1/2. At first glance this looked correct, but when I ran out Pr(P)=1/(t^2) on a spreadsheet, with t going in steps of 1 from 2 to 65536, the cumulative probability seems to go to 0.644019, not 1/2. The cumulative probability seems to depend on the step size. If t goes in steps of 1.448, then the cumulative probability goes to 1/2. By other choices of step size, I can make the cumulative probability sum to anything between 1/4 and 16383. An explanation will be appreciated. Thanks, Norman Samish - Original Message - Subject: Re: All possible worlds in a single world cosmology? At 23:12 21/07/04 +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The increase in entropy and cooling which go with the model I suggested are average trends over time. It is possible within this long term decline to have pockets of order/ decreasing entropy, both in classical statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics. It is a mathematical fact, independent of the actual physics, that given enough time (and eternity is certainly enough time), any event that is possible, however close to zero its probability per unit time, will occur with probability arbitrarily close to 1. What rather surprised me, however, is the fact that the last statement is only true in general if the probability per unit time stays constant or increases with increasing time; if it decreases, limiting towards zero as time approaches infinity, then it is possible that this event, which still always has non-zero probability per unit time, may never actually occur. For example, if Pr(P)=1/(t^2), as t goes from 2 to infinity, the cumulative probability that P will occur at some point is 1/2.
Re: Occam's Razor now published
Why Occam's Razor can be viewed at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ The abstract: Ensemble theories have received a lot of interest recently as a means of explaining a lot of the detailed complexity observed in reality by a vastly simpler description ``every possibility exists'' and a selection principle (Anthropic Principle) ``we only observe that which is consistent with our existence''. In this paper I show why, in an ensemble theory of the universe, we should be inhabiting one of the elements of that ensemble with least information content that satisfies the anthropic principle. This explains the effectiveness of aesthetic principles such as Occam's razor in predicting usefulness of scientific theories. I also show, with a couple of reasonable assumptions about the phenomenon of consciousness, the linear structure of quantum mechanics can be derived. - Original Message - At 15:16 27/01/04 +1100, Russell Standish wrote: A brief heads up that my paper Why Occam's Razor will appear in the June issue of Foundations of Physics Letters. The full reference is: Standish, R.K. (2004) ``Why Occam's Razor'' Foundations of Physics Letters, 17, 255-266. --- - A/Prof Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 () Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 --- -
Re: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism
Your conclusion that there is no scientific justification for morals of any sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense depends on the definition of scientific. Without morals an argument could be made that mankind would not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is scientific justification for morals, at least as far as mankind is concerned. And perhaps our lack of morals will yet wipe us out through WMD, or other evil. Norman - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:04 PM Subject: Modern Physical theory as a basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper: --- A Scientific Basis for Ethical and Existential Nihilism I. Introduction A. Societal habit of classification of moral disciplines B. Difference of anyone to a possibly fitting classification makes such divvying impossible C. One must evaluate the individual sets of moral principles to establish their validity II. What is ethical?-Establishing a Basis for Reference A. Definition of ethic/moral 1. Participation/contribution 2. Action 3. Earning B. Earning as an ethical point for reference 1. Earning governed by psychological history 2. Psychology influenced by the physical 3. The physical is governed by causality C. Ethic is debunked by the causal nature of space-time and quantum superpositioning III. Space-Time and Quantum Physics form a basis for inevitability A. The So-Called Relativity Theory Perspective 1. The space-time manifold is a substrate upon which things exist 2. The future condition of events or anything can be determined using equations to model energy and position over time 3. All things have a definite past, present, and future, ontologically 4. Limited by information acquisition a) speed of light b) infinitesimal spaces governed by quantum theory B. Quantum Physics Perspective 1. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle a) impossible to know one's future b) definite past 2. Schrödinger's wave function a) Schrödinger's Cat Paradox b) superposition of waves c) collapse of the wave function d) Copenhagen Interpretation (CHI) e) Hugh Everett III's theory that all possible resultant collapses can be defined by a superposition in Hilbert Space C. Multiverse Theory-Multiple Universes in which all possibilities are played out 1. There is a total number of possible arrangements of matter based on the limits of the entropy of space-time, where the total is equal to the permutation of particles and energies and dependent on the total number of particles 2. All these possibilities are superimposed upon one another to form an infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space in which the wave function resides, evolving over time a) Each universe is a subset, a space-time system in which one arrangement of matter exists b) One space-time event sequence is merely the use of time and physical law/rules to determine a valid progression of one universal space to another c) This creates multiple space-time pathways, each of which encompasses a version of the past, present, and future d) Each point has a past with possible futures to be determined upon collapse of the wave function e) Our own physical, present reality, interpreted as a resulting situation of the collapse, is one point in space-time with a sequence of probability states with the same past configuration f) This course of action leading to each possible reality yields multiple pathways from the beginning to the end of time g) Each point in time has nearly infinite future possibilities, but each path contains only itself-one path with two endpoints-essentially arriving from the restraints of causality on the topological set IV. Philosophical Implications A. Every person has a definite past 1. Every person is the result of the path of space-time upon which its universe's energy has traveled 2. Because of causality and entropy bounds, one has no control over the past 3. A future is simply the result of influences of the wave function and its probabilities on space-time B. A person's future is inevitable 1. No matter what decision one chooses, the psyche's action is defined and controlled by the wave function in its space 2. All
Re: Improbable or impossible?
Infinity has no limit. If (a big IF) there are an infinity of universes, then anything that can happen, no matter how improbable, must happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. Either there are an infinity of universes or there are not - in either case I wonder why? I was thinking about the proverbial monkey and the typewriter eventually writing the works of Shakespeare. The first two characters are AB. Suppose the typewriter had 100 keys and the immortal monkey hits them at random. He would have a 1/100 chance of hitting an A, then another 1/100 chance of hitting a B, so his chance of hitting AB is then (1/100)^2. His chance of randomly hitting 153 characters in sequence is (1/100)^153. My arithmetic tells me that if the monkey typed two characters a second and typed all the permutations of these 153 charcters with no duplications, it would take him 1.165E+285 times the age of the universe to complete them all. If there are, say, 500,000 characters in the works of Shakespeare, the time it would take the monkey to complete all permutations is mind boggling. And it's still not infinite. I guess the point of this is that once we invoke infinity we're into realms that cannot be comprehended, at least not by me. Norman - Original Message - From: Martin Keitel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Porpora [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 12:39 AM Subject: Improbable or impossible? Hello all. Infinite number of universes... Does it really make possible something that is almost infinitely unlikely to happen? Take the example of somebody tearing apart the Bible into millions of pieces and throwing them in the wind. What's the probability of the pieces ending up on the street each page side by side in correct order? In an infinite amount of universes, there should be one where this happens. I mean, it's not that it could happen (it's not any more likely in any other universe), but it really happens. Or? I'm sure if something like this actually happened in our world, we would not take it as a random accident, because we would consider it so unlikely that it's in effect impossible. Rather we would start looking for an intelligent force behind this strange occurrence: The book was originally constructed so, that the pieces were somehow programmed to rearrange themselves if taken apart? Or a computer was used to scan the pieces flying in the air and then controlling a wind machine to direct them into their correct places on the street? Anything is more reasonable than a pure accident in this case. The same would be probably concluded in any other universe with logically thinking people like us. Is it then really necessary even in the case of infinite univeses to have all possible situations, even if they are infinitely unlikely? Another approach. In any religious/superstition based society this kind of phenomenon would be considered a miracle, probably executed by a higher God-like force. How unlikely is it for such a force to exist in reality? More or less likely than the pieces arranging themselves accidentally? In an infinite number of universes there should exist a universe with a God or some other superhuman force, or? Techically this God could be described, instead of using mythical terms, as a highly advanced civilization that is too complicated for the religious society to comprehend. A civilization (or a member of such) that can twist the physical reality, even control the wind. With very advanced computers, perhaps incorporated in the atoms of the atmosphere, this would not be impossible and it provide a more likely explanation than pure accident. Hence if there are infinite universes, there are also several where the Bible rearranges itself. If it's more likely that this happens as an act of a higher force, then there should be more this kind of universe than those where it happens accidentally... - martin
Re: Determinism
Doug Porpora, You have some interesting ideas. For example, a probability so close to zero it takes infinite chances for the event to be expected even once. My understanding of the properties of infinity is that this cannot be true - in an infinite set, anything that can occur, even at the smallest probability, must occur an infinite number of times. Am I mistaken? Also, I'm unable to find a meaningful (to me) argument against reductionism. Why is it in trouble? It seems to me that even a complex human being can be defined in concept by discrete quantum states and particles, atoms and electrical charges. Thoughts are therefore NOT infinite because they can be conceptually defined in terms of particles and quantum states, and there are not an infinite number of these permutations. I agree that the existence of another universe identical to ours is extremely improbable, but in infinite spacetime Tegmark's hypothesis must be valid and infinite copies of our universe must exist - as well as all permutations. Norman - Original Message - From: Doug Porpora [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:58 AM Subject: Determinism Thanks Hal (also Norman and others who answered), I will just comment on one passage you wrote as it may be of general interest. At 5:12 PM -0800 1/11/04, Hal Finney wrote: That would require that it is infinitely improbable that you could exist. But I don't think that is the case, because there are only a finite number of possible arrangements of matter of the size of a human being. (Equivalently, humans embody only a finite amount of information.) So it would seem that the probability of a human appearing in some universe must be finite and greater than zero, hence there would be an infinite number of instances across an infinity of universes. First, no what I suggested was not infinite improbability but a probability so close to zero it takes infinite chances for the event to be expected even once. What I think may be of general interest is that the discussion in the physical sciences has assumed reductionism -- that human persons are reducible to their physical bodies. However, Dennett notwithstanding, reductionism has not only not been vindicated, it remains in trouble. There is an important implication for this issue if mental states (i.e., thoughts, beliefs, emotions) cannot be reduced to physical states. The reason is that ideas (thoughts) are not only infinite but unlike universes, which are presumably discrete), ideas are uncountably infinite. Consider, for example, how you would count ideas. Unlike the real numbers, ideas cannot even be ordered into intervals. As a result, ideas may well represent a vastly greater infinity than universes. If so, even with infinite universes, you or I may never show up again. Anyway, this is what I have been thinking. And, re free will, Dennett's compatibilism ultimately remains, I think, a sleight of hand. But if reductionism fails, then so does determinism (but that is a larger, social scientific argument). Thanks again. doug -- doug porpora dept of culture and communication drexel university phila pa 19104 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Gentlemen, Thanks for the opinions. Youhave convinced me thatat leastthe empty set MUST exist, and "The whole of mathematics can, in principle, be derived from the properties of the empty set, Ø."(From http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilf01.htm.) "In the Universe as a whole, the conserved constants (electric charge, angular momentum, mass-energy) add up to/cancel out to exactly zero. There isn't any net electric charge or angular momentum. The world's positive mass-energy is exactly cancelled out by its negative gravitational potential energy. Provocatively, cryptically, elliptically, "nothing" exists." Norman - Original Message - From: "Colin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:28 AMSubject: RE: Why is there something instead of nothing? From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Norman, Perhaps because "Nothingness" can not non-exist. StephenI'm not sure of the double negative, Stephen, but I think I am in agreement. Nothing (noun) cannot exist. Think about it. Maintaining an absolutely perfect Nothing would require infinite energy to control and perfectly balance all the +Nothings and -Nothings (or any other componentry you would care to dream up of which a Nothing is made) to an infinite number of decimal places. Any slight imperfection in this balance would immediately create "Thing" and that "Thing" would have magnitude, place and a past and a future (albeit possibly small, local and brief resp). Do a thought experiment: imagine you had to cut up chunks of +Nothing and -Nothing to make a perfect Nothing. How good is your cutting going to have to be? Nothing = 0 or 0.0 or 0.00 or 0.000 or 0. or...? Pretty kludgy analogy but you get the idea. It doesn't matter whther you Nothing is modelled as an infinite dimensional vector with every element = 0.... Or a simply scalar 0.. Nothing is therefore spontaneously likely to be noisy and that noise is likely to be able to create emergent anyThing (including monkeys with scripts for Hamlet etc) commensurate with any statistical coherence accidentally and spontaneously configured in this randomness. Based on this idea we would expect to find coherent "Thing" that has an overall tendency to vanish that any observer constructed of it would identify and measure as something like a second law of thermodynamics. Nothing (noun) simply cannot exist. Well it's just too hard. That's my slant on it, anyway. This is the stuff the 'Turtles all the way down' are made of IMHO :-) I like this stuff. Cheers, Colin Hales
Re: Why is there something instead of nothing?
Hal Finney, Thanks for the thought. I know that there is something instead of nothing by using Descartes reasoning. (From http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm) The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, thought and extension were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). I don't understand how there can be both something and nothing. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by nothing. By nothing I mean no thing, not even empty space. In other words, it is conceivable to me that the multiverse need not exist. Yet it does. Why? This seems inherently unanswerable. Norman - Original Message - From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 11:12 PM Subject: Re: Why is there something instead of nothing? How do you know the premise is true, that there is something instead of nothing? Maybe there could be both something and nothing. Or maybe the existence of nothing is consistent with our own experiences. I don't think all these terms are well enough defined for the question to have meaning in its simple form. It's easy to put words together, but not all gramatically correct sentences are meaningful. Hal Finney
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Does this question have an answer? I think the question shows there is a limit to our understanding of things and is unanswerable. Does anybody disagree? Norman
spooky action at a distance
I've been reading about spooky action at a distance at http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html and several other sites. I'm told that non-locality is a phenomenon that is proven. A review of experiments makes it clear that spooky action at a distance is part of nature. But doesn't this violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light? Well, no, it does not - because of a technicality. Nevertheless, how might one of entangled particles, even though separated by light-years, react instantaneously to a measurement done to its sibling? I've seen no hypothesis. The answer is, apparently, one of many Quantum Mysteries. This is unsatisfying. I would like to hear speculations on non-locality. We are told that string theory needs 11 dimensions - could it be, for example, that there is another dimension in which the entangled particles are adjacent to each other? Norman
Re: Request for a glossary of acronyms
I agree with Eric Hawthorne. Much of what's said here is unintelligible to me. I think that most of the contributors to this list are outstanding intellects that want to enlighten, not obfuscate, and have some fascinating ideas. I'd like to be able to decipher what you're saying. Norman - Original Message - From: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 9:47 AM Subject: Request for a glossary of acronyms UD, ASSA, Level 1 world, RSSA, Pilot Wave, ... MW, Is anyone willing to post a glossary of the acronyms used on this list, preferably with a very short summary of each, and a reference to the full papers that best explicate them? The glossary could also include the major contending theories (with their variations), listed in a hierarchy to show their place wrt each other. When using acronyms, please remember that the readership is diverse in educational background. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if I started talking about how we could use the RUP or XP combined with a LINDA based RBES based on an RMI P2P grid to investigate these issues. Would be much appreciated.
Re: a possible paradox
To repeat Tegmark's rhetorical question (and he's probably not the originator), If the multiverse is finite, what's outside it's edge? Norman - Original Message - From: Mirai Shounen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Federico Marulli [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 1:14 PM Subject: Re: a possible paradox Actually I wasn't thinking about physically impossible things happening very rarely (QM) but only about regular physics vs probability of things happening. If you consider quantum mechanics you are right in an infinite universe there could be areas in which physics just happens to work very differently, people there would formulate very different physical laws (if people could evolve, or spontaneously appear). So if the universe is infinite, it doesn't make much sense to talk about laws of physics. Still there need to be some fundamental rules that never change, for example the fact that something exists. You can't have areas of the universe in which the universe itself does note exist (I think). Frankly I don't believe the universe is infinite, occam's razor says it's just very big. Last month there was a report about someone finding a pattern in galaxies that would suggest the universe is much smaller than we thought but light wraps around making it appear infinite... the theory was discarded very soon after more experiments were carried out, but it reminded me of that star trek episode.. state the nature of the universe - the universe is a hollow sphere 12 km in diameter ... or something. Infinity is just our perception of things very big... something that originates from nothingness and expands has very little chances of becoming infinite in finite time. mirai++ I think two things are being confused. First, the laws of physics, second, the laws of probability. A gas particle follow physical rules (movement, bumping, thermal vibrations) and lots of gas particles together follow probability rules (low probability of people suffocating in rooms). The problem is that all the laws of physics have been found observing the world around us in an experimental way. But all the outcomes of an experiment are probabilistc and we know the low of physics only with a certain error. So the paradox in the laws of probability is a paradox in laws of physics too. The whole physics is probabilistic.
Is reality unknowable?
Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This is an ideal lamp, capable of infinite switching speed and using electricity that travels at infinite speed. At time zero it is on. After one minute it is turned off. After 1/2 minute it is turned back on. After 1/4 minute it is turned off. And so on, with each interval one-half the preceding interval. Question: What is the status of the lamp at two minutes, on or off? (I know the answer can't be calculated by conventional arithmetic. Yet the clock runs, so there must be an answer.Is there any way of calculating the answer?) I've been greatly intrigued by your responses - thank you. Marcelo Rinesi, after analysis, thinks that the problem has no solution. Bruno Marchal thinks that the Church thesis . . . makes consistent the 'large Pythagorean view, according to which everything emerges from the integers and their relations.' George Levy, after reading Marchal, thinks there may be a solution if there is a new state for the lamp besides ON and OFF, namely ONF. Stathis Papaioannou thinks the lamp is simultaneously on and off at 2 minutes. He thinks the problem is equivalent to asking whether infinity is an odd or an even integer. He shows that there are two sequences at work, one of which culminates in the lamp being on, while the other culminates in the lamp being off. Both sequences can be rigorously shown to be valid. Now Joao Leao paraphrases Hardy to say that 'mathematical reality' is something entirely more precisely known and accessed than 'physical reality' So I'm to understand that mathematical reality is paramount, and physical reality is subservient to it. Yet mathematics is unable to determine the on-or-off state of Thompson's Lamp after 2 minutes. What are the philosophical implications of unsolvable mathematical problems? Does this mean that mathematical reality, hence physical reality, is ultimately unknowable?
Thompson's Lamp
Welcome, I've been looking for an idiot savant to answer this question: Perhaps you've heard of Thompson's Lamp. This isan ideal lamp, capable of infinite switching speed and using electricity that travels at infinite speed. At time zero it is on.After one minute it is turned off. After 1/2 minute it is turned back on. After 1/4 minute it is turned off. And so on, with each interval one-half the preceding interval. Question: What is the status of the lamp at two minutes, on or off? (I know the answer can't be calculated by conventional arithmetic. Yet the clock runs, so there must be an answer. Is there any way of calculating the answer?) Norman - Original Message - From: incarn81 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 11:36 PM Subject: Joining Hello I'm mainly an idoit, sometimes a savant. I get most of the references that I've read so far, but don't really have a deep technical background in any one area. Can't wait to catch up on the archives!
The infinite list of random numbers
Thanks to all who replied. Thanks to your instruction, it now is clear to me that, in an infinite series of random characters, every conceivable sequence MUST occur. These sequences must, of course, obey the requirement that all random characters in an infinite sequence must appear an equal number of times. This requirement rules out sequences of only one character. Therefore, in infinite time, the long-lived monkey at the durable typewriter HAS to eventually write the works of Shakespeare, as well as anything else conceivable. More generally, everything that can happen MUST happen, not only once but an infinite number of times. Norm Samish
