Re: Consciousness research

[Philip Thrift]

“The growing field of AI requires hardware that can host adaptive memory 
properties *beyond what is used in today’s computers*,” he added. “We find 
that nickel oxide insulators, which historically have been restricted to 
academic pursuits, might be interesting candidates to be tested in future 
for brain-inspired computers and robotics.” 

Consciousness is beyond what understood to be conventionally computational. 
It that sense, it cannot be simulated, it can only be synthesized.



On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 2:50:08 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Opinion, does this development have any real impact on the subject of 
> whether a machine can eventually be conscious. This is a paper from Rutgers 
> and seems to be along the lines of the topic.  
>
> https://www.newswise.com/articles/researchers-find-human-learning-can-be-duplicated-in-solid-matter
>
> The method seemingly can be imitated.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruno Marchal 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Wed, Sep 8, 2021 9:10 am
> Subject: Re: Consciousness research
>
> It is never to late, but I guess they remain in the Aristotelian 
> framework, which makes them impossible to take into account the elementary 
> consequences of Mechanism in metaphysics. If you can sum up their 
> approaches or just tell me their basic hypotheses ... In my university, it 
> too time, but eventually there is a course on consciousness, but only the 
> "weak problem" is allowed to be researched, which is better than nothing. 
>
> Bruno
>
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 12:27:03 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q78UL1gYhXI 
>
> Four researchers on consciousness who take a operational and scientific 
> approach and have a program to try to test theories of consciousness. 
>
> Brent 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fc345c8d-6c37-4d3c-82a1-7dc82f187d43n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: A minimally conscious program

[Philip Thrift]

A bit long, but this interview of of the very lucid Hedda Mørch (pronounced 
"Mark") is very good:(for consciousness "realists"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gilsMtCPHyw

via 

https://twitter.com/onemorebrown/status/1386970910230523906





On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:38:32 AM UTC-5 Terren Suydam wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 7:22 AM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 1:08 AM Terren Suydam  
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> consciousness is harder to work with than intelligence, because it's 
>>> harder to make progress.*
>>
>>
>> It's not hard to make progress in consciousness research, it's 
>> impossible.  
>>
>
> So we should ignore experiments where you stimulate the brain and the 
> subject reports experiencing some kind of qualia, in a repeatable way. Why 
> doesn't that represent progress?  Is it because you don't trust people's 
> reports?
>  
>
>>
>> *> Facts that might slay your theory are much harder to come by.*
>>
>>
>> Such facts are not hard to come by. they're impossible to come by. So 
>> for a consciousness scientist being lazy works just as well as being 
>> industrious, so consciousness research couldn't be any easier, just face a 
>> wall, sit on your hands, and contemplate your navel.
>>
>
> There are fruitful lines of research happening. Research on patients 
> undergoing meditation, and psychedelic experiences, while in an FMRI has 
> lead to some interesting facts. You seem to think progress can only mean 
> being able to prove conclusively how consciousness works. Progress can mean 
> deepening our understanding of the relationship between the brain and the 
> mind.
>
> Terren
>  
>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>>
>> .
>>
>>  
>> .
>>
>> -- 
>>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3BkpBXW%3Dq-nX--Dss4ogXXACeswwCnkiwcaWu-un01cg%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d963be0a-9393-4680-b77f-6f32011a44b0n%40googlegroups.com.

Neural networks, consciousness, and wave functions (Willard L. Miranker)

[Philip Thrift]

two papers by Willard L. Miranker (1932-2011) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_L._Miranker

*Consciousness is an Information Field Induced by Hebbian Dynamics*
(pdf) https://www.oden.utexas.edu/media/reports/1997/9711.pdf

Abstract: We introduce a field of information associated with the action 
potentials, the latter encoding conventional unconscious neural processing. 
We show that the field generates a dual representation of the neural 
processing which mirrors the information states conveyed by the neural 
circuitry itself. This leads to the claim that the field is the conscious 
experience of neural processing. An explanation for the fitness advantage 
of consciousness in evolution comes as a by-product. We start with the 
Hebbian synapse whose dynamics are interpreted as an atom of awareness, and 
which is quantified in terms of the signature of the time rate of change of 
synaptic strength. We show how the information field is built up out of 
such atomic constituents. The mathematical development shows that 
consciousness (i.e., the field) arises through a coupling of Russelian-like 
internal (the dual information field) and external (the primal action 
potential) properties of matter. This is contrasted with a corresponding 
duality in quantum mechanics where consciousness itself enters as a causal 
agent. The model presented is falsifiable, and a method for verifying it 
experimentally is suggested.


*A Neural Network Wave Formalism*
(pdf) 
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.594.5921=rep1=pdf

Abstract: Using his path integral methodology, Feynman derived the 
constructs of quantum mechanics from the Lagrangian form of Newtonian 
mechanics. By employing a novel Lagrangian form of the canonical neural 
network equations, we derive analogously a complete wave formalism for the 
information transmission in neural networks. 

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fcc1b19-8603-4d1e-8eab-59ce45e15b49n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

[Philip Thrift]

Correction:



> Maybe you should have been a reviewer. ("I thank Scott Aaronson, Sandro 
> Donadi, and Tim Palmer for helpful feedback.") As she tweets, this will be 
> published in Annals of Physics.
>
> This seems to be a fundamental result of what any probability distribution 
> (under minimal assumptions) on a quantum-theoretic model must satisfy.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Sunday, December 27, 2020 at 10:12:56 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> I read this and I have no quarrels with it. The only issue I might have 
>> is that it is more limited than a full Born rule. The only observable she 
>> works with is probability. This is then just a variant of Gleason's 
>> theorem. Sabine does not work with a general Hermitian operator or 
>> observable. However, the way she does this is similar to the 
>> Hilbert-Schmidt form and projective bundle. This might be worked into 
>> greater generality.
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 7:48:07 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Saw this via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1342435394038726660
>>>
>>> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
>>> *Got an email tonight that my paper was accepted for publication. ...*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Born's rule from almost nothing*
>>> Sabine Hossenfelder
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14175
>>>
>>> Quantum mechanics does not make definite predictions but only predicts 
>>> probabilities for measurement outcomes. One calculates these probabilities 
>>> from the wave-function using Born’s rule. In axiomatic formulations of 
>>> quantum mechanics, Born’s rule is usually added as an axiom on its own 
>>> right. However, it seems the kind of assumption that should not require a 
>>> postulate, but that should instead follow from the physical properties of 
>>> the theory.
>>>
>>> The argument discussed here is most similar to the ones for many worlds 
>>> and the one using environment-assisted invariance. However, as will become 
>>> clear shortly, the ontological baggage of these arguments is unnecessary.
>>>
>>> Claim: The only well-defined and consistent distribution for transition 
>>> probabilities on the complex sphere of dimension N which is continuous, 
>>> independent of N, and invariant under unitary operations is [Born's rule]. 
>>> The continuity assumption is unnecessary if one restricts the original 
>>> space to states of norm K/N or, correspondingly, to rational-valued 
>>> probabilities as a frequentist interpretation would suggest.
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fe303044-ab87-45e1-8103-23db59d370b4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Born's rule from almost nothing

[Philip Thrift]

Maybe she should have been a reviewer. ("I thank Scott Aaronson, Sandro 
Donadi, and Tim Palmer for helpful feedback.") As she tweets, this will be 
published in Annals of Physics.

This seems to be a fundamental result of what any probability distribution 
(under minimal assumptions) on a quantum-theoretic model must satisfy.

@philipthrift

On Sunday, December 27, 2020 at 10:12:56 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I read this and I have no quarrels with it. The only issue I might have is 
> that it is more limited than a full Born rule. The only observable she 
> works with is probability. This is then just a variant of Gleason's 
> theorem. Sabine does not work with a general Hermitian operator or 
> observable. However, the way she does this is similar to the 
> Hilbert-Schmidt form and projective bundle. This might be worked into 
> greater generality.
>
> LC
>
> On Saturday, December 26, 2020 at 7:48:07 AM UTC-6 cloud...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Saw this via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1342435394038726660
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
>> *Got an email tonight that my paper was accepted for publication. ...*
>>
>>
>> *Born's rule from almost nothing*
>> Sabine Hossenfelder
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14175
>>
>> Quantum mechanics does not make definite predictions but only predicts 
>> probabilities for measurement outcomes. One calculates these probabilities 
>> from the wave-function using Born’s rule. In axiomatic formulations of 
>> quantum mechanics, Born’s rule is usually added as an axiom on its own 
>> right. However, it seems the kind of assumption that should not require a 
>> postulate, but that should instead follow from the physical properties of 
>> the theory.
>>
>> The argument discussed here is most similar to the ones for many worlds 
>> and the one using environment-assisted invariance. However, as will become 
>> clear shortly, the ontological baggage of these arguments is unnecessary.
>>
>> Claim: The only well-defined and consistent distribution for transition 
>> probabilities on the complex sphere of dimension N which is continuous, 
>> independent of N, and invariant under unitary operations is [Born's rule]. 
>> The continuity assumption is unnecessary if one restricts the original 
>> space to states of norm K/N or, correspondingly, to rational-valued 
>> probabilities as a frequentist interpretation would suggest.
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03768345-4007-4f12-baf1-8acd2ab298a9n%40googlegroups.com.

Born's rule from almost nothing

[Philip Thrift]

Saw this via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1342435394038726660

Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
*Got an email tonight that my paper was accepted for publication. ...*


*Born's rule from almost nothing*
Sabine Hossenfelder
https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14175

Quantum mechanics does not make definite predictions but only predicts 
probabilities for measurement outcomes. One calculates these probabilities 
from the wave-function using Born’s rule. In axiomatic formulations of 
quantum mechanics, Born’s rule is usually added as an axiom on its own 
right. However, it seems the kind of assumption that should not require a 
postulate, but that should instead follow from the physical properties of 
the theory.

The argument discussed here is most similar to the ones for many worlds and 
the one using environment-assisted invariance. However, as will become 
clear shortly, the ontological baggage of these arguments is unnecessary.

Claim: The only well-defined and consistent distribution for transition 
probabilities on the complex sphere of dimension N which is continuous, 
independent of N, and invariant under unitary operations is [Born's rule]. 
The continuity assumption is unnecessary if one restricts the original 
space to states of norm K/N or, correspondingly, to rational-valued 
probabilities as a frequentist interpretation would suggest.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/27579bbb-978d-4943-9d0b-48059510d6d6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Consciousness and number self-reference (was Re: A universe where everything exists?)

[Philip Thrift]

Bernardo Kastrup is super-critical of those who confuse intelligence with 
consciousness, especially those who think that that an AI built with 
silicon chips ("sand") could ever be conscious.

via https://twitter.com/BernardoKastrup/status/1338214536940228610

I*nterview at NeuroTech2020 - Bernardo Kastrup*

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v93fk1fgeX0


[ Though chips made with "actual biological neurons, taken from mice and 
humans" maybe!
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cortical-labs-startup-biological-neurons/
 
]

@philipthrift



On Monday, December 14, 2020 at 8:22:57 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote:

>  I agree.  I'm an advocate of the engineering solution to the "hard 
> problem of consciousness".  When we can build AI's that act intelligently 
> and explain their conscious thoughts and we can adjust them so that they 
> are more or less humorous or optimistic v. pessimstic or intuitive v. 
> contemplative, etc...then we will have understood as much as there is to 
> understand about consciousness.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 12/14/2020 4:46 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I wince when people bring consciousness into scientific discussions. It is 
> not entirely clear how consciousness can ever be a fully scientific 
> subject. Maybe within the soft problem limits it can be somewhat 
> scientific. The qualia or hard problem I think is outside of science.  
>
> LC
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ca516545-cd23-4ffb-867c-14b7400cabb2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Physics with intuitionistic vs. classical mathematics:

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, December 5, 2020 at 1:39:08 PM UTC-6 Philip Thrift wrote:

>
> "Nicolas Gisin [has] argued that we should be formulating physics without 
> using infinities or infinitely precise numbers."
> in http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-infinity-real_5.html
>
> Nicolas Gisin on physics with intuitionistic vs. classical mathematics:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02348
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01653
>
> @philipthrift
>


*Indeterministic finite-precision physics and intuitionistic mathematics*
Tein van der Lugt ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/teinvdlugt/ )
(Bachelor's thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 31 July 2020)

pdf: https://www.math.ru.nl/~landsman/Tein.pdf

 @philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/380e312b-7e6d-4a65-9b69-9f8d464d228en%40googlegroups.com.

Physics with intuitionistic vs. classical mathematics:

[Philip Thrift]

"Nicolas Gisin [has] argued that we should be formulating physics without 
using infinities or infinitely precise numbers."
in http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-infinity-real_5.html

Nicolas Gisin on physics with intuitionistic vs. classical mathematics:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02348
https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01653

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63cac277-290d-489a-a282-eae462e50fd9n%40googlegroups.com.

"The end of physics

[Philip Thrift]

"

There's some on the latest skirmish on the *Not Even Wrong* blog:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12053

"Now, finally, the ship of science is leaving the safe inland waterways 
carved by nature, and is heading for the open ocean, exploring a brave new 
world with 'artificial' materials, organisms, brains and perhaps even a 
better version of ourselves."


"The basic problem of current fundamental theory though is that there is 
virtually no relevant data (i.e. data that disagrees with our best model)."
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12053#comment-237807


"You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data."
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-black-hole-information-loss-problem.html

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/97fbb367-ddb9-40c3-bb4e-be9b030d6370n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, November 26, 2020 at 2:15:53 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 11/26/2020 4:28 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> The architecture they specify in their paper 
>
>  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.09850.pdf
>
> could be of interest to the AI hacker (MIT AI Lab type) trying to 
> implement and demonstrate a "conscious" robot" (even just an impressively 
> "fake" one). 
>
> *We agree with Christof Koch that “There isn’t a Turing Test for 
> consciousness. You have to look at the way the system is built. You have to 
> look at the circuitry, not [only] its behavior”. We would emphasize 
> “architecture” over “circuitry”.*
>
>
> Then can they answer the question, "Is an octopus conscious?"  Octopuses 
> have a very different neural architecture.  Two thirds of their neurons are 
> in their legs.  They have almost as many as a dog (5e8 vs 7e8).  They 
> play.  They recognize individual people.  I'd say they are conscious...but 
> then I'm only looking at behavior.  I curious as to what looking at 
> architecture would contribute?
>
> Brent
>

Their "architecture" is in the sense of a programming architecture (as 
would be needed in a "conscious" robot).


*We see a kinship between the CTM and the self-aware robots developed by 
(Chella, Pipitone, Morin, & Racy, **2020).*

(The *cognitive architecture* for inner and private speech)

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2020.00016/full
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b0d2/a60bd8cdda4f6f043c75dba941ade86c9843.pdf

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33d461a5-91a5-4ba1-bbaf-c019a83cd65cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

[Philip Thrift]

The architecture they specify in their paper

 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.09850.pdf

could be of interest to the AI hacker (MIT AI Lab type) trying to implement 
and demonstrate a "conscious" robot" (even just an impressively "fake" 
one). 

*We agree with Christof Koch that “There isn’t a Turing Test for 
consciousness. You have to look at the way the system is built. You have to 
look at the circuitry, not [only] its behavior”. We would emphasize 
“architecture” over “circuitry”.*

(But the "neuromorphic" might not just be architecture, but material 
composition.)

It is interesting that the presence of these artificial beings may be 
looked at differently depending on culture.

*Why Westerners Fear Robots and the Japanese Do Not*
https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-robot-overlords/

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 4:52:39 PM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> > The Conscious Turing Machine
>>> arXiv:
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850
>>>
>>
>>> *DEFINITION 1.5.1. At each time t ≥ 0, Short Term Memory holds exactly 
>>> one chunk, which is designated the entirety of Conscious 
>>> Turing Machine's conscious content. Consciousness in Conscious 
>>> Turing Machine is defined to be the awareness (i.e. the reception by 
>>> all Long Term Memory). It defines the conscious content of Conscious 
>>> Turing Machine to be whatever chunk is in Short Term Memory; and then 
>>> defines Conscious Awareness by the Conscious Turing Machineto be the 
>>> reception by all Long Term Memory processors of Short Term 
>>> Memory's broadcast of that content. The gists of those broadcasts may be 
>>> viewed as the inner thoughts generated by Conscious 
>>> Turing Machine's unconscious processors or the speech, vision, touch, 
>>> taste, and/or whatever else is received as input by the Conscious 
>>> Turing Machine*
>>
>>
>> Consciousness and awareness mean the same thing, so all the verbiage in 
>> the above could be boiled down to "Consciousness in Conscious Turing 
>> Machine theory is defined to be consciousness" which I don't find to be 
>> terribly helpful. And in the article I don't see even a hint as to how an 
>> experimental test could be performed to see if this "theory" is actually 
>> correct.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> Blum defined a funny sort of meaning to incomputability, which is 
> basically recursively enumerable. Blum stated this was incomputable because 
> the computation would not halt and there is no final output. This differs 
> from Turing's definition in that one cannot determine if all things halt or 
> do not halt. 
>
> The video is sort of long and I am not sure if I have the time to devote 
> to this. This definition of inner thought being conferred to a system which 
> exhibits the outward properties of a person known to have inner thoughts is 
> not much different from the Turing test definition. This is couched in the 
> definition of memory or long term memory as a cache of short term memories. 
> This seems rather artificial to me.
>
> LC 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5389e90b-0d77-4d0e-800f-65c0b7fce3efn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Conscious Turing Machine

[Philip Thrift]

I am unconscious of where they where they said "Charles".

@philipthrift

On Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 2:59:43 PM UTC-6 Brent wrote:

> "Charles" Dennett?  Any relation to Daniel?
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 11/24/2020 11:17 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> The Conscious Turing Machine
>
> video:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=152yq0SPIqk
>
> arXiv:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850
>
> *A Theoretical Computer Science Perspective on Consciousness*
> Manuel Blum [ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mblum/ ],
> Lenore Blum [ https://twitter.com/BlumLenore ]
>
> The quest to understand consciousness, once the purview of philosophers 
> and theologians, is now actively pursued by scientists of many stripes. 
> This paper studies consciousness from the perspective of theoretical 
> computer science. It formalizes the Global Workspace Theory (GWT) 
> originated by cognitive neuroscientist Bernard Baars and further developed 
> by him, Stanislas Dehaene, and others. Our major contribution lies in the 
> precise formal definition of a Conscious Turing Machine (CTM), also called 
> a Conscious AI. We define the CTM in the spirit of Alan Turing's simple yet 
> powerful definition of a computer, the Turing Machine (TM). We are not 
> looking for a complex model of the brain nor of cognition but for a simple 
> model of (the admittedly complex concept of) consciousness. After formally 
> defining CTM, we give a formal definition of consciousness in CTM. We then 
> suggest why the CTM has the feeling of consciousness. The reasonableness of 
> the definitions and explanations can be judged by how well they agree with 
> commonly accepted intuitive concepts of human consciousness, the breadth of 
> related concepts that the model explains easily and naturally, and the 
> extent of its agreement with scientific evidence.
>
> cf. 
> https://thenextweb.com/neural/2020/11/23/eureka-a-family-of-computer-scientists-developed-a-blueprint-for-machine-consciousness/
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/662dd413-ee5a-4250-a12c-a8e138deb519n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/662dd413-ee5a-4250-a12c-a8e138deb519n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/301a0493-5567-47c1-ad0f-48c856b1864en%40googlegroups.com.

The Conscious Turing Machine

[Philip Thrift]

The Conscious Turing Machine

video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=152yq0SPIqk

arXiv:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.09850

*A Theoretical Computer Science Perspective on Consciousness*
Manuel Blum [ http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mblum/ ],
Lenore Blum [ https://twitter.com/BlumLenore ]

The quest to understand consciousness, once the purview of philosophers and 
theologians, is now actively pursued by scientists of many stripes. This 
paper studies consciousness from the perspective of theoretical computer 
science. It formalizes the Global Workspace Theory (GWT) originated by 
cognitive neuroscientist Bernard Baars and further developed by him, 
Stanislas Dehaene, and others. Our major contribution lies in the precise 
formal definition of a Conscious Turing Machine (CTM), also called a 
Conscious AI. We define the CTM in the spirit of Alan Turing's simple yet 
powerful definition of a computer, the Turing Machine (TM). We are not 
looking for a complex model of the brain nor of cognition but for a simple 
model of (the admittedly complex concept of) consciousness. After formally 
defining CTM, we give a formal definition of consciousness in CTM. We then 
suggest why the CTM has the feeling of consciousness. The reasonableness of 
the definitions and explanations can be judged by how well they agree with 
commonly accepted intuitive concepts of human consciousness, the breadth of 
related concepts that the model explains easily and naturally, and the 
extent of its agreement with scientific evidence.

cf. 
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2020/11/23/eureka-a-family-of-computer-scientists-developed-a-blueprint-for-machine-consciousness/



@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/662dd413-ee5a-4250-a12c-a8e138deb519n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose Singularity Predicts The End of Space Time

[Philip Thrift]

Stephen William Hawking

https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=78459

Advisor: Dennis William Siahou Sciama 



On Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:27:29 AM UTC-6 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Penrose was Hawking's primary dissertation advisor.
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:28:49 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> Hawking was Penrose's protégé ? On physics, what does this mean, in plain 
>> English? TIA, AG
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 3:07:02 PM UTC-7 Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The work of Penrose and Hawking, Hawking at the time his protégé, is 
>>> that there is a region where all geodesics are incomplete. The geodesics 
>>> end and they do so at a spacelike region where the Weyl curvature diverges. 
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2020 at 10:48:11 PM UTC-6 agrays...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4odQd8q3xY

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6a07c7fa-d1cc-4c7b-8c41-4d052c1c1c18n%40googlegroups.com.

Dark holes

[Philip Thrift]

Black Holes From the Big Bang Could Be the "Dark Matter"
https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-holes-from-the-big-bang-could-be-the-dark-matter-20200923/

ref:
Primordial black hole dark matter and the LIGO/Virgo observations
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/022


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/041da938-9735-47b8-901d-af77bed61ca4n%40googlegroups.com.

Vitaly Vanchurin, on the world as a neural network

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAKaqojK0d8


*Vitaly Vanchurin, physicist and cosmologist at the University of Minnesota 
Duluth speaks to Luis Razo Bravo of EISM about the world as a neural 
network, machine learning, theories of everything, interpretations of 
quantum mechanics and long-term human survival. *

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/da17d996-cbd8-4f90-b16f-1a111b9bc49bn%40googlegroups.com.

Neural Theorem Proving

[Philip Thrift]

Learning Reasoning Strategies in End-to-End Differentiable Proving
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.06477

End-to-End Differentiable Proving
https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11040

Towards Neural Theorem Proving at Scale
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08204

Neural Theorem Provers Do Not Learn Rules Without Exploration
https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.06805

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab2ddec3-696d-4429-8a72-6331ce7e8e29n%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing model of black holes

[Philip Thrift]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.01166


via https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1323517710685360128

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/236935df-cd91-4b2e-a615-24b0f9995a0dn%40googlegroups.com.

Particle Robotics

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.creativemachineslab.com/particle-robotics.html

and more, from https://www.creativemachineslab.com/

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e44c5afc-e7ac-46f7-be65-936e3ae74841n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: early everythinism

[Philip Thrift]

Then Derrida comes along:

"See all the stuff inside the 'speech balloons' above our heads? Everything 
is *gramma* (Gr. γράμμα* - writing)."

* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%AC%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1#Noun 

@philipthrift
On Sunday, October 25, 2020 at 7:18:23 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/362
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/50b6a221-8ba7-457c-ae2f-49cce8317bc4n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose - Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?

[Philip Thrift]

" Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered?" is the same as " Is Programming 
Invented or Discovered?"


Arche-programming
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2019/08/22/arche-programming/


@philipthrift

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 9:22:28 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> This is something we will probably never know for sure.
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, October 14, 2020 at 11:20:27 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujvS2K06dg4
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3aebcdda-845f-4132-8579-f27816ac2acdn%40googlegroups.com.

"Understanding the World with Program Synthesis"

[Philip Thrift]

*Understanding the World with Program Synthesis*
https://blog.sigplan.org/2019/11/04/understanding-the-world-with-program-synthesis/
by Swarat Chaudhuri @swarat [ https://twitter.com/swarat ]

This article captures my scientific "philosophy" that scientific theories 
of the future will be made by computers: the process of program synthesis.

@philipthrift



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3d98966a-1664-4c44-8bbf-9182ca39045dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Invention of Philosophy

[Philip Thrift]

I'm in agreement with the certain Wittgensteinian brand that sees the only 
thing philosophy is good for is just to "clarify" the word messes other 
subjects make.


*Philosophy as an Activity of Clarification*

Wittgenstein emphasizes the difference between his philosophy and 
traditional philosophy by saying that his philosophy is an activity rather 
than a body of doctrine. We can identify definite positions and theories in 
the writings of most traditional philosophers but not with Wittgenstein. In 
fact, Wittgenstein’s writings are distinctly antitheoretical: he believes 
that the very idea of a philosophical theory is a sign of confusion. He 
conceives of the role of philosophy as an activity by which we unravel the 
sorts of confusion that manifest themselves in traditional philosophy. This 
activity carries with it no theories or doctrines but rather aims at 
reaching a point where theories and doctrines cease to confuse us. In the 
Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein writes, “the work of the 
philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose.” 
That is, his ideal philosopher works to remind those confused by abstract 
theorizing of the ordinary uses of words and to set their thinking in 
order. The clarity achieved through this kind of activity is not the 
clarity of a coherent, all-encompassing system of thought but rather the 
clarity of being free from being too influenced by any systems or theories.


https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/wittgenstein/themes/


@philipthrift

On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 6:18:17 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Philosophy really means love of sophistry, philos sophist. Socrates 
> objected terribly to the notion he was a sophist. His main rival was 
> Gorgias, a sophist.
>
> LC
>
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 3:24:19 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The Invention of Philosophy 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e593b809-aa04-4d22-bdce-133cd6803fa1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Penrose gets Nobel

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 5:39:43 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Finally he got it.
>
>
> https://physicsworld.com/a/roger-penrose-reinhard-genzel-and-andrea-ghez-bag-the-nobel-prize-for-physics/
>
> LC
>


*Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose explains quantum mechanics and what 
is not quite right about current understandings of quantum theory.*


Why Quantum Mechanics is Not Quite Right | Roger Penrose
Sep 28, 2019
(6 minutes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryFxkPXIfi0




@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/863e8022-fdbf-4d9e-a31f-8eca6e79a7dfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

[Philip Thrift]

Quantum computers may end up being not-more-advantageous for "quantum 
modeling" than the current trend in using DLNs (deep leaning nets).

e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.02487

@philipthrift


On Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 4:57:45 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020  'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/4/2020 12:52 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Quantum computers, or processors, will make more inroads into 
>>> things. They have a possible big role in understanding quantum black holes 
>>> and quantum complexity. Any NP problem can be worked faster, at least in 
>>> principle, with a quantum computer.
>>>
>>> * > I don't think there's any proof of that.  Given any quantum computer 
>>> algorithm, it is possible that there is an equally fast classical algorithm*
>>>
>>
>> It's true that although a quantum algorithm has been found that can 
>> factor numbers efficiently there is no proof a classical algorithm cannot 
>> be discovered that would do the same thing, in fact it has never been 
>> proven that P≠NP, although nearly all mathematicians believe that is the 
>> case.  However it has been proven that a recently discovered exotic class 
>> of problems can be solved In polynomial time but even if it turns out to 
>> everybody's surprise that P=NP and a classical algorithm is found to make 
>> use of that fact a classical computer could never do as well solving them 
>> as a quantum computer. It's so new that nobody is yet quite sure if this 
>> exotic class of problems is of interest in themselves or is interesting 
>> only because a conventional computer could not solve them efficiently but a 
>> quantum computer could. Although falling short of a proof it gives yet more 
>> ammunition to those who believe a quantum computer can solve more familiar 
>> practical problems faster than a classical computer ever will be able to.
>>
>> Oracle Separation of BQP and PH 
>> 
>>
>> I think the killer application for a quantum computer will be simulating 
>> quantum systems. 
>>
>> John K Clark 
>>
>> The physical idea is that a quantum computer is a faster is that in 
> principle if we had quantum brains it would really be exponentially faster. 
> However, the result of a quantum computation can only be be manifested if 
> the entanglements are decoded by a classical signal. This "undoes" the 
> exponential speed up. However, for teleporting a state with a Bell pair the 
> classical part has half the information. Then in principle, for quantum 
> computing there is a speed up that is some fraction of what occurs with a 
> classical computer. The actual speed up is dependent on the algorithm as 
> well. 
>
> This paper on BQP and PH made a related point in that BQP has the need for 
> fewer oracle inputs, which is the same as saying user inputs. This means 
> for a range of problems quantum computing will have an economy of time or 
> scale. 
>
> Certainly right away quantum computing will be mostly used for modelling 
> systems, in particular quantum systems. Quantum computing has analogues 
> with black holes as well. The complexity of computing has analogues with 
> quantum complexity of black holes. We may then have laboratory-like forms 
> or simulations of black holes with quantum computers. In fact I think this 
> can happen with a certain optical process with atoms that can make an atom 
> quantum computing.
>
> LC
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/62ab81f8-9804-48ca-be92-c93abfabf017n%40googlegroups.com.

Predictive Coding Approximates Backprop along Arbitrary Computation Graphs

[Philip Thrift]

https://openreview.net/forum?id=PdauS7wZBfC

Abstract: The backpropagation of error (backprop) is a powerful algorithm 
for training machine learning architectures through end-to-end 
differentiation. Recently it has been shown that backprop in 
multilayer-perceptrons (MLPs) can be approximated using predictive coding, 
a biologically-plausible process theory of cortical computation which 
relies solely on local and Hebbian updates. The power of backprop, however, 
lies not in its instantiation in MLPs, but rather in the concept of 
automatic differentiation which allows for the optimisation of any 
differentiable program expressed as a computation graph. Here, we 
demonstrate that predictive coding converges asymptotically (and in 
practice rapidly) to exact backprop gradients on arbitrary computation 
graphs using only local learning rules. We apply this result to develop a 
straightforward strategy to translate core machine learning architectures 
into their predictive coding equivalents. We construct predictive coding 
CNNs, RNNs, and the more complex LSTMs, which include a non-layer-like 
branching internal graph structure and multiplicative interactions. Our 
models perform equivalently to backprop on challenging machine learning 
benchmarks, while utilising only local and (mostly) Hebbian plasticity. Our 
method raises the potential that standard machine learning algorithms could 
in principle be directly implemented in neural circuitry, and may also 
contribute to the development of completely distributed neuromorphic 
architectures.
One-sentence Summary: We show that predictive coding algorithms from 
neuroscience can be setup to approximate the backpropagation of error 
algorithm on any computational graph.

https://iclr.cc/
The Ninth International Conference on Learning Representations (Virtual 
Only, 2021)

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f644207b-a6ea-4ed3-8b94-5ac6a0ccb3ben%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 1:55:20 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I think the killer application for a quantum computer will be simulating 
> quantum systems. 
>
> John K Clark 
>
>
> Why shouldn't simulations of quantum systems on (massive CPU/GPU parallel) 
> computers be just as good?
>

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d737022e-8535-4d75-afca-86466aeb1fd6n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Bayes math hoax?

[Philip Thrift]

Suppose - vs. the edit and editors' disclaimer statement - *after the fact 
of publication *- that the article was just* removed* (erased!) from the 
journal!

What is not to say the removal of the article would be an example of CANCEL 
CULTURE?

Conservatives would go nuts.

Free speech (as advocated by the conservative community).

@philipthrift

On Monday, October 5, 2020 at 1:20:43 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 10/5/2020 1:18 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then this 
> wouldn't be significant. 
>
> But this  is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about the 
> backlash.
>
> e.g.
>
> "Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a 
> review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular 
> journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who reviewed 
> it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased review."
>
> Now there's this:
>
> *Editor’s Disclaimer* 
>
> *The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not 
> endorse in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of 
> intelligent design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become 
> evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although 
> their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide 
> universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being 
> reviewed. Moreover, the keywords “intelligent design” were added by the 
> authors after the review process during the proofing stage and we were 
> unaware of this action by the authors. We have removed these from the 
> online version of this paper. We believe that intelligent design is not in 
> any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.*
>
>
> That sounds better, I guess.
>
>
> It sounds worse to me.  It sounds like "Let's keep the real message and 
> intent of the paper covered up."  I don't think the Editor's disclaimer 
> will show up when someone references the paper in the future.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83c67299-6238-41e0-8e79-b284440fbca9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Bayes math hoax?

[Philip Thrift]

If this article were in an "Intelligent Design" blog or journal, then this 
wouldn't be significant.

But this  is in a "secular scientific" journal. So I am curious about the 
backlash.

e.g.

"Dembski, Axe, and Behe come up, and the paper includes essentially a 
review of just about all ID arguments we’ve heard. This is a secular 
journal, but does make me wonder about who the editor was and who reviewed 
it. It is hard to imagine this paper surviving an unbiased review."

Now there's this:

*Editor’s Disclaimer*

*The Journal of Theoretical Biology and its co-Chief Editors do not endorse 
in any way the ideology of nor reasoning behind the concept of intelligent 
design. Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that 
the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses 
are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were 
unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed. Moreover, the 
keywords “intelligent design” were added by the authors after the review 
process during the proofing stage and we were unaware of this action by the 
authors. We have removed these from the online version of this paper. We 
believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the 
Journal of Theoretical Biology.*


That sounds better, I guess.


@philipthrift


On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 5:08:10 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> And we, and the biosphere, could exist without the universe being 
> fine-tuned for us, IF there were a God who do miracles.  A miracle would be 
> evidence for such a God.  So fine-tuning=no-miracle cannot be evidence for 
> a God.  The same facts cannot be evidence both for and against a 
> proposition.
>
> So for fine-tuning to count as evidence for some creator, it has to be a 
> creator who is limited by natural laws, e.g. some super-alien engineers.  
> Not  a god.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 10/4/2020 5:29 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
> *Journal of Theoretical Biology*
>> *Volume 501, 21 September 2020*
>> *Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines 
>> and systems*
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071
>>
>
>> * A science  journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.*
>
>
> I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) then 
> an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God 
> Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons.
>
> 1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe.
> 2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence 
> other than to say He has always existed, but if you're  going to do that 
> you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step.
>
> It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has plenty, a 
> good honest "I don't know" would be a better response to it than offering a 
> theory that is obviously silly. 
>
> John K Clark
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv33YuxM7Gw32q3JYQCzGG%3D1remSnw6i8q0HFCjzSUS_0Q%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv33YuxM7Gw32q3JYQCzGG%3D1remSnw6i8q0HFCjzSUS_0Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eac99389-f2c5-4b8d-b579-2a667d5b6a0fn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Bayes math hoax?

[Philip Thrift]

I think the key thing - from the fact this article was published (in a 
"reputable" science journal)  - is it provides an example (not a good 
example to follow, but others likely will) of how statistical (in 
particular, Bayesian) arguments can be used to deduce "design" (in effect, 
reject Darwinism),-  in the way this article formulates it in its 
probability model. 

@philipthrift

On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 11:09:26 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 7:30:15 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 7:44 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>> *Journal of Theoretical Biology*
>>> *Volume 501, 21 September 2020*
>>> *Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular 
>>> machines and systems*
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071
>>>
>>
>>> * A science  journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.*
>>
>>
>> I don't see how. If the universe really is fine-tuned (a very big if) 
>> then an explanation for that fine-tuning needs to be found, but the God 
>> Hypothesis is a very poor explanation for two reasons.
>>
>> 1) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God created the universe.
>> 2) It does not say or even give a hint as to how God came into existence 
>> other than to say He has always existed, but if you're  going to do that 
>> you might as well just say the universe always existed and save a step.
>>
>> It seems to me that when a mystery is found, and Science has plenty, a 
>> good honest "I don't know" would be a better response to it than offering a 
>> theory that is obviously silly.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> The issue is whether fine tuning means a fine tuner. A fine tuner is a 
> necessary condition, but probably not sufficient. In the multiverse setting 
> there may be a vast array of cosmologies and one could argue that just as 
> Earth is one of many planets with the right conditions for life, this 
> cosmology is in a Goldilocks situation. It is also possible I think that 
> many of these other cosmologies are off-shell conditions in a cosmological 
> path integral. Cosmologies with larger vacuum energy densities may not be 
> physically real, but quantum amplitudes off-shell from a physical 
> cosmology. This may reduce the number of actual physical cosmologies, and 
> that could mean just one. In this second situation there is some condition 
> in the structure of quantum cosmology that selects exclusively for this 
> cosmology.
>
> LC
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5878ee04-5e19-44f9-9cdb-b5cedfc38cb3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Turing Complete Protein Switches

[Philip Thrift]

pdf: 
https://www.bakerlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Lajoie-coLOCKR2020.pdf


via
Baker Lab, Institute for Protein Design
University of Washington, Seattle.
https://www.bakerlab.org/




On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> It makes sense. The phosphorylation of a protein changes its shape. We can 
> think of these different conformal shapes as different logical conditions 
> or states.
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, October 4, 2020 at 7:07:49 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> In the September 25 2020 issue of the journal Science researchers report 
>> on the invention of a sequence of switches made entirely of protein that 
>> can perform AND OR and NOT Boolean logical operations, and thus is Turing 
>> Complete, they call it Co-LOCKR.  And they were able to put this simple 
>> computer into a T-Cell antibody, and so they could activate the T-Cell 
>> only when specific conditions are met.  
>>
>> Designed protein logic to target cells with precise combinations of 
>> surface antigens 
>>
>> By examining the antigens on the surface of a specific type of cancer 
>> cell you can distinguish cancer cells from healthy normal cells, but 
>> it's more complex than just looking for one specific antigen. However with 
>> Co-LOCKR a T-Cell could be programmed for example, to only attack cells 
>> that have antigens W OR X  AND NOT both on their surface, AND antigen Y, 
>> AND NOT antigen Z. That way the T cell would attack cancerous cells but 
>> leave normal healthy cells alone. This is almost starting to sound a little 
>> like a simplified version of one of Drexler's Nanomachines. 
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8bfc52b3-520d-4602-ad85-54c5af691976n%40googlegroups.com.

Bayes math hoax?

[Philip Thrift]

A science  journal publishes an article supporting Intelligent Design.

*Journal of Theoretical Biology*
Volume 501, 21 September 2020

*Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines 
and systems*

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e6706116-401a-4b51-aa0c-22004358fbbbn%40googlegroups.com.

D-Wave's 5000 qubit computer

[Philip Thrift]

Really?

via https://twitter.com/QZeitgeist/status/1311616740451905536

https://quantumzeitgeist.com/d-wave-announces-generally-available-advantage-quantum-computer-for-businesses-with-5000-qubits/

https://www.dwavesys.com/take-leap

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9203f40-a16a-4917-b90c-4e187662d477n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Buddha Machine?

[Philip Thrift]

I don't think that descries him accurately. His many SciAm articles are 
good.

  https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/john-horgan7

He is a skeptic of a lot ,especailly when scientists go off the deep end - 
notably *Many Worlds Interpretation*.


@philipthrift



On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 4:34:07 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> John Horgan is a bit into nonsense. He is, as I remember, the end of 
> science guy who said science was coming to an end. He has made other 
> pronouncements.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 4:19:47 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> (The Turing Machine processes information. The Buddha Machine processes 
>> experience.)
>>
>>
>> via 
>> John Horgan
>> 
>> @Horganism
>> 
>>
>> https://twitter.com/Horganism/status/1311583221675692032
>>
>> https://psychopolitica.substack.com/p/the-laws-of-consciousness
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2ab607ae-e2d8-405b-9332-0b57e446a0dcn%40googlegroups.com.

The Buddha Machine?

[Philip Thrift]

(The Turing Machine processes information. The Buddha Machine processes 
experience.)


via 
John Horgan

@Horganism


https://twitter.com/Horganism/status/1311583221675692032

https://psychopolitica.substack.com/p/the-laws-of-consciousness

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/940481eb-a183-46ee-9925-75b0716253a7n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The Handmaid's Tale

[Philip Thrift]

On Wednesday, September 30, 2020 at 10:18:19 PM UTC-5 Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 07:06:44AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: 
> > How come nobody talks about ToEs anymore on this list? The genre of 
> > conversation and exchanges I daily read here now are no different to 
> Facebook. 
> > A once-great science discussion list - now a pathetic shadow of its 
> former 
> > self. You must all be a bunch of sad and lonely types. Well, at least be 
> HONEST 
> > : change the name to the "Anything List" 
> > 
> > Kim Jones B.Mus GDTL 
> > 
>
> 'Twas ever thus - a madness descends on these lists every four years 
> for around 6 months or so. 
>
>
>
If you scroll down the last list of Topics on the web page

   https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list


*The Handmaid's Tale*
*Carlo Rovelli on the relational interpretation of QM*
*Trump's taxes*
*Physics and AI with Julia*
*Topos of Quantum Gravity*
*Kac-Moody algebra and sporadic and monster groups*
*AlgebraicJulia*
*Bob Woodward's new book "Rage"Trump's Rioting zombies*
*Many Worlds wins another one*
*Neural networks for physics*

*...*

it may seem different.

@philipthrift
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a08979a6-ff86-4ae2-97de-cca946abf511n%40googlegroups.com.

Physics and AI with Julia

[Philip Thrift]

https://github.com/SciML/SciMLTutorials.jl

Video and tutorials for doing scientific machine learning and 
high-performance differential equation solving with Julia (programming 
language).

--
@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/85c4b1df-16ae-45a9-a45c-a569a2acc6c1n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

[Philip Thrift]

It is interesting approach to fundamentally replace the underlaying 
language (logic) of physics.


Topos Quantum Theory
Christopher J. Isham


https://fqxi.org/grants/large/awardees/view/__details/2006/isham


*One important feature of topos theory is that a proposition such as "the 
physical quantity A has a value in a certain range" need not be simply true 
or false: rather, there are more possibilities that are given by the 
intrinsic logic that is possessed by a topos.*

Attempt to integrate this into a programming language:

Catlab.jl - https://github.com/AlgebraicJulia/Catlab.jl

@philipthrift
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 4:05:43 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2020, at 19:49, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> I downloaded Doering’s paper. In scanning this I see a mention of Chris 
> Isham, who started this idea of Topos as a category system of physics. 
>
>
> Which is nice. Isham is also quite open for the “many-world”.
>
>
> I think in a way this might be a way of looking at dualities, where if 
> they have the same category or categorical topology of sheaves then these 
> are dualities. While this can be elegant mathematics, such as how 
> Grothendieke formulated algebraic geometry as cohomologies as topoi, this 
> may come after the fact. I think honestly that physical ideas are a better 
> way to blaze this trail.
>
>
>
> Or philosophy of mind, also.
>
>
>
> The complex coupling constant τ = θ/2π + 4πi/g^2 is a case where there is 
> a duality between the generator of a group, generally thought of as a Lie 
> algebra, and an observable which technically is in a Jordan algebra. This 
> coupling constant with some element H defines g = exp(-τH), where θ is the 
> vacuum angle and g the standard coupling constant. 
>
> And tau is 2*pi, I guess.
>
>
>
> This angle defines the constant wave function along orbits of gauge 
> transformations. For A → UAU^{-1} - (dU)U^{-1} and a wave function for a 
> field φ.
>
> ψ(*A*, φ) → ψ(U*A*U^{-1} - (*d*U)U^{-1}, Uφ) ≃ e^{iθ} ψ(A, φ).
>
> The angle θ is a winding number for the gauge orbits π_3(G) for the group. 
> These orbits are defined for small gauge transformations by U = e^{iα}
>
> U*A*U^{-1} - (*d*U)U^{-1} ≃ *A* + i([α, *A*] + *d*α)
>
> Uφ ≃ φ + iαφ
>
> That defines ψ(*A*, φ) → (1 + i*d*θ) ψ(A, φ), where *d*θ is an orbit map. 
>  The angle is a winding number.
>
> For this orbit space for the operator e^{iτH} we then have the associated 
> real valued -4π/g^2. The winding number, say at a nexus of a Penrose 
> diagram, is then associated with a dual form. This duality is equivalent to 
> the Euclideanization of time t → it so -t/ħ = -1/kT. This is a duality (Lie 
> algebraic generator) ↔ (Jordan observable). This then can in principle be 
> formulated according to a topoi.
>
>
> Quite interesting. Still very mysterious, and probably related to the 
> material modes ([]p & <>t) in arithmetic. This should be related to knot 
> theory, and the quantum invariant of knots and braids, for the 
> arithmetical-quantum origin of space, but this led me to the 
> self-distributive algebra until I get stuck in complex questions of set 
> theory and the very large cardinals, like the cardinal of Woodin and Laver… 
> To be continued … in the next millenium, or the one after … (we are so 
> slow…).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> LC
>
> On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 6:44:11 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> *Some Remarks on the Logic of Quantum Gravity*
>> Andreas Doering
>>
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/5456772/Some_Remarks_on_the_Logic_of_Quantum_Gravity
>>
>> We discuss some conceptual issues that any approach to quantum gravity 
>> has to confront. In particular, it is argued that one has to find a theory 
>> that can be interpreted in a realist manner, because theories with an 
>> instrumentalist interpretation are problematic for several well-known 
>> reasons. Since the Hilbert space formalism almost inevitably forces an 
>> instrumentalist interpretation on us, we suggest that a theory of quantum 
>> gravity should not be based on the Hilbert space formalism. We briefly 
>> sketch the topos approach, which makes use of the internal logic of a topos 
>> associated with a quantum system and comes with a natural (neo-)realist 
>> interpretation. Finally, we make some remarks on the relation between 
>> system logic and metalogic.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Finally, when we commit ourselves to describing the whole universe using 
>> structures in a topos, and if we use the internal logic of the topos to 
>> assign truth values to propositions etc., we do not have to do all our 
>> proofs and mathematical arguments internally in the topos, i.e., 
>> constructively. Doing physics necessarily means to separate oneself from 
>> the system to be described, even if this system is the whole universe. 
>> Since we have to ‘step out’ of the system, we have to argue using the 
>> (typically Boolean) metalogic in which we define the mathematical 
>> structures, e.g. 

Re: Topos of Quantum Gravity

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 12:49:22 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

>
>
> On 9/21/2020 4:44 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Some Remarks on the Logic of Quantum Gravity*
> Andreas Doering
>
>
> https://www.academia.edu/5456772/Some_Remarks_on_the_Logic_of_Quantum_Gravity
>
> We discuss some conceptual issues that any approach to quantum gravity has 
> to confront. In particular, it is argued that one has to find a theory that 
> can be interpreted in a realist manner, because theories with an 
> instrumentalist interpretation are problematic for several well-known 
> reasons. Since the Hilbert space formalism almost inevitably forces an 
> instrumentalist interpretation on us, we suggest that a theory of quantum 
> gravity should not be based on the Hilbert space formalism. We briefly 
> sketch the topos approach, which makes use of the internal logic of a topos 
> associated with a quantum system and comes with a natural (neo-)realist 
> interpretation. Finally, we make some remarks on the relation between 
> system logic and metalogic.
>
> ...
>
> Finally, when we commit ourselves to describing the whole universe using 
> structures in a topos, and if we use the internal logic of the topos to 
> assign truth values to propositions etc., we do not have to do all our 
> proofs and mathematical arguments internally in the topos, i.e., 
> constructively. Doing physics necessarily means to separate oneself from 
> the system to be described, even if this system is the whole universe. 
>
>
> Where does that "necessarily" come from?  Is it a theorem?...from what 
> axioms? 
>
> Since we have to ‘step out’ of the system, we have to argue using the 
> (typically Boolean) metalogic in which we define the mathematical 
> structures, e.g. topoi and state objects, that we use in the mathematical 
> description of the system at hand. It is this Boolean metalogic in which we 
> do physics.
>
>
> Smells like Platonism.
>
> Brent
>
>
>
Topos (Category) language is *an alternative language* for physics.
 

There is no God that handed down the language physics must adopt.

But it is  a language closer to programming:

 https://github.com/AlgebraicJulia/Catlab.jl



*Review of the Topos Approach to Quantum Theory*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51913885_Review_of_the_Topos_Approach_to_Quantum_Theory

Topos theory has been suggested as an alternative mathematical structure 
with which to formulate physical theories. In particular, the topos 
approach suggests a radical new way of thinking about what a theory of 
physics is and what its conceptual framework looks like. The motivation of 
using topos theory to express quantum theory lies in the desire to overcome 
certain interpretational problems inherent in the standard formulation of 
the theory. In particular, the topos reformulation of quantum theory 
overcomes the instrumentalist/Copenhagen interpretation thereby rendering 
the theory more realist. In the process one ends up with a 
multivalued/intuitionistic logic rather than a Boolean logic. In this 
article we shall review some of these developments. 


@philipthift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e589031-e8ed-4062-b080-cc6830a06d0bn%40googlegroups.com.

AlgebraicJulia

[Philip Thrift]

Evan Patterson @ejpatters
https://twitter.com/ejpatters/status/1305612935130046469

I'm happy to announce the launch of the AlgebraicJulia blog, where we will 
explore how to use applied category theory for scientific and technical 
computing and how to implement it in Julia.

https://algebraicjulia.org/blog/


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ab7515ee-362b-4565-a517-7703fee08fb7n%40googlegroups.com.

Topos of Quantum Gravity

[Philip Thrift]

*Some Remarks on the Logic of Quantum Gravity*
Andreas Doering

https://www.academia.edu/5456772/Some_Remarks_on_the_Logic_of_Quantum_Gravity

We discuss some conceptual issues that any approach to quantum gravity has 
to confront. In particular, it is argued that one has to find a theory that 
can be interpreted in a realist manner, because theories with an 
instrumentalist interpretation are problematic for several well-known 
reasons. Since the Hilbert space formalism almost inevitably forces an 
instrumentalist interpretation on us, we suggest that a theory of quantum 
gravity should not be based on the Hilbert space formalism. We briefly 
sketch the topos approach, which makes use of the internal logic of a topos 
associated with a quantum system and comes with a natural (neo-)realist 
interpretation. Finally, we make some remarks on the relation between 
system logic and metalogic.

...

Finally, when we commit ourselves to describing the whole universe using 
structures in a topos, and if we use the internal logic of the topos to 
assign truth values to propositions etc., we do not have to do all our 
proofs and mathematical arguments internally in the topos, i.e., 
constructively. Doing physics necessarily means to separate oneself from 
the system to be described, even if this system is the whole universe. 
Since we have to ‘step out’ of the system, we have to argue using the 
(typically Boolean) metalogic in which we define the mathematical 
structures, e.g. topoi and state objects, that we use in the mathematical 
description of the system at hand. It is this Boolean metalogic in which we 
do physics.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/817792ba-d402-458c-a884-9a5ea53f154en%40googlegroups.com.

Neural networks for physics

[Philip Thrift]

https://github.com/PIQuIL/QuCumber

*QuCumber is a program that reconstructs an unknown quantum wavefunction 
from a set of measurements. The measurements should consist of binary 
counts; for example, the occupation of an atomic orbital, or angular 
momentum eigenvalue of a qubit. These measurements form a training set, 
which is used to train a stochastic neural network called a Restricted 
Boltzmann Machine. Once trained, the neural network is a reconstructed 
representation of the unknown wavefunction underlying the measurement data. 
It can be used for generative modelling, i.e. producing new instances of 
measurements, and to calculate estimators not contained in the original 
data set.*

*QuCumber: wavefunction reconstruction with neural networks*
https://scipost.org/SciPostPhys.7.1.009/pdf


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/83119236-1ed2-4493-9d95-74e5fe622922n%40googlegroups.com.

Cubical Agda talks

[Philip Thrift]

*http://math.andrej.com/2020/09/10/cubical-agda/ :*

Every proof assistant: Cubical Agda – A Dependently Typed Programming 
Language with Univalence and Higher Inductive Types
   
   - 10 September 2020 
   - Andrej Bauer 
   - Talks , Every proof assistant 
   

I am happy to announce that we are restarting the "Every proof assistants" 
series of talks with Anders Mörtberg who will talk about Cubical Agda. Note 
that we are moving the seminar time to a more reasonable hour, at least as 
far as the working people in Europe are concerned.
Cubical Agda: A Dependently Typed Programming Language with Univalence and 
Higher Inductive Types

*Time:* Thursday, September 17, 2020 from 15:00 to 16:00 (Central European 
Summer Time, UTC+2)
*Location:* online at Zoom ID 989 0478 8985 
*Speaker:* Anders Mörtberg  
(Stockholm 
University)
*Proof assistant:* Cubical Agda 

*Abstract:* The dependently typed programming language Agda has recently 
been extended with a cubical mode which provides extensionality principles 
for reasoning about equality, such as function and propositional 
extensionality. These principles are typically added axiomatically to proof 
assistants based on dependent type theory which disrupts the constructive 
properties of these systems. Cubical type theory provides a solution by 
giving computational meaning to Homotopy Type Theory and Univalent 
Foundations, in particular to the univalence axiom and higher inductive 
types. In the talk I will discuss how Agda was extended to a full-blown 
proof assistant with native support for univalence and a general schema of 
higher inductive types. I will also show a variety of examples of how to 
use Cubical Agda in practice to reason about mathematics and computer 
science.

The talk will be recorded and published online.

We have more talks in store, but we will space them out a bit to give slots 
to our local seminar.



@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1b91c969-80c1-4860-8960-33ccd31f1ccbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 5, 2020 at 2:21:26 PM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 5, 2020 at 12:34 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
> >>If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not.
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> *> This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory.*
>>
>
> How so?
>
>  John K Clark
>


In one case (MWI): The consciousness you have now splits - again and again 
and again - and there are many, many "you-#x" consciousnesses an hour from  
now that are "you" right now. 

In the other case (FET): All the so-called measurements that people say the 
earth is not flat are an illusion, like a hologram.

MWI, FET: Equally fantastic.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4bb76592-b061-448d-8a69-83050423d86an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

[Philip Thrift]

>
>
> If Everett is right then "John K Clark" can see both, but "I" can not.
>
> John K Clark
>


This is how physics has become worse than flat-earth theory.

@philipthrift
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3cfc4250-8b03-40ca-8ed1-d1e0dbef8202n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: QM gets personal

[Philip Thrift]

Jim Baggott responded to Sabine Hossenfelder on Twitter (- they interact 
frequently there):


"I didn’t cover superdeterminism because I had to be selective, and my 
judgement was based in part on interpretations that have gained some 
traction or attracted attention. I omitted Cramer’s transactional 
interpretation for the same reason. But, had I expressed some opinions 
about superdeterminism,* I doubt you would have been pleased*."

So this whole thing about writing books to inform the public on so-called 
interpretations of QM seems to be a sham: Not really honest and open 
presentations.

Not worth reading.


@philipthrift


On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> I can't see being "personally offended" by failure to mention a theory 
> (unless maybe I invented it); but I would like to hear more exposition on 
> Cramer's Transactional Interpretation.  It does introduce some extra 
> structure (possibility space); but then I think MWI fails in it's attempt 
> to be pure Schoedinger equation.  The TI is like the Copenhagen 
> interpretation, except it gives an answer to the question when/where does 
> the measurement happen, which I think is compatible with Zurek's 
> decoherence and quantum Darwinism.
>
> Brent
>
> On 9/4/2020 3:59 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> If you want reality you must consider the wave function as nonlocal, or 
> perform measurements correspond to nonlocality. If you want to show reality 
> is lost then you have to localize measurements, such as the Wigner friend 
> argument and localized observers of observers. QM has no favor one way or 
> the other, and the needle pointing between 0 = locality and 1 = reality 
> only fits with those as we observers impose on nature. 
>
> LC
>
> On Friday, September 4, 2020 at 1:33:57 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> "I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to 
>> superdeterminism. In this approach, quantum mechanics is emergent from a 
>> deterministic hidden-variables model which acknowledges that everything in 
>> the universe is connected with everything else. He either mistakenly or 
>> accidentally leaves the reader with the impression that these have been 
>> ruled out for good, which is most definitely not the case. I cannot really 
>> blame Baggott for this, though, because this omission is widespread in the 
>> scientific literature. I have complained about this on the pages of this 
>> magazine, and will leave it at that."
>>
>> Sabine Hossenfelder, September 3, 2020
>> http://nautil.us/blog/your-guide-to-the-many-meanings-of-quantum-mechanics
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/264bfb68-98f2-4107-b842-f7c8037d7443n%40googlegroups.com
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/571c3081-9e01-479b-8d07-1791969700e5n%40googlegroups.com.

QM gets personal

[Philip Thrift]

"I am also personally offended that Baggott gives short shrift to 
superdeterminism. In this approach, quantum mechanics is emergent from a 
deterministic hidden-variables model which acknowledges that everything in 
the universe is connected with everything else. He either mistakenly or 
accidentally leaves the reader with the impression that these have been 
ruled out for good, which is most definitely not the case. I cannot really 
blame Baggott for this, though, because this omission is widespread in the 
scientific literature. I have complained about this on the pages of this 
magazine, and will leave it at that."

Sabine Hossenfelder, September 3, 2020
http://nautil.us/blog/your-guide-to-the-many-meanings-of-quantum-mechanics

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ac2d715e-8208-4998-bbbd-438c0c906307n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Probability in Everettian QM

[Philip Thrift]

This sort of way of approaching physics is no different really from 
theological debates about some esoteric Christian doctrine.

The last of Carroll's The Biggest Ideas in the Universe series is actually 
interesting at the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqphkIO7yt4

He has nowhere to go asn has no idea what to do.

@philipthrift

On Thursday, September 3, 2020 at 1:02:21 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> An interesting discussion of Everettian QM in two parts.  The first part
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyvgBe9VV70
>
> is just David Albert and Sean Carroll.  It's quite reminiscent of JKC and 
> Bruno, using the same thought experiments (but more civil).
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/052f01fa-5d3e-4dfe-ac27-50c83668b0c0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Turing Tests and Other Things of That Nature

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 4:14:55 PM UTC-5 telmo wrote:

> With Brent in mind:
> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/357
>



The Galen Strawson response to Daniel Dennett is the basic 
anti-functionalist {" it has all the 'informational/functional' properties 
of a human being; it is behaviorally indistinguishable from a human being") 
view.

from 
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/03/magic-illusions-and-zombies-an-exchange/

Galen Strawson replies to Daniel Dennett:

Philosophers use the word “zombie” as a technical term: “a philosopher’s 
zombie,” Daniel Dennett writes in Consciousness Explained (1991), “is 
behaviorally indistinguishable from a normal human being, but is not 
conscious.” The zombie may, for example, be a piece of brilliant machinery 
with flesh-like covering that looks and acts like a human being, although 
“there is nothing it is like to be a zombie; it just seems that way to 
observers.”

Plainly, the zombie is not conscious in the standard, rich, 
“qualia”-involving sense of “conscious” that I stress and that Dennett 
rejects. It doesn’t feel pain when its arm is shot off, any more than the 
Arnold Schwarzenegger character does in the 1984 film The Terminator.

“Are zombies possible?” Dennett asks. “They’re not just possible, they’re 
actual. We’re all zombies.” Here, his view seems plain. In the book, he 
adds a footnote—“It would be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty to 
quote this assertion out of context!”—so I hope that I have given 
sufficient context. But let me provide more (all the quotations in what 
follows are from Dennett, from various books and papers).

“The idea that there is something like a ‘phenomenal field’ of ‘phenomenal 
properties’ in addition to the informational/functional properties 
accommodated by my theory” of consciousness “is shown to be a multi-faceted 
illusion, an artifact of bad theorizing,” he wrote in a 1993 essay, “Précis 
of Consciousness Explained,” in the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological 
Research. Here, Dennett is clear about what he doesn’t mean by 
“consciousness.” We see how he can say, in his reply to me, that “of 
course, consciousness exists.” He can say this because the zombie is 
conscious in his terms: it has all the “informational/functional” 
properties of a human being; it is behaviorally indistinguishable from a 
human being.

“Let me confirm [Frank] Jackson’s surmise that I am his behaviorist; I 
unhesitatingly endorse the claim that ‘necessarily, if two organisms are 
behaviorally exactly alike, they are psychologically exactly alike,’” he 
writes in another paper that year in the same journal, “The Message is: 
There is no Medium.” Once again, Dennett holds that a zombie is as 
conscious as we are, although “there is nothing it is like to be a zombie.” 
A zombie isn’t conscious at all, in the ordinary sense of the word, but 
it’s fully conscious in Dennett’s sense of the word, given its 
“informational/functional properties.”

The same goes for us, according to Dennett. We’re not conscious at all, in 
the ordinary sense of the word: “We’re all zombies.” He confirms this view 
in a 2013 podcast. We find in nature “any number of varieties of stupendous 
organization and sensitivity and discrimination… The idea that, in addition 
to all of those, there’s this extra special something—subjectivity—what 
distinguishes us from the zombie—that’s an illusion.”

Consider standard philosophical examples of “qualia”—intense pain, orgasm, 
visual experience of Times Square at midnight. In Consciousness Explained, 
Dennett allows that it really seems to us that we have such qualia, but 
insists that it doesn’t follow that we really have them. I argued that this 
is a false move, because to seem to have qualia is necessarily already to 
have qualia, and Dennett moved, in his 2007 paper “Heterophenomenology 
reconsidered,” published in Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, to 
the view that there aren’t even any real seemings: “There are no real 
seemings… judgments are about the qualia of experiences in the same way 
novels are about their characters. Rabbit Angstrom [in John Updike’s 
novels] sure seems like a real person, but he isn’t… If materialism is 
true, there are no real seemings.”

“When I squint just right,” Dennett writes in his 2013 book Intuition 
Pumps, “it does sort of seem that consciousness must be something in 
addition to all the things it does for us and to us, some kind of special 
private glow or here-I-am-ness that would be absent in any robot. But I’ve 
learned not to credit the hunch. I think it is a flat-out mistake.”

This is “eliminativism” about consciousness, denial of the existence of 
consciousness. Dennett is not alone. He’s backed up by a good number of 
present-day philosophers, including recently Keith Frankish, Jay Garfield, 
and Mark Siderits, as well as psychologists like Stanislas Dehaene. The 
fundamental mistake they make is to think that there is anything, either 

Re: Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:10:15 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 29 Aug 2020, at 15:06, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 4:27:42 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 28 Aug 2020, at 13:06, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I happen to find this strange. It has the appearance of being a graph 
>> method whereby with appropriate numerical fiddling something appearing 
>> similar to a double slit interference patter emerges. I am not sure this is 
>> really a proper way to do physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it helps to find something new in the physical reality, why not? The 
>> idea here are not completely uninteresting.
>>
>
> It might be interesting, but I am not sure how useful this is. The double 
> slit experiment can be analysed with less than a page of ordinary 
> mathematics.
>
>
> I agree. Wolfram seems to just provide another formal system which might 
> be “quantum-complete” (able to simulate a quantum computer, although that 
> is not clear to me. His ontological assumptions are also unclear.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
He provides a glossary of (potential) translations of physics into multiway 
graphs:

https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/potential-basic-translations/

 Physics doesn't have any ontological assumptions in the first place, so 
this could be as good as any other formulation.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/33571a8a-1379-47ee-a59c-37ee808ad64en%40googlegroups.com.

A Theory of Natural Universal Computation Through RNA

[Philip Thrift]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.08814

*A Theory of Natural Universal Computation Through RNA*

Hessam Akhlaghpour
@theHessam

Life is confronted with computation problems in a variety of domains 
including animal behavior, single-cell behavior, and embryonic development. 
Yet we currently have no biologically plausible model capable of universal 
computation, i.e., Turing-equivalent in scope. Network models (which 
include neural networks, intracellular signaling cascades, and gene 
regulatory networks) fall short of universal computation, but are assumed 
to be capable of explaining cognition and development. I present a class of 
models that bridge two concepts form distant fields: combinatory logic (or 
lambda calculus) and RNA molecular biology. A set of simple RNA editing 
rules can make it possible to compute any computable function with 
identical algorithmic complexity to that of Turing machines. The models do 
not assume extraordinarily complex molecular machinery or any processes 
that radically differ from what we already know to occur in cells. Distinct 
independent enzymes can mediate each of the rules and RNA molecules solve 
the problem of parenthesis matching through their secondary structure. This 
demonstrates that universal computation is well within the reach of 
molecular biology. It is therefore reasonable to assume that life has 
evolved - or possibly began with - a universal computer that yet remains to 
be discovered. The variety of seemingly unrelated computational problems 
across many scales can potentially be solved using the same RNA-based 
computation system. Experimental validation of this theory may greatly 
impact our understanding of memory, cognition, development, cancer, 
evolution, and the early stages of life.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c33f74a8-9cec-439c-a53f-37e269f50e13n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 11:54:04 AM UTC-5 Philip Thrift wrote:

> On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 8:06:17 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 4:27:42 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 28 Aug 2020, at 13:06, Lawrence Crowell  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I happen to find this strange. It has the appearance of being a graph 
>>> method whereby with appropriate numerical fiddling something appearing 
>>> similar to a double slit interference patter emerges. I am not sure this is 
>>> really a proper way to do physics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If it helps to find something new in the physical reality, why not? The 
>>> idea here are not completely uninteresting.
>>>
>>
>> It might be interesting, but I am not sure how useful this is. The double 
>> slit experiment can be analysed with less than a page of ordinary 
>> mathematics.
>>
>> LC 
>>
>
>
> As Hossenfelder points out, nothing has been accomplished in fundamental 
> physics (just a bunch of papers having no connection to empirical data) 
> since the formulation of the Standard Model 50 years ago.
>
> When the language is wrong, change the language.
>
> @philipthrift 
>


Example:

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/05/event-horizons-singularities-and-other-exotic-spacetime-phenomena/

In ordinary general relativity, there are “no-hair” theorems that say that 
the gravitational effects of a black hole depend only on a few parameters, 
such as its overall mass and overall angular momentum. In our models, the 
overall mass is essentially just determined by the number of causal edges 
that end up crossing the event horizon. (Angular momentum is related to a 
kind of vorticity in the causal graph.) So the no-hair theorem for mass 
says that when there is an event horizon, none of the details of these 
causal edges matter; only their total number. It’s not clear why this would 
be true, but it seems conceivable that it could be an essentially purely 
graph theoretic result.


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e1bbc5d-3e89-4b8b-bef6-2d557169d074n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 8:06:17 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 4:27:42 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 28 Aug 2020, at 13:06, Lawrence Crowell  
>> wrote:
>>
>> I happen to find this strange. It has the appearance of being a graph 
>> method whereby with appropriate numerical fiddling something appearing 
>> similar to a double slit interference patter emerges. I am not sure this is 
>> really a proper way to do physics.
>>
>>
>>
>> If it helps to find something new in the physical reality, why not? The 
>> idea here are not completely uninteresting.
>>
>
> It might be interesting, but I am not sure how useful this is. The double 
> slit experiment can be analysed with less than a page of ordinary 
> mathematics.
>
> LC 
>


As Hossenfelder points out, nothing has been accomplished in fundamental 
physics (just a bunch of papers having no connection to empirical data) 
since the formulation of the Standard Model 50 years ago.

When the language is wrong, change the language.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8ada657e-5f1d-411e-acd4-90f7cb1bafc0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, August 29, 2020 at 4:24:51 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 28 Aug 2020, at 22:15, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
> It would take quite a bit of time to learn Wolfram's multiway graph 
> rewriting language (and to write programs in it).
>
> e.g. *Local Gauge Invariance*
>
> https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/local-gauge-invariance/
>
> But he claims that all of mathematical physics can be rewritten in this 
> language. 
>
>
> Everything can be rewritten in any Turing universal language.
>
>
>
>
> And since there is no God-given language for physics, 
>
>
>
> Provably so with Digital Mechanism, indeed. In fact, mechanism gives a 
> powerful invariant of the physical laws: all universal machine believing in 
> the excluded middle principle for a (quite restricted set of) arithmetical 
> sentences will find exactly the same laws of physics. This means that not 
> only physics is language and observer independent, but that it is reduced 
> to another science entirely, and that the laws of physics are determined 
> entirely by that invariance for the choice of the way we enumerate the 
> phi_i (i.e. of the choice of the universal machinery, which, I recall, is 
> an enumeration of all digital machines/programs).
>
>
> and if it works as well, then it may just be a matter of human taste.
>
>
> OK. But simpler is better. Also, to derive the physical laws from machine 
> psychology, it is more clear to use a system which does not look to much 
> inspired by physics. If you decide to use superstring theory for the phi_i, 
> people will claim you are cheating if you derive that physics is given by 
> superstring theory in that context. Better to use at least two universal 
> computational base, and the one which are conceptually simpler. I often 
> illustrate with arithmetic, or with combinatory algebra, or with the 
> diophantine polynomials.
>
> What Wolfram is still missing is the mind-body problem constraints, which 
> are of crucial importance to understand where the physical appearance comes 
> from (when assuming the usual mechanist working hypothesis).
>
> Bruno
>
>
 

>  Wolfram Multiway Graph language completely replaces QFT language 
> [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics 
> ].
>

 I don't know what sort of "psychological" language could be added other 
than something like Constructive Provability Logic to theoretical physics.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rjsimmon/drafts/cpl.pdf


*We present constructive provability logic, an intuitionstic modal logic 
that validates the L¨ob rule of Godel and Lob’s provability logic by 
permitting logical reflection over provability.*

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5188618d-3d85-403a-8f63-a2e4e6349fb0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

It would take quite a bit of time to learn Wolfram's multiway graph 
rewriting language (and to write programs in it).

e.g. *Local Gauge Invariance*
https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/potential-relation-to-physics/local-gauge-invariance/

But he claims that all of mathematical physics can be rewritten in this 
language. And since there is no God-given language for physics, and if it 
works as well, then it may just be a matter of human taste.

@philipthrift

On Friday, August 28, 2020 at 6:06:17 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I happen to find this strange. It has the appearance of being a graph 
> method whereby with appropriate numerical fiddling something appearing 
> similar to a double slit interference patter emerges. I am not sure this is 
> really a proper way to do physics. I would be intrigued to hear what Lev 
> Landau would have to say about this,
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, August 23, 2020 at 5:14:58 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> *A Short Note on the Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum 
>> Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model*
>>
>> Jonathan Gorard (University of Cambridge/Wolfram Research)
>> https://twitter.com/getjonwithit
>>
>>
>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-short-note-on-the-double-slit-experiment-and-other-quantum-interference-effects-in-the-wolfram-model/
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7f0e6911-907b-41c1-90a6-0c4c6bce624an%40googlegroups.com.

Max Tegmark announces new Physics+AI center

[Philip Thrift]

via Max Tegmark @tegmark

https://news.mit.edu/2020/nsf-announces-mit-led-institute-artificial-intelligence-fundamental-interactions-0826

National Science Foundation announces MIT-led Institute for Artificial 
Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions

IAIFI will advance physics knowledge — from the smallest building blocks of 
nature to the largest structures in the universe — and galvanize AI 
research innovation.

By merging research in physics and AI, the IAIFI seeks to tackle some of 
the most challenging problems in physics, including precision calculations 
of the structure of matter, gravitational-wave detection of merging black 
holes, and the extraction of new physical laws from noisy data.

“The goal of the IAIFI is to develop the next generation of AI 
technologies, based on the transformative idea that artificial intelligence 
can directly incorporate physics intelligence,” says Jesse Thaler, an 
associate professor of physics at MIT, LNS researcher, and IAIFI director.  
“By fusing the ‘deep learning’ revolution with the time-tested strategies 
of ‘deep thinking’ in physics, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of our 
universe and of the principles underlying intelligence.”

Invoking the simple principle of translational symmetry — which in nature 
gives rise to conservation of momentum — led to dramatic improvements in 
image recognition,” says Mike Williams, an associate professor of physics 
at MIT, LNS researcher, and IAIFI deputy director. “We believe 
incorporating more complex physics principles will revolutionize how AI is 
used to study fundamental interactions, while simultaneously advancing the 
foundations of AI.”

Fundamental interactions are described by two pillars of modern physics: at 
short distances by the Standard Model of particle physics, and at long 
distances by the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model of Big Bang cosmology. Both 
models are based on physical first principles such as causality and 
space-time symmetries.  An abundance of experimental evidence supports 
these theories, but also exposes where they are incomplete, most pressingly 
that the Standard Model does not explain the nature of dark matter, which 
plays an essential role in cosmology.

AI has the potential to help answer these questions and others in physics.

Incorporating physics principles into AI could also have a major impact on 
many experimental applications, such as designing AI methods that are more 
easily verifiable. IAIFI researchers are working to enhance the scientific 
potential of various facilities, including the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) 
and the Laser Interferometer Gravity Wave Observatory (LIGO). 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ecdd705b-6c5e-40bd-8cfe-6092cf6812cdn%40googlegroups.com.

Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference Effects in the Wolfram Model

[Philip Thrift]

*A Short Note on the Double-Slit Experiment and Other Quantum Interference 
Effects in the Wolfram Model*

Jonathan Gorard (University of Cambridge/Wolfram Research)
https://twitter.com/getjonwithit

https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-short-note-on-the-double-slit-experiment-and-other-quantum-interference-effects-in-the-wolfram-model/

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/619f889e-ebe7-4b97-af3e-d2e024d70a92n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Functional Differential Geometry

[Philip Thrift]

Also here

  http://xahlee.info/math/i/functional_geometry_2013_sussman_14322.pdf

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:45:29 AM UTC-5 Philip Thrift wrote:

>
> On the page, click "Open Access" and then "Download PDF".
>
> The URL turns out to be:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3si4b99ijqyhyk/9580.pdf?dl=1
>
> I looked for the source code files of the programs displayed in the text, 
> but haven't found those yet.
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:09:48 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> Where is the pdf?
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 8:06:18 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Found out this book is* free* in pdf format.
>>>
>>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/functional-differential-geometry
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary
>>>
>>> *An explanation of the mathematics needed as a foundation for a deep 
>>> understanding of general relativity or quantum field theory.*
>>>
>>> Physics is naturally expressed in mathematical language. Students new to 
>>> the subject must simultaneously learn an idiomatic mathematical language 
>>> and the content that is expressed in that language. It is as if they were 
>>> asked to read *Les Misérables* while struggling with French grammar. 
>>> This book offers an innovative way to learn the differential geometry 
>>> needed as a foundation for a deep understanding of general relativity or 
>>> quantum field theory as taught at the college level.
>>>
>>> The approach taken by the authors (and used in their classes at MIT for 
>>> many years) differs from the conventional one in several ways, including an 
>>> emphasis on the development of the covariant derivative and an avoidance of 
>>> the use of traditional index notation for tensors in favor of a 
>>> semantically richer language of vector fields and differential forms. But 
>>> the biggest single difference is the authors' integration of computer 
>>> programming into their explanations. By programming a computer to interpret 
>>> a formula, the student soon learns whether or not a formula is correct. 
>>> Students are led to improve their program, and as a result improve their 
>>> understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/abf9694f-1ae3-41b9-98be-bcd89217dc2dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Functional Differential Geometry

[Philip Thrift]

On the page, click "Open Access" and then "Download PDF".

The URL turns out to be:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t3si4b99ijqyhyk/9580.pdf?dl=1

I looked for the source code files of the programs displayed in the text, 
but haven't found those yet.

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 at 5:09:48 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Where is the pdf?
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, August 16, 2020 at 8:06:18 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Found out this book is* free* in pdf format.
>>
>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/functional-differential-geometry
>>
>>
>> Summary
>>
>> *An explanation of the mathematics needed as a foundation for a deep 
>> understanding of general relativity or quantum field theory.*
>>
>> Physics is naturally expressed in mathematical language. Students new to 
>> the subject must simultaneously learn an idiomatic mathematical language 
>> and the content that is expressed in that language. It is as if they were 
>> asked to read *Les Misérables* while struggling with French grammar. 
>> This book offers an innovative way to learn the differential geometry 
>> needed as a foundation for a deep understanding of general relativity or 
>> quantum field theory as taught at the college level.
>>
>> The approach taken by the authors (and used in their classes at MIT for 
>> many years) differs from the conventional one in several ways, including an 
>> emphasis on the development of the covariant derivative and an avoidance of 
>> the use of traditional index notation for tensors in favor of a 
>> semantically richer language of vector fields and differential forms. But 
>> the biggest single difference is the authors' integration of computer 
>> programming into their explanations. By programming a computer to interpret 
>> a formula, the student soon learns whether or not a formula is correct. 
>> Students are led to improve their program, and as a result improve their 
>> understanding.
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2fa6fc56-2a28-4209-9ec5-00d1e8f6093fn%40googlegroups.com.

hat's the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics? - with Jim Baggott

[Philip Thrift]

https://twitter.com/JimBaggott/status/1295336300107698177

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqY3TUW7skI

This is a 1 hour talk (but one can skip to the last 15 minutes to get to 
the message), but it is the best presentation I've ever seen on this 
subject.

@philipthrift



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/452270fe-0067-4a15-9ffe-d108fccb091dn%40googlegroups.com.

Functional Differential Geometry

[Philip Thrift]

Found out this book is* free* in pdf format.

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/functional-differential-geometry


Summary

*An explanation of the mathematics needed as a foundation for a deep 
understanding of general relativity or quantum field theory.*

Physics is naturally expressed in mathematical language. Students new to 
the subject must simultaneously learn an idiomatic mathematical language 
and the content that is expressed in that language. It is as if they were 
asked to read *Les Misérables* while struggling with French grammar. This 
book offers an innovative way to learn the differential geometry needed as 
a foundation for a deep understanding of general relativity or quantum 
field theory as taught at the college level.

The approach taken by the authors (and used in their classes at MIT for 
many years) differs from the conventional one in several ways, including an 
emphasis on the development of the covariant derivative and an avoidance of 
the use of traditional index notation for tensors in favor of a 
semantically richer language of vector fields and differential forms. But 
the biggest single difference is the authors' integration of computer 
programming into their explanations. By programming a computer to interpret 
a formula, the student soon learns whether or not a formula is correct. 
Students are led to improve their program, and as a result improve their 
understanding.


@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bf521f90-be65-4538-95f7-f235b6d5ac84n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Ex Machina, the film, about the Turing Test

[Philip Thrift]

I like that movie (which I have seen).

I think synthetic biological components are significantly involved, which 
makes the difference in making Ava conscious..

@philipthrift

On Saturday, August 15, 2020 at 4:23:52 PM UTC-5 agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

> If you haven't viewed it, please do so. It's about the Turing Test, 
> science fiction, but the "special effects" aren't primarily photographic 
> bells and whistles, but the dialogue. the text, the logic of the script. 
> Recently, we have argued about consciousness, what it is, and how we can 
> test for it in the context of AI. I claimed that we could do some 
> superficial surgery to determine whether the subject of the test was a 
> robot or a conscious entity. But this is completely mistaken. All that that 
> would reveal is whether the subject was artificial, not whether it was 
> "conscious". The subject could have been a black box, and still showing 
> signs of what we can't really define; consciousness. I think Ex Machina 
> provides an answer of what we need to look for. Please view it and report 
> back. But do NOT read the plot, say in Wiki. It's a spoiler. AG
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bbd10125-a095-4cb8-ac71-d820bc105eb5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda

[Philip Thrift]

Also,,

"Agda is named after the Swedish song 'Hönan Agda' [written by Cornelis 
Vreeswijk], which is about a hen named Agda. This alludes to the naming of 
Coq."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agda_(programming_language)

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npfTwJgZAKY


@philipthrift
On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 6:47:25 AM UTC-5 Philip Thrift wrote:

> Here, *Agda* is the base language. This is a programming manual. All 
> definitions are in Agda.
>
> Agda is a "dependently-typed functional programming language" ... "for 
> defining mathematical notions (e.g. group or topological space)."
>
> Topological spaces 
> <https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/HoTT-UF-in-Agda-Lecture-Notes/HoTT-UF-Agda.html#topological-sip>
>
> Topological spaces in the presence of propositional resizing 
> <https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/HoTT-UF-in-Agda-Lecture-Notes/HoTT-UF-Agda.html#topol-resizing>
>
>
> "And, after the reader has gained enough experience ..."
>
> Agda HoTT library <https://github.com/HoTT/HoTT-Agda>
>
> Cubical Agda  
> <https://agda.readthedocs.io/en/latest/language/cubical.html#cubical>
>
>
> cf. https://homotopytypetheory.org/2018/12/06/cubical-agda/
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 6:13:46 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>> This is a long document. I don’t see at the start something which 
>> encapsulates the topic. Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT). HoTT is based on 
>> homotopy, which is a system of diffeomorphisms on sub-space regions of a 
>> manifold that describe invariants based on obstructions. These denoted as 
>> π_p(M^n) = 0, ℤ or ℤ_i. for i an integer. The first fundamental form is 
>> π_1(M^n), or a set of curves that are equivalent under diffeomorphisms.  
>> These are related to homology groups H_p(M^n), but with additional 
>> commutator information. 
>>
>> Physics with partition functions or path integrals 
>>
>> Z[φ] =  ∫δ[φ]e^{-iS[φ]}
>>
>> For the integration measure δ[φ] = d^nx/diffeo[φ]. The continuous maps or 
>> diffeomorphisms are in a sense lifted away from what is fundamental, being 
>> a form of coordinate or gauge condition. What is left is then analogous to 
>> what is computed by a topological charge.
>>
>> I am not sure if these document or others lead to this prospect, but if 
>> it did it would be of considerable interest. If the binary on or off 
>> definition of HoTT were connected to physics this way it would be of 
>> interests. In particular if this connected with entanglements it would also 
>> be of interest. 
>>
>> LC
>>
>> On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 1:34:55 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Inroduction to Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda
>>> 4th March 2019, version of 13 August 2020
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/HoTT-UF-in-Agda-Lecture-Notes/HoTT-UF-Agda.html
>>>
>>> @philipthrift 
>>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/87c5693f-19d9-440a-9b16-c7247ffcb5e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda

[Philip Thrift]

Here, *Agda* is the base language. This is a programming manual. All 
definitions are in Agda.

Agda is a "dependently-typed functional programming language" ... "for 
defining mathematical notions (e.g. group or topological space)."

Topological spaces 


Topological spaces in the presence of propositional resizing 



"And, after the reader has gained enough experience ..."

Agda HoTT library 

Cubical Agda  



cf. https://homotopytypetheory.org/2018/12/06/cubical-agda/

@philipthrift

On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 6:13:46 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> This is a long document. I don’t see at the start something which 
> encapsulates the topic. Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT). HoTT is based on 
> homotopy, which is a system of diffeomorphisms on sub-space regions of a 
> manifold that describe invariants based on obstructions. These denoted as 
> π_p(M^n) = 0, ℤ or ℤ_i. for i an integer. The first fundamental form is 
> π_1(M^n), or a set of curves that are equivalent under diffeomorphisms.  
> These are related to homology groups H_p(M^n), but with additional 
> commutator information. 
>
> Physics with partition functions or path integrals 
>
> Z[φ] =  ∫δ[φ]e^{-iS[φ]}
>
> For the integration measure δ[φ] = d^nx/diffeo[φ]. The continuous maps or 
> diffeomorphisms are in a sense lifted away from what is fundamental, being 
> a form of coordinate or gauge condition. What is left is then analogous to 
> what is computed by a topological charge.
>
> I am not sure if these document or others lead to this prospect, but if it 
> did it would be of considerable interest. If the binary on or off 
> definition of HoTT were connected to physics this way it would be of 
> interests. In particular if this connected with entanglements it would also 
> be of interest. 
>
> LC
>
> On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 1:34:55 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Inroduction to Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda
>> 4th March 2019, version of 13 August 2020
>>
>>
>> https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/HoTT-UF-in-Agda-Lecture-Notes/HoTT-UF-Agda.html
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d7ba3f6c-cd33-4d27-9b25-7168d52b2dd9n%40googlegroups.com.

Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda

[Philip Thrift]

Inroduction to Univalent Foundations of Mathematics with Agda
4th March 2019, version of 13 August 2020

https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mhe/HoTT-UF-in-Agda-Lecture-Notes/HoTT-UF-Agda.html

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9f100211-e003-4ba5-b2d5-07d2d16a9bb4o%40googlegroups.com.

Deep Molecular Programming

[Philip Thrift]

*Deep Molecular Programming*
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13720

"Embedding computation in molecular contexts incompatible with traditional 
electronics is expected to have wide ranging impact in synthetic biology, 
medicine, nanofabrication and other fields. ..."

via http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~soloveichik/

(So in the future there will be REPLs [ https://repl.it/ ] that poop out 
molecular structures instead of numbers.)

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5ad864bc-5e6c-4d48-b264-52df696a0c12n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

"I am not particularly given to the idea the universe is an algorithm though."
- LC

What tbeory of theoretical physics today (GR, QM, ...) *cannot be replicated* 
as (simulation) programs running on supercomputers (like the ones at 
universities and national labs)?

What is a single example in physics for which this is the caae?

@philipthrift






-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0b6e2294-0b58-4032-997d-5aaf4b47bb2ao%40googlegroups.com.

Define a new language. Win $10,000.

[Philip Thrift]

via

https://twitter.com/replit/status/1285634417176776710

https://blog.repl.it/langjam


A "programming language jam and a $10,000 grant to a team that designs and 
prototypes a new language with emphasis on fresh and possibly wild ideas. The 
winning language will also get added to Repl.it, where anyone can quickly start 
using it to code. We’ll have prizes for individual category winners too. The 
hackathon starts on August 10th and runs until August 31st."


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1e59b827-ce25-4927-8c1a-b721eab4c80co%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

This is the view of the physicist as a kind of religious mystic, who 
contemplates a physics outside of language, and some "truth" out there they 
will never find.

But all there is to write/speak with is language, 

e.g.

R_{\mu \nu} - {1 \over 2}g_{\mu \nu}\,R + g_{\mu \nu} \Lambda = {8 \pi G 
\over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

[ cf. https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php ]

 and how different vocabularies understood pragmatically might be 
translated into— or reduced to— one another

and playing the games of language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism#Wittgenstein_and_language_games

@philipthrift


On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:35:27 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> Context is all if you are doing science, for in science we study objects 
> and events. If your interest is in doing pure mathematics or computer 
> science that is fine, but it in of itself does not give physics. Feynman 
> made some note of this. I found this little science fiction clip 
> interesting along these lines. It is about a dormant computer system 
> activating an attack sequence in a war that is long over. Note who in a 
> sense "won the war." The machines activate algorithms with no context to 
> reality.
>
> https://youtu.be/IjJmTeBSEzU  
>
> LC
>
>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9dd12a9e-566f-4229-a952-1ac6edae29a0n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 9:43:38 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 7 Aug 2020, at 13:38, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
> anything is not that valuable. 
>
>
>
> At least, we should take the semantic of the reality on which that 
> language is based. A language per se is not enough.
>
>
>
>
>
> At least it is not that valuable to me. My point is this seems to connect 
> with concepts of spacetime as built up from large N entanglements.
>
>
> I agree, and the entanglement must be explained from the first person 
> indeterminacy, singular and plural, which are imposed by incompleteness on 
> all “creatures” living in arithmetic (or at its internal phenomenological 
> border given by the self-reference mode available to the universal machine.
>
> With mechanism, physics is a branch of machine biology (or psychology, or 
> better “theology” …).
>
> Bruno
>


But that has nothing to do with *physics*.. Physics only describes (in a 
language).

Musing about its "meaning" is for philosophers to waste their time on.

"Our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything [in 
physics], use only finite computer resources by treating everything as 
finite."
-- Max Tegmark
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25344

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7915f095-f2ae-43d2-8dd1-2ad6a8b7b4a8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.wolframphysics.org/questions/quantum-mechanics/how-does-quantum-entanglement-occur-in-your-models/
 :

Q. How does quantum entanglement occur in your models?

A. Two global Wolfram model states are said to be “entangled” if they share 
a common ancestor in the multiway evolution graph. Since spacelike-locality 
is not a necessary condition for branchlike-locality, it is possible for 
these states to be causally connected (i.e. to be connected in the multiway 
causal graph) even if they are not spatially local. This is the essence of 
quantum entanglement as it occurs, for instance, in the context of Bell’s 
theorem.

@philipthrift

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:38:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> That might be, but a programming language that has no context with 
> anything is not that valuable. At least it is not that valuable to me. My 
> point is this seems to connect with concepts of spacetime as built up from 
> large N entanglements.
>
> LC
>
> On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 4:17:44 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
>> It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
>> programmer's manual.
>>
>> *Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page
>>
>> *Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
>>
>> https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb
>>
>> (an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)
>>
>> All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is 
>> to be written as programs in this library/language.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ccac2e7d-7f04-4eec-81c7-e7b3c3f01b7cn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

Ultimately this is not really about "theory" (in the usual sense) at all, 
It is about defining a programming library: So it's really in the end a 
programmer's manual.

*Wolfram Physics Project Functions*
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/guide-page

*Hands-On Introduction to the Wolfram Physics Project*
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/wolframphysics/Tools/hands-on-introduction-to-the-wolfram-physics-project.nb

(an extension of the Wolfram language/ecosystem)

All of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and whatever comes next is to 
be written as programs in this library/language.

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/338e03ac-fa10-4132-8b7b-7f11b976a401n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

What is really going on here is that a* language of hypergraphs*  (not well 
specified) is what is assumed to be defined. All of fundamental physics is 
to be rewritten in this language, replacing the others.


https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful/

By the way, when it comes to mathematics, even the setup that we have is 
interesting. Calculus has been built to work in ordinary continuous spaces 
(manifolds that locally approximate Euclidean space). But what we have here 
is something different: in the limit of an infinitely large hypergraph, 
it’s like a continuous space, but ordinary calculus doesn’t work on it (not 
least because it isn’t necessarily integer-dimensional). So to really talk 
about it well, we have to invent something that’s kind of a generalization 
of calculus, that’s for example capable of dealing with curvature in 
fractional-dimensional space. (Probably the closest current mathematics to 
this is what’s been coming out of the very active field of geometric group 
theory.)

@philipthrift

On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 6:54:33 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> In reading the first of these I run into the usual sense or difficulty 
> with Wolfram of understanding how to compute or calculate things.
>
> This does get into HoTT (homotopy type theory) which I see as a sort of 
> quantum of homotopy or index that represents the obstruction to 
> diffeomorphisms on paths. A hole or "horn you can't pull the reins over" 
> that prevents any diffeomorphism that moves a curve past the hole or horn, 
> defines a first fundamental form π_1(M) = ℤ. The HoTT is a binary set of 
> paths that wrap around the obstruction and those which do not. In a quantum 
> mechanical form this can be a form of quantum bit. 
>
> The role of topology with quantum mechanics is not fully understood. An 
> elementary particle is really a set of quantum states or numbers, and these 
> may have topological definition. The charge, spin, etc are topological 
> quantum numbers, and the Cheshire Cat experiments illustrate how these are 
> in a form of entanglement. Elementary particles are really not that 
> different from quasiparticles in condensed matter physics'
>
> LC
>
> On Wednesday, August 5, 2020 at 1:17:48 PM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> (HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)
>>
>>
>> https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
>> Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model
>>
>> cf.
>>
>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/475075a2-c912-4532-af6a-13843a37808an%40googlegroups.com.

Wolfram Model (New Foundations of Mathematics and Physics)

[Philip Thrift]

(HyPE = Hypergraph Programming Engine ?)

https://www.wolframphysics.org/bulletins/2020/08/a-candidate-geometrical-formalism-for-the-foundations-of-mathematics-and-physics/
Formal Correspondences between Homotopy Type Theory and the Wolfram Model



cf.
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1dff8b68-ed0f-49da-91d5-23f4e518e78bo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Wolfram Physics Summer School report

[Philip Thrift]

To get up to speed on his "summer school" requires first reading the 

tech ref: https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/

to learn the *"Wolfram" hypergraph rewriting* vocabulary.

Graph/Hypergraph rewriting has been around a long time, now migrating from 
computer science to physics. Remains to be seen whether Wofram's project 
gets traction.

*The algebras of graph rewriting*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311737035_The_algebras_of_graph_rewriting

Graph rewriting is Turing-complete, hence sufficiently expressive to encode 
any other model of computation. It is applied with considerable success in 
modeling of biological systems (especially protein interaction networks, 
see [13]). In fact, many models in statistical physics, theoretical 
chemistry and combinatorics can be seen as particular cases of graph 
rewriting systems. Most notably, the Heisenberg-Weyl algebra, the 
combinatorial algebra underlying chemical reaction systems and the theory 
of the harmonic oscillator, is a particularly simple case of a graph 
rewriting algebra.
...
More abstractly, the physical concept of worldlines of particles is 
reflected to a certain extent in the syntax of the rule diagrams through 
causality constraints bearing on vertices and edges. A given rule diagram 
represents the “time evolution” of vertices and edges through the course of 
sequential applications of rewriting steps. In this way, one might indeed 
interpret rule diagrams as some form of analogues of Feynman diagrams for 
modeling interactions in particle physics.

@philipthrift


On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 3:09:09 PM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

> I probably need to look at Wolfram’s ideas here a bit. He is making 
> references to these graphs as entanglements. I am a bit unclear on what is 
> meant here. An bipartite entanglement is represented as *---* and a 
> tripartite entanglement is a three-way thing, a bit like the bolos the 
> Argentine gauchos throw, where each node is entangled with the other two, 
> but not all three individually. To talk about geodesics is where things get 
> a bit strange. A general relativity = quantum mechanics perspective, which 
> has been something I have worked on since 1988, where spacetime is 
> constructed from large N-tangles, may reference some sort of such 
> correspondence. There are topological obstructions between a bipartite and 
> tripartite entanglement transforming into each other  Yet if quantum 
> entanglements and spacetime topological connection in ER bridges or 
> wormholes are fungible with each other it is then possible to think of an 
> N-tangle or constructed tensor network of entanglements as equivalent to N 
> entangled black holes that contain a common interior.
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020 at 6:27:06 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Stephen Wolfram @stephen_wolfram
>> https://twitter.com/stephen_wolfram/status/1289381082165633026
>>
>> *So exciting to see how quickly things are moving with 
>> #WolframPhysics...  Makes me think of quantum mechanics circa 1925.  It's 
>> taken me 2 weeks just to summarize part of what got done at our Summer 
>> School ...*
>>
>> tech ref: https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/
>>
>>
>> https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/
>>
>> [excerpt]
>> ... 
>>
>> The starting point for any discussion of quantum mechanics in our models 
>> is the notion of multiway systems, and the concept that there can be many 
>> possible paths of evolution, represented by a multiway graph. The nodes in 
>> the multiway graph represent quantum (eigen)states. Common ancestry among 
>> these states defines entanglements between them. The branchial graph then 
>> in effect gives a map of the entanglements of quantum states—and in the 
>> large-scale limit one can think of this as corresponding to a “branchial 
>> space” ...
>>
>> The full picture of multiway systems for transformations between 
>> hypergraphs is quite complicated. But a key point that has become 
>> increasingly clear is that many of the core phenomena of quantum mechanics 
>> are actually quite generic to multiway systems, independent of the details 
>> of the underlying rules for transitions between states. And as a result, 
>> it’s possible to study quantum formalism just by looking at string 
>> substitution systems, without the full complexity of hypergraph 
>> transformations.
>>
>> A quantum state corresponds to a collection of nodes in the multiway 
>> graph. Transitions between states through time can be studied by looking at 
>> the paths of bundles of geodesics through the multiway graph from the nodes 
>> of one state to another.
>>
>> In traditional quantum formalism different states are assigned quantum 
>> amplitudes that are specified by complex numbers. One of our realizations 
>> has been that this “packaging” of amplitudes into complex numbers is quite 
>> 

Wolfram Physics Summer School report

[Philip Thrift]

Stephen Wolfram @stephen_wolfram
https://twitter.com/stephen_wolfram/status/1289381082165633026

*So exciting to see how quickly things are moving with #WolframPhysics...  
Makes me think of quantum mechanics circa 1925.  It's taken me 2 weeks just 
to summarize part of what got done at our Summer School ...*

tech ref: https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/

https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/07/a-burst-of-physics-progress-at-the-2020-wolfram-summer-school/

[excerpt]
... 

The starting point for any discussion of quantum mechanics in our models is 
the notion of multiway systems, and the concept that there can be many 
possible paths of evolution, represented by a multiway graph. The nodes in 
the multiway graph represent quantum (eigen)states. Common ancestry among 
these states defines entanglements between them. The branchial graph then 
in effect gives a map of the entanglements of quantum states—and in the 
large-scale limit one can think of this as corresponding to a “branchial 
space” ...

The full picture of multiway systems for transformations between 
hypergraphs is quite complicated. But a key point that has become 
increasingly clear is that many of the core phenomena of quantum mechanics 
are actually quite generic to multiway systems, independent of the details 
of the underlying rules for transitions between states. And as a result, 
it’s possible to study quantum formalism just by looking at string 
substitution systems, without the full complexity of hypergraph 
transformations.

A quantum state corresponds to a collection of nodes in the multiway graph. 
Transitions between states through time can be studied by looking at the 
paths of bundles of geodesics through the multiway graph from the nodes of 
one state to another.

In traditional quantum formalism different states are assigned quantum 
amplitudes that are specified by complex numbers. One of our realizations 
has been that this “packaging” of amplitudes into complex numbers is quite 
misleading. In our models it’s much better to think about the magnitude and 
phase of the amplitude separately. The magnitude is obtained by looking at 
path weights associated with multiplicity of possible paths that reach a 
given state. The phase is associated with location in branchial space.

One of the most elegant results of our models so far is that geodesic paths 
in branchial space are deflected by the presence of relativistic energy 
density represented by the multiway causal graph—and therefore that the 
path integral of quantum mechanics is just the analog in branchial space of 
the Einstein equations in physical space.

To connect with the traditional formalism of quantum mechanics we must 
discuss how measurement works. The basic point is that to obtain a definite 
“measured result” we must somehow get something that no longer shows 
“quantum branches”. Assuming that our underlying system is causal 
invariant, this will eventually always “happen naturally”. But it’s also 
something that can be achieved by the way an observer (who is inevitably 
themselves embedded in the multiway system) samples the multiway graph. And 
as emphasized by Jonathan Gorard this is conveniently parametrized by 
thinking of the observer as effectively adding certain “completions” to the 
transition rules used to construct the multiway system.

It looks as if it’s then straightforward to understand things like the Born 
rule for quantum probabilities. (To project one state onto another involves 
a “rectangle” of transformations that have path weights corresponding to 
the product of those for the sides.) It also seems possible to understand 
things like destructive interference—essentially as the result of geodesics 
for different cases landing up at sufficiently distant points in branchial 
space that any “spanning completion” must pull in a large number of 
“randomly canceling” path weights.

... 

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/63a030bc-fc5d-4fa0-98f7-95e174416025n%40googlegroups.com.

Time travel in quantum computing

[Philip Thrift]

https://newatlas.com/physics/quantum-time-travel-simulator-butterfly-effect/


Recovery of Damaged Information and the Out-of-Time-Ordered Correlators


https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07267



@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51eb99bb-65c1-42ab-8234-54dec0391519o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hegel in a Wired Brain

[Philip Thrift]

I don't think *Michael Shermer* - who  rants on his Twitter feed about 
those who have* "fallen for regressive left's obsession with race" - *is 
like George Carlin. I find him repulsive.

@philipthrift


On Monday, July 27, 2020 at 4:26:31 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> I like Shermer and his sense of humor in the way that liked George Carlin, 
> with Carlin being the brighter of the two. Beyond this, well maybe mind and 
> spirit are just old fashioned terms by the ancients (DOTA?) for quantum 
> electron dynamics skipping the Planck length? If this is the view, then 
> yeah, everything is material. For philosophy the 'dualism,' ain't 
> Descartes, but close enough for government work, as we say, stateside. 
> Again, we drift into Wittgenstein's semiotics! 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, Jul 27, 2020 3:41 pm
> Subject: Re: Hegel in a Wired Brain
>
> You haven't by chance attended this course?  
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLRdTugBInz1_8dZtuR7G4jWUYj6yVWUsg_continue=1=CD8HeoZF9cM=emb_logo
>
> Brent
>
> On 7/27/2020 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Jul 2020, at 19:32, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Sounds interesting from an interesting contemporary philosopher. I think 
> (without reading it) that Hegel would be confused at the science we have 
> since discovered, and who would blame him? 150 years later, I suspect 
> Wittgenstein would've picked up on neurobiology-cognitive 
> science-computing, like a shot! This is just my speculation, and thanks for 
> the book notification.
>
>
>
> Hegel missed the Phenomenology of Matter.  Phenomenology of Mind or Spirit 
> is an oxymoron.
>
> Russell and Wittgenstein missed Gödel’s theorem.
>
> Lucas and Penrose missed the key fact that PA, PM, ZF, do *not* miss 
> Gödel’s theorem.
>
> The neuro-study of brain will teach us a lot on the human and mammal 
> intelligence, but not so much about consciousness, as it would be like 
> understanding how deep blue win a chess game by looking at the theory of 
> electronic transistor. 
> Consciousness is a high level semantic fixed point. It is the 
> (arithmetical) truth, when known immediately, which is indubitable and 
> experienced (first person) yet non rationally definable, and non definable 
> without invoking the notion truth or reality. All universal number have it, 
> but it is very plausibly a highly “altered state of consciousness”. It is 
> the initial state before the first differentiation/histories possibles.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sat, Jul 25, 2020 5:29 am
> Subject: Hegel in a Wired Brain
>
> Hegel's 250th birtthday is next month.
>
>
> New book:
>
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48925362-hegel-in-a-wired-brain
>
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/14a45192-e864-4d72-890c-0c5dac18bb99n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hegel in a Wired Brain

[Philip Thrift]

> Hegel missed the Phenomenology of 
> Matter.  Phenomenology of Mind or 
> Spirit is an oxymoron.
> Bruno

"Matter is considered by the German philosopher to be a fleeting trace of the 
infinite process of reality – a process which can never be exhausted in the 
various (however legitimate) constructions of the positive sciences."

Hegel and Matter: Does the German Philosopher Still Have Something to Tell Us?

https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_LEPH_064_0537--hegel-and-matter-does-the-german.htm

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/290d3de9-945b-486d-97d2-01f384de7278o%40googlegroups.com.

GPT-3 creates a new religion

[Philip Thrift]

https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1284937257716072448

Church of the Next Word

GPT = Generative Pre-trained Transformer 
is the OpenAi product that is taking over the world.

@philipthrift 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/468a66a4-ee35-489f-a0cd-24b8111a51cbo%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Hegel in a Wired Brain

[Philip Thrift]

“the dialectical constitutes the moving soul
  of scientific progression”
-- G.W.F. Hegel

https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/dialectical-programming/

@philipthrift





On Saturday, July 25, 2020 at 12:32:48 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Sounds interesting from an interesting contemporary philosopher. I think 
> (without reading it) that Hegel would be confused at the science we have 
> since discovered, and who would blame him? 150 years later, I suspect 
> Wittgenstein would've picked up on neurobiology-cognitive 
> science-computing, like a shot! This is just my speculation, and thanks for 
> the book notification.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Thrift 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Sat, Jul 25, 2020 5:29 am
> Subject: Hegel in a Wired Brain
>
> Hegel's 250th birthday is next month.
>
>
> New book:
>
> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48925362-hegel-in-a-wired-brain
>
>
> @philipthrift 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1bbb99d9-797d-4d63-bfaa-925efd5eff8cn%40googlegroups.com.

Hegel in a Wired Brain

[Philip Thrift]

Hegel's 250th birtthday is next month.


New book:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48925362-hegel-in-a-wired-brain


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d788fc95-8768-4e4a-ae2a-50f99c41a025o%40googlegroups.com.

The Noise of Gravitons

[Philip Thrift]

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07211



@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e550eae0-06c9-485b-aa51-ec73457edaf3o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: soul swap

[Philip Thrift]

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v18/n08/galen-strawson/the-sense-of-the-self
 :
...
Human beings, then, can have a vivid sense [though] of the self without 
having any sense of it as something that has either personality or 
long-term continuity. Does this improve the prospects for the claim that a 
sense of the self could be an accurate representation of something that 
actually exists – even if materialism is true? I think it does, although 
the full argument would require a careful statement of what it is to be a 
true materialist, further inquiry into the notion of a thing, and a 
challenge to the problematic distinction between things and processes. 
Perhaps the best account of the existence of the self is one that may be 
given by certain Buddhists. It allows that the self exists, at any given 
moment, while retaining all the essential Buddhist criticisms of the idea 
of the self. It gives no reassurance to those who believe in the soul, but 
it doesn’t leave us with nothing. It stops short of the view defended by 
many analytic philosophers, according to which the self is a myth insofar 
as it is thought to be different from the human being considered as a 
whole. It leaves us with what we have, at any given time – a self that is 
materially respectable, distinctively mental, and as real as a stone.
--- Galen Strawson

@philipthrift


On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 12:18:50 AM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> http://existentialcomics.com/comic/351
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6724346e-992d-4ee2-b665-8322d2a8a3e5n%40googlegroups.com.

Hegel's Critique of Kant

[Philip Thrift]

*Hegel's Critique of Kant*
Sally Sedgwick
https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199698363.001.0001/acprof-9780199698363

This is a study of Hegel’s critique of Kant’s theoretical philosophy. Its 
main purpose is to defend the thesis that Hegel offers us a compelling 
critique of, and alternative to, the conception of cognition Kant argues 
for in his ‘Critical’ period. It examines key features of what Kant 
identifies as the ‘discursive’ character of our mode of cognition, and 
considers Hegel’s reasons for arguing that these features* condemn Kant’s 
theoretical philosophy to skepticism as well as dualism*. This study 
presents in a sympathetic light Hegel’s claim to derive from certain 
Kantian doctrines clues to a superior form of idealism, a form of idealism 
that better captures the nature of our cognitive powers and their relation 
to objects.

@philipthrift


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f72c3507-5f8f-44c1-8504-1689b002b3ecn%40googlegroups.com.

Dequantizing quantum algorithms

[Philip Thrift]

Example of finding a fast conventional computer method to overcome the possible 
speedup advantage of a quantum computer.

(updated)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.06151

via

https://twitter.com/ewintang/status/1274850352349634560

ref: 
https://www.quantamagazine.org/teenager-finds-classical-alternative-to-quantum-recommendation-algorithm-20180731/



@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07efbb09-bc54-4a01-b8f8-6521a612de4bo%40googlegroups.com.

Lean for the Curious Mathematician

[Philip Thrift]

meeting review and links in

https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2020/07/17/lean-for-the-curious-mathematician-2020/

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/03675d68-64c7-40e4-96ad-1f92dab53150n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Philip Thrift]

What software library and computer runs the most accurate or up to date 
programming model of real black holes?


cf.


*The EinsteinPy package provides some core data types for calculating, 
operating, visualizing geodesics and black holes. *
https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11288

@philipthrift

On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 7:15:27 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> But real black holes form by collapse of star and so don't have the time 
> symmetry of a Schwarzschild bh.
>
> Brent
>
> On 7/17/2020 3:02 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> The elementary Penrose diagram for the Schwarzschild black hole 
>
> [image: penrose diagram for Schwarzschild BH.jpg]
> has a while hole for the bottom triangle, a black hole as the upper 
> triangle and the two squares are regions with entangled states. The while 
> hole produces quanta and the black hole absorbs quanta. This is a vacuum 
> theory with the content of raising and lowering operators a and a^† for 
> entangled states. 
>
> LC
> On Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 3:53:19 AM UTC-5 cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating 
>> Wormholes
>>
>> http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/
>>  
>>
>> cf.
>>
>>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43cc5e2a-904b-4b9e-8e08-a5f32221a16en%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing meets a black hole

[Philip Thrift]

Quantum Circuit Training for Machine Learning Tasks and Simulating Wormholes
http://iontrap.umd.edu/2019/12/15/quantum-circuit-training-on-a-hybrid-quantum-computers/

cf.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/john-preskill-quantum-computing-may-help-us-study-quantum-gravity-20200715/

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/db99d821-509b-4cbe-8c12-e5b0f0791f90o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Principle of Equivalence

[Philip Thrift]

> Can't fermions be considered "matter"? AG


"Thus, matter can be defined as everything composed of elementary fermions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

@philipthrift 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9aba8f6d-d42c-4301-a03d-13e073ccd429o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Forcing as a computational process

[Philip Thrift]

On Friday, July 10, 2020 at 7:28:13 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

> On 8 Jul 2020, at 13:57, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>
> *Scientific proof-oriented programming (S-pop)*
>
> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/07/06/scientific-proof-oriented-programming-s-pop/
>
>
>
> Don’t hesitate to sum up your point. Forcing is just a powerful technic to 
> build weird model of set theory. Forcing is a particular S4-like modal 
> logic.  The relation between Smullyan-Fitting “quantisation in S4” and the 
> material mode of the self-referential machine is a bit an open problem for 
> me. I might say more on this in some future.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
As outlined there: Repurpose a *proof-oriented programming system* (Coq, 
Lean, Agda) with forcing, e.g. 

*forcing in Lean:* https://github.com/jesse-michael-han/flypitch

to do physics, e.g.

  *categorical quantum mechanics* - 
https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/teaching/courses/2019-2020/cqm/

and implement 

  *set-theoretical forcing in quantum mechanics *- 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303089



@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7bc60b1c-f4b9-4696-b7fd-1f57665de911n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Forcing as a computational process

[Philip Thrift]

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 9:10:28 AM UTC-5 Lawrence Crowell wrote:

>
>>
> I think mathematics is best when it can be used to actually calculate 
> things, whether that be with the physical world or in expanding areas of 
> mathematics itself. The one thing that always caused some distaste for 
> axiomatic set theory is that it often seems so detached and remote from 
> anything else. 
>
> LC
>

Set theory (mathematics) does seem pretty irrelevant for (computational) 
physics today.

But forcing might be the way it could be:

*Scientific proof-oriented programming (S-pop)*
https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2020/07/06/scientific-proof-oriented-programming-s-pop/

@philipthrift



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/47655ad1-c084-4693-afa0-f5011340a1can%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

In bioengineering:

https://medium.com/neodotlife/quantum-computing-for-protein-folding-custom-biology-4ceeebb94a5b

*In recent months, software engineers in my lab have been getting ready, 
retooling our protein-design software to run on quantum processors. Instead 
of going on random walks, we hope to zero in on new strings of amino acids 
that fold up into new proteins with bespoke properties.*

There are two separate things:
(A) waiting for quantum computers to run modeling programs on (simulation)
(B) using the inherent quantum mechanics of biomolecules to make new 
biological things
  (synthetic biology, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13232-z
 etc.)

It seem likely (A) is pretty hopeless. (Conventional supercomputers will 
have to do.)

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-5 Brent wrote:

> I thought the big application of QC after encryption, was going to be 
> protein folding and similar biomolecular interactions.
>
> Brent
>
> On 7/7/2020 4:56 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Dr. B may still be right though. 
>
> 30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have 
> no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or 
> maybe not.
>
> Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, 
> so its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, 
> etc.).
>
> @philipthrift
>
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>  > *If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, 
>>> I will be impressed*
>>
>>
>> Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:
>>
>> The experimental factorization of 291311 
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08061.pdf>
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
> -- 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/75a86a5b-3569-497f-9e3f-c838e0b8c68an%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

Dr. B may still be right though.

30 years from now quantum computers (as promoted in 2020) will still have 
no impact on practical computing applications. Maybe in cryptography, or 
maybe not.

Though quantum aspects in materials science could turn out to be useful, so 
its impact on computing will be of a peripheral nature (in sensors, etc.).

@philipthrift

On Tuesday, July 7, 2020 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:44 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>  > *If we can factorise a number sensibly bigger than 15 in my lifetime, 
>> I will be impressed*
>
>
> Back in 2017 the number 291,311 was factored by a quantum computer:
>
> The experimental factorization of 291311 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9c1b6d8-5ba1-4a43-96ba-6daad2ccb575n%40googlegroups.com.

Max Tegmark"s update on his AI-based physics

[Philip Thrift]

https://twitter.com/tegmark/status/1280172278509166592?


(on YouTube July 8)

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a03fe043-624a-41c8-9b8b-e776d7cbcb19o%40googlegroups.com.

Quantum computing is like QAnon?

[Philip Thrift]

Maybe she's right.

https://twitter.com/skdh/status/127349200650246

Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh
*One of today's most celebrated big achievements in quantum computing is 
factoring 15 into primes. Take it from me when I say no nation on this 
planet is doing strategic planning on quantum computers.*
Quote Tweet:

 Travis View @travis_view
 *Parents: Don't leave your children unattended in public places.*
* You never know when a QAnon follower is going to sneak up*
* and proselytize the good word of Q at them.*

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/76a24c45-f0ef-45f1-b010-bda1a6b9111dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Forcing as a computational process

[Philip Thrift]

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 6:48:08 AM UTC-5 Philip Thrift wrote:

> https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00418
>
> [Submitted on 1 Jul 2020]
> *Forcing as a computational process*
>
>
>
Something in a real language (Lean 3):

*A formalization of forcing and the unprovability of the continuum 
hypothesis [in Lean]*
https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.10570

authors: 
   https://jesse-michael-han.github.io/
   http://florisvandoorn.com/

https://github.com/jesse-michael-han/flypitch
https://flypitch.github.io/

*The Flypitch project aimed to produce a formal proof of the independence 
of the continuum hypothesis.*

*We have completed our original objective. We are now refining our library 
and exploring other formalization projects related to forcing and 
mathematical logic.*

Our formalization uses *Lean*, an open source theorem prover and 
programming language primarily developed by Leonardo de Moura at Microsoft 
Research.



@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b0c101a1-65b8-49fb-823f-a356a87b019cn%40googlegroups.com.

physics & math on Twitter

[Philip Thrift]

All the cool physicicists, mathematicians, etc. appear on Twitter today it 
seems. One imagines what it would have been like if Einstein had it.

E.g. one I found today


Stephan Roche
@StephanSroche


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86df0dcb-f225-43ff-ba65-9f2bc9f04ef9o%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Forcing as a computational process

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, July 4, 2020 at 5:39:49 AM UTC-5 Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> > On 4 Jul 2020, at 09:52, Philip Thrift  wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On forcing and quantum gravity: 
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/search/quant-ph?searchtype=author=Kr%C3%B3l%2C+J 
>
> I will take a closer look (in summer when I got more time). This looks 
> more interesting … for physics, and perhaps Mechanism. 
>
> It might provides helpful tool to get the QM GR from the universal machine 
> introspection, some day. People needs to first get well familiarised with 
> the (mechanist) mind-body problem before (to be sure). 
>
> Bruno 
>
>
>
Simple, right? :)

*Add forcing *

 Forcing as a computational process
 https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00418

*to a proof assistant for QM*

   Physics and proof assistants 
   http://hvg.ece.concordia.ca/events/formal-physics.htm
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4066961/

Categorical quantum mechanics
https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/teaching/courses/2019-2020/cqm/
w/ https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/homotopy.io [proof assistant]

*to get gravity*

   https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0303089
   https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.02667

@philipthrift


 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/355f09f2-bfaf-485f-a403-d05e122579bdn%40googlegroups.com.