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

2018-11-14 Thread Pierz
Obviously you can't measure the particle simultaneously in the up and down state. Nobody believes that. Nobody is arguing it. Honestly it's hard to understand why you have such an agitated bee in your bonnet about superpositions. The mathematical expression of the photon polarised at 45

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-11-05 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:50:30 AM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 11:22:46 PM UTC, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 9:40:39 PM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com >> wrote: >>>

Re: Interpretation of Superposition

2018-11-01 Thread Pierz
On Monday, October 15, 2018 at 9:40:39 PM UTC+11, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 5:08:42 PM UTC, smitra wrote: >> >> On 14-10-2018 15:24, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > In a two state system, such as a qubit, what forces the interpretation >> > that the

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-13 Thread Pierz
On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:53:59 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:12 PM Pierz > > wrote: > > >> *>a lot of what passes for intelligent in the domain of machines is in >> fact dumb as dogshit.* >> > > And so afte

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-10 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:41:39 PM UTC+11, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/9/2018 9:18 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-10 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:16:59 PM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:54 PM Pierz > > wrote: > > >*I refuse to accept that "axiom", and I also do not feel compelled to >> embrace solipsism.* >> > > You are ab

Re: The hard problem of matter

2018-10-09 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 7:48:21 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:26 PM Philip Thrift > wrote: > > > For "intelligent", *conventional compilers* (2) will do. There will be > > *intelligent >> agents* from Google, IBM, Apple, ... . They are already advertised as

Re: Neural networks score higher than humans in reading and comprehension test

2018-02-16 Thread Pierz
However, challenging the “comprehension” description, Gary Marcus , PhD, a Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU, notes in a tweet that “the SQUAD test shows that machines can highlight relevant passages in text, not that they understand those passages.” On

Re: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

2018-02-15 Thread Pierz
oscillations of the bond. Correct? > LC > > On Wednesday, February 14, 2018 at 4:41:45 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:46:34 AM UTC+11, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 a

Re: Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

2018-02-14 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:46:34 AM UTC+11, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 7:45:59 PM UTC-6, Pierz wrote: >> >> Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian >> is preserved (doesn't change), the hamil

Amateur speculations on energy - real physicist please?

2018-02-13 Thread Pierz
Quantum physics tells us that anything that commutes with the hamiltonian is preserved (doesn't change), the hamiltonian being the measure of energy in a system. This has led me to understand energy as a measure of change over time in a physical system. That might be obvious, except I've never

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-06-21 Thread Pierz
Bruno, do you believe there is a different world for every possible basis in which a spin (or other observable) might be measured? That seems pretty strange. On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:27:14 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 20 Jun 2017, at 19:44, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > >

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-06-19 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 3:08:42 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 6/19/2017 2:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So back to quantum computation: what I think that QC demonstrates > (independently of it being realised by network models or cluster > states) is that the superposition of states

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-31 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 3:28:18 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > Sorry. Something funny with my verizon account. > > Brent > > On 5/30/2017 8:09 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > Brent, are you replying from a mobile? I’m still receiving your replies, > as othe

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-30 Thread Pierz
Thanks for these clarifications Bruce. I find your explanations to be very lucid and helpful - they also confirm my own understanding. IIRC, you weren't a particular fan of MWI when I last conversed with you on this list. I wonder if you'd care to comment on my original argument on this thread

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-29 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 9:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > On 29/05/2017 11:21 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Bruce Kellett > > wrote: > >> On 29/05/2017 10:42 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Bruce

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-28 Thread Pierz
Russell, do you believe that Schrödinger's cat is in a superposition of dead and alive before we open the box? On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:26:49 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: > > On 29/05/2017 2:52 pm, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26:18AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > >>

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-28 Thread Pierz
rote: > > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 06:37:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 28 May 2017, at 14:23, Pierz wrote: > > > > > > > > >We are merely ignorant of its state. I would argue the same > > >applies to the colour of T. Rex. The p

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-28 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 12:24:32 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2017, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au > > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: >> > Recently I've been studying a lot of hi

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-28 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:28:52 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 06:30:07PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought > about > > how, according to special relativity, you can tran

Re: A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-26 Thread Pierz
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 2:21:37 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/25/2017 8:36 PM, Pierz Newton-John wrote: > > Is something up with Everything List - your reply is not on the site and I’m > seeing this business with “reply to David 4” etc…? > > > On 26 May 2

A thought on MWI and its alternative(s)

2017-05-25 Thread Pierz
Recently I've been studying a lot of history, and I've often thought about how, according to special relativity, you can translate time into space and vice versa, and therefore how from a different perspective we can think of the past as distant in space rather than time: my childhood being 40

Re: Has the mind-body problem been solved (was Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

2016-06-01 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 4:44:33 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/31/2016 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 31 May 2016, at 00:36, Pierz wrote: > > > >> Clark v Marchal! I love this match-up. I predict it will go 47000 > >>

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

2016-05-26 Thread Pierz
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 3:58:11 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > ​\ > > ​ > > ​> ​ >> Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on >> the notion of

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

2016-05-26 Thread Pierz
Very interesting. LIGO's observation is a one point dataset, but the principle of mediocrity still allows one to make some predictions from it. There would surely be some relatively simple maths that should tell us that if the universe contains only stellar black holes, approximately how often

Re: Has the mystery of Black Holes been solved?

2016-05-26 Thread Pierz
Not sure about Smolin's theory making a comeback. His idea depended on the notion of black holes spawning new universes, with each BH tweaking the laws of physics slightly in the new universe. But black hole theory has progressed a lot since then and I don't think anything in the modern

Re: Gravitational Waves Detected By LIGO!

2016-02-16 Thread Pierz
Energy, John Mikes, is just a measure of change in a physical system with time. Or change in arrangements of spacetime in the time direction. And what is mass? It's just changes in spacetime in the space direction(s). And it turns out each can be rotated to become the other. What is spacetime?

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

2015-12-27 Thread Pierz
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:01:09 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 12/27/2015 5:49 PM, Pierz wrote: > > The argument that the telescope should be built (or not) can only be > > founded on values, not facts. Like JC, I value the progress of > > scienti

Re: Native Hawaiian Religious Imbeciles

2015-12-27 Thread Pierz
For my own selfish reasons - I dig deep-space photography and love reading about new astronomical discoveries - I wish the telescope had gone ahead. And when the benefits and competing interests are weighed up I tend to agree the wrong decision was made here. However, I disagree with the

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-11-06 Thread Pierz
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:06:48 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:48:49 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >&g

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-11-05 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 8:48:49 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:27:04 AM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >&g

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-03 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 4:30:05 AM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/1/2015 11:09 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> &

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-11-02 Thread Pierz
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:27:04 AM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: >>> >

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-01 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: > > OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has > intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being > about whet

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-01 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:25:57 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/31/2015 11:47 PM, Pierz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 4:18:05 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/31/2015 8:55 PM, Pierz wrote: >> >> O

Re: Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-11-01 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:39:12 PM UTC+11, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:55:09PM -0700, Pierz wrote: > > > > Anyway it seems that if we're committed to computationalism plus Church > > thesis, then we have to consider the possib

Intelligent design - maybe?

2015-10-31 Thread Pierz
OK, a subject title designed to provoke, but here's a thought that has intrigued me. Computationalism (and let's not worry for the time being about whether one buys Bruno's UDA) states that consciousness supervenes on computation. This necesssarily implies (by Church thesis) that the hardware

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-10-31 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:20:32 PM UTC+11, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:01:08 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >>> >>

Re: The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-10-30 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:01:08 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: > > > > On 10/30/2015 5:39 AM, Pierz wrote: > > So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash. > Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which > cause

The desert island amnesiac - a multiverse parable

2015-10-30 Thread Pierz
So imagine a guy washed up on a small desert island after a plane crash. Unfortunately during the plane crash he suffered a traumatic injury which caused him to completely lose his memory. He wakes up on the sure without the faintest clue about who he is or where he comes from. He doesn't even

Re: What day is it?

2015-10-25 Thread Pierz
It's hard to see how physics can be self-consistent without the a priori existence of arithmetic. Though admittedly that is a different point to whether or not physics is "emulated" in arithmetic. On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 4:32:47 PM UTC+11, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

2015-09-26 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 2:24:36 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Sep 2015, at 14:11, Pierz wrote: > > I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which seems to > me to be coming from a much too theoretical place. Humans may or may not b

Re: Some questions on ontology of dreams

2015-09-25 Thread Pierz
I disagree with most of the theorising about this scenario, which seems to me to be coming from a much too theoretical place. Humans may or may not be computational at base, but we are not PCs. We are not blank slates, waiting for an operating system to be installed. Our brains and bodies imply

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

2015-09-10 Thread Pierz
rt some rigor to Anselm's argument. > > Jason > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the drivel >> of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something ab

Gödel's Philosophy

2015-09-10 Thread Pierz
It's amazing to me that a man of Gödel's brilliance could take the drivel of the ontological argument seriously. Did I miss something about that specious piece of sophistry? Other than that I'm in 87.5% agreement with him... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: Gödel's Philosophy

2015-09-10 Thread Pierz
as we, if it is the > functions/patterns/mathematical relations that determine consciousness. > > I read the formal rights in the same way you did, that ethics/politics is > an objective, rather than subjective science. > > Jason > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pi

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

2015-09-05 Thread Pierz
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:35:50 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Sep 2015, at 22:48, meekerdb wrote: > > On 9/2/2015 8:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > So now you agree with me that there are different kinds and degrees of > consciousness; that it is not just a binary

A scary theory about IS

2015-08-19 Thread Pierz
Just felt like ramming your stick in the ant's nest did you Liz? :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-13 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:00:05 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: Pierz wrote: And it's true, you can't determine probabilities by counting branches. Not by counting the number of eigenvalues, but by treating the probability amplitude associated with each eigenvalue

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-13 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 3:24:08 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ Consider a set-up in which a photon is polarized in the z direction, so that we know that the particle will, with probability 1, pass through another

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

2015-08-13 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 4:35:06 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jul 2015, at 06:21, Pierz wrote: On Thursday, July 16, 2015 at 7:07:50 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jul 2015, at 20:54, John Mikes wrote: I think JC resoinded to Brent: *​I don't have a visceral

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
: Pierz wrote: I wonder if someone with a good understanding of QM can answer this question, which has been troubling me. Let us imagine the case of a single particle, and let us imagine we know its position at time 0. Now my understanding of the evolution of the wave function

Re: Idiot Test

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however. On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 10:09:42 AM UTC+10, Kim Jones wrote: OK - perhaps this post is not entirely serious. I don't actually know. There appears to be no

Re: Re: MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
Thanks - that looks interesting! I'll be reading that on the train tonight... On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 4:10:00 PM UTC+10, scerir wrote: BTW there is an amusing paper by (the manyworlder) Lev Vaidman. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609006 -- You received this message because

Re: MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:08:31 PM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: Pierz wrote: Thanks Bruce, that actually makes a lot of sense ... and kind of completely trashes my previous understanding! It also makes QM weirder, and even makes me doubt MWI, which reading Deutsch had convinced me

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
So here's an excerpt from this paper: h ttp://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9609006v1.pdf, which was recently linked in response to a question I asked about MWI. This seems to echo *exactly* your concerns about identity/pronouns in the duplication experiment, and to resolve them, even though this

Re: Idiot Test

2015-08-11 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 10:51:37 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ Oh I'd enjoy that test! :) But I'd enjoy even more administering it to John Clarke. I suspect I already know the result however

MWI question for the physicists...

2015-08-10 Thread Pierz
I wonder if someone with a good understanding of QM can answer this question, which has been troubling me. Let us imagine the case of a single particle, and let us imagine we know its position at time 0. Now my understanding of the evolution of the wave function for the position of the

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-08 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:09:49 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-07 Thread Pierz
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 1:41:51 PM UTC+10, chris peck wrote: @ Pierz If he refuses to acknowledge MWI as a valid account due to his pronoun concerns, then fine, maybe he should publish a refutation of Everett to that effect. but isn't John's point that pro-nouns do

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-06 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 11:39:47 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ if the quantum state evolves deterministically ​The wave function most certainly evolves deterministically but that's not important

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-06 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 6, 2015 at 8:06:31 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Aug 2015, at 02:39, Pierz wrote: Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

2015-08-05 Thread Pierz
Mein Gott, this argument reminds me of the fire in Siberia that started burning in the Holocene and is still going. Why do you keep taking the troll bait Bruno? JC is a physicist so I presume he understands Everett. Ergo, he understands, in principle, first person indeterminacy. He just loves

Re: Vast Methane releases in Arctic Ocean

2015-07-16 Thread Pierz
I can't think of a better place to waste your breath than precisely on this forum. There is not a single person here who is in the slightest danger of conversion to any absolutist authority-based religion. We are all way too far gone down our own little philosophical goat-tracks to ever find

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

2015-07-16 Thread Pierz
instead of induction. In fact diagonalization is very often effective or computable, and that is why machine can be aware of their own limitation. Bruno Brent On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ ​Sure. It's a concept even very young

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

2015-07-16 Thread Pierz
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:32:06 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Wed, 2:54 PM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: ​ ​ I think JC resoinded to Brent: *​I don't have a visceral grasp of the true immensity of infinity. Do you? ​*​ I wonder if 'immensity' means - B I G - ?

A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

2015-07-13 Thread Pierz
Here's something that bothers me when I try to think of the brain too much as a computer. How would I teach a computer the notion of infinity? In simple terms, how can I represent infinity in a computer program? All a computer knows about infinity is 'stack overflow' (or simply integer

Re: A curious puzzle - teaching a computer to understand infinity

2015-07-13 Thread Pierz
the symbols. Only a robot can ground the symbols itself, e.g. a Mars rover grounds they symbols for it's location, for the local terrrain, for the charge in its batteries,... Brent On 07/13/15, Pierz wrote: Here's something that bothers me when I try to think of the brain too much

Re: A riddle for John Clark

2015-06-22 Thread Pierz
Oh Lawd. Why do people care about making John Clarke see the light? In what scenario, what preposterous aberrant branch of the multiverse does JC suddenly admit he was wrong on the basis of logic? It's like trying to dream up a way to persuade him to punch himself in the face. On Saturday,

Re: A riddle for John Clark

2015-06-22 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 11:31:26 AM UTC+10, Bruce wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/22/2015 5:37 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 6/22/2015 2:56 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Tuesday, June 23, 2015, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-27 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6:06:22 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/26/2015 10:31 PM, Pierz wrote: Where I see lookup tables fail is that they seem to operate above the probable necessary substation level. (Despite having the same inputs/outputs at the higher levels). But your

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-26 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 11:27:26 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: On 25 May 2015, at 02:06, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: On

Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!

2015-05-26 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 1:03:48 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 25 May 2015 at 00:34, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-25 Thread Pierz
to such a deep level that the separation into the two regions is as it were enforced by the very definition of that observer. The observer must include the entire computational branch down to the point at which the two physics diverged. On 23 May 2015 at 21:23, Pierz pie...@gmail.com

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-25 Thread Pierz
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/24/2015 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:07:15 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote

Re: What does the MGA accomplish?

2015-05-25 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 8:24:51 AM UTC+10, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that a recording can be conscious, because for a logician, that error is the

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-25 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 6:49:51 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/25/2015 5:16 AM, Pierz wrote: On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 4:58:53 AM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/24/2015 4:09 AM, Pierz wrote: On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:47:12 PM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:07:15 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 May

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
of this argument) in even without comp. Jason On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Some time ago on this list I had a fascinating exchange with Bruno that has stayed with me, fuelling some attacks of 4am philosophical insomnia - an affliction I

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:13:01 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler than anything asymmetric

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 8:18:41 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 24 May 2015 at 17:40, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: I really like this argument, even though I once came up with a (bad) attempt to refute it. I wish it received more attention because it does cast quite

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 4:02:42 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: On 5/23/2015 9:58 PM, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 8:36:40 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: I'm not sure why comp would predict that physical laws are invariant for all observers. I can see that it would lead to a sort

Re: Michael Shermer becomes sceptical about scepticism!

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC+10, spudb...@aol.com wrote: I sure did, Telmo. Scroll to the bottom and you shall view my last, number 26th, the last one. This kind of thing is interesting to me. I tend toward the materialist stuff since it seems to have potential. The mentalist

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-24 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 7:15:41 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 May 2015, at 08:06, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 2:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 May 2015, at 10:34, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-23 Thread Pierz
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 2:14:07 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 May 2015, at 10:34, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Friday, May 22, 2015, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 May 2015, at 01:53, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, May 20, 2015, Jason Resch

The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-23 Thread Pierz
Some time ago on this list I had a fascinating exchange with Bruno that has stayed with me, fuelling some attacks of 4am philosophical insomnia - an affliction I imagine I'm not the only person on this list to suffer from! If you try to nail Bruno down on some aspects of his theory, he has a

Re: The scope of physical law and its relationship to the substitution level

2015-05-23 Thread Pierz
of different physics for different observers. He seems to believe it should indeed be invariant. That position appears to me to be at odds with the direction of modern cosmology. On 23 May 2015 at 21:23, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: Some time ago on this list I had a fascinating

Re: Reconciling Random Neuron Firings and Fading Qualia

2015-05-23 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 1:07:15 AM UTC+10, Jason wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: On 19 May 2015, at 15:53, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

Re: Seeking astrophysicist willing to help an author

2015-01-01 Thread Pierz
is in astrophysics. Cheers On 20 December 2014 at 00:48, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:So a close friend of mine is a novelist whose latest book has a supernova in it. It's not a sci fi novel and the supernova is really quite secondary but provides a nice backdrop to the literary main

Re: Seeking astrophysicist willing to help an author

2014-12-20 Thread Pierz
wrong. He thought the supernova might be able to turn into a black hole later and stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_supernova On 20 December 2014 at 00:48, Pierz pie...@gmail.com wrote:So a close friend of mine is a novelist whose latest book has

Re: Seeking astrophysicist willing to help an author

2014-12-20 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 3:17:15 AM UTC+5:45, zibble...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, December 19, 2014 11:48:34 AM UTC, Pierz wrote:So a close friend of mine is a novelist whose latest book has a supernova in it. It's not a sci fi novel and the supernova is really quite secondary

Seeking astrophysicist willing to help an author

2014-12-19 Thread Pierz
So a close friend of mine is a novelist whose latest book has a supernova in it. It's not a sci fi novel and the supernova is really quite secondary but provides a nice backdrop to the literary main fare. I've read the manuscript and though I'm no astrophysicist I can see his science is full of

Fwd: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

2014-10-13 Thread Pierz
Oh that is stupid beyond belief. The argument here is that there is no subjective impression. WTF? Maybe this guy is the best argument we have for philosophical zombies. I suppose he means *objectively* there is no subjective impression, but try to parse the meaning of that assertion! -- You

Re: Chaitin on infinities

2014-10-04 Thread Pierz
On Sunday, September 28, 2014 1:51:00 PM UTC+10, Brent wrote: An interesting talk by Gregory Chaitin on reals and infinities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzGGHdqst8index=1list=PL68D02324107784C1 Brent Like -- You received this message because you are

Re: AI Dooms Us

2014-09-02 Thread Pierz
I have to say I find the whole thing amusing. Tegmark even suggested we should be spending one percent of GDP trying to research this terrible threat to humanity and wondered why we weren't doing it. Why not? Because, unlike global warming and nuclear weapons, there is absolutely no sign of

Re: Comp and logical supervenience

2014-09-01 Thread Pierz
What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really can't accept FPI, then he can't accept MWI either, yet that theory is perfectly straightforward and clear, and, at least if the informal straw poll cited in Tegmark's recent book is anything to be believed, possibly the dominant

Re: Comp and logical supervenience

2014-09-01 Thread Pierz
On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 2:58:53 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: What is bizarre about John's objections is that it, if he really can't accept FPI,[...] Despite what Bruno says I would maintain

Re: Comp and logical supervenience

2014-08-21 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:00:39 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 21 August 2014 04:55, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: There is nothing logically inconsistent about a fire breathing dragon powered by a nuclear reactor in its belly, but that doesn't prove that such an

Re: Neuromorphic ‘atomic-switch’ networks function like synapses in the brain

2014-08-21 Thread Pierz
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:09:53 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 21 August 2014 02:44, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: wrote: On 20 Aug 2014, at 01:05, meekerdb wrote: On 8/19/2014 3:57 PM, LizR wrote: Why can't you make a copy? (Is that in practice, until the next

Re: Comp and logical supervenience

2014-08-21 Thread Pierz
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 6:04:44 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: Sorry for being again a bit out of phase. On 18 Aug 2014, at 15:15, Pierz wrote: On Monday, August 18, 2014 9:19:32 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Aug 2014, at 14:43, Pierz wrote: Thank you Bruno for your

  1   2   3   >