Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
She is at Smith College. Go for it

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
 elderly who get serious dementia
 and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

 From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
 completely destroyed.
 Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
 their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

 This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
 In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets
 in the way.

 A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
 brain injury in a auto accident.
 The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
 order components.

 Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
 the brain stem) are high functioning.
 Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
 ordinary brain.

 This all sounds rather extraordinary, and as they say extraordinary
 claims require extraordinary proof - I have found in the past that what
 looked like compelling evidence for something extraordinary has later been
 shown to be not quite as good as it appeared (I should never have read
 James Randi on the Cottingley fairies...)

 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed
 papers by experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The
 IQ 130 student, who is presumably still around to be studied, might be a
 good place to start. If she really is what is being claimed that would seem
 to be very strong evidence that high-functioning consciousness can exist in
 a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

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


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


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
You can do your own research.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


 If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think
 we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this,
 because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
 extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
 people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
 with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
 it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

 Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

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


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


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
Has anyone ever told you that you are controlling or am I the first.
Bruce Greyson has made those claims, not me.
And I do not appreciate your characterizations.
Nobody can tell me what to do.
Richard



On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some research
 on it, why should I have to duplicate it?

 You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open
 minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.

 On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 You can do your own research.

 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


 If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I
 think we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of
 this, because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
 extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
 people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
 with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
 it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

 Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

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


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


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


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


Fwd: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Consciousness
To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

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


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
Liz,

His first slide summarizes to entire talk. The rest are examples and
elaboration.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
 there's a summary? :-)

 On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
 Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
 Subject: Consciousness
 To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist 
 yann...@gmail.com


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

 An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



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


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


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


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
Well spuddy, I do not think they are lying. However, what aspect of his
talk involves the paranormal?
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Obviously, you find the UV claims, trustworthy, Richard? Specifically, the
 truth could be determined by getting data that has no other explanation,
 other than paranormal. I know there was not any hits with Sam Parnia's
 AWARE study.

 An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.




 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 6:04 pm
 Subject: Re: Consciousness

  Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
 there's a summary? :-)

 On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
 Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
 Subject: Consciousness
 To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist 
 yann...@gmail.com


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

  An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



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


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

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


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


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
elderly who get serious dementia
and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
completely destroyed.
Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets in
the way.

A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
brain injury in a auto accident.
The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
order components.

Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
the brain stem) are high functioning.
Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
ordinary brain.

I posted this talk on 3 other lists, 2 of which contain posters that only
accept a materialistic reality.
On one, a poster said that all of the evidence presented was purely
anecdotal.
On the 2nd a poster linked me to an article claiming that brain stems alone
manifested low-grade consciousness.
When I mentioned the 130 IQ HS girl- he said that was impossible and
questioned the veracity of the U. of Virginia.

The 3rd list contains posters who already believe that consciousness can
exist outside the brain.
It was like preaching to the choir. They believe in reincarnation as well
as a hierarchy of consciousnesses-
somewhat like a spiritual MWI.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've been looking for the first slide, but can't find it - can you give me
 the time when it appears?

 Actually I may have found it - not the first, but around 18 minutes in -
 it says:

 Consciousness without a brain

 * Deathbed recovery of lost consciousness

 * Complex consciousness with minimal brain

 * Near-death experiences

 * Memories of a past life

 I know what the last 3 points mean, at least, but I'm not sure about the
 first one.

 (I also don't know of any evidence that NDEs are more that the brain
 shutting down, as described by Susan Blackmore in Dying to live.)

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


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


Re: real A.I.

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
I do not doubt that increased CO2 in the atm causes global warming
and that nowadays much of it comes from burning fossil fuels.

Yet my opinion of the Vostok ice core data is that
when global temperatures got to their present levels,
rapid global warming abruptly turned into less rapid global cooling
and eventual descent into another ice age.

I believe the mechanism is that global warming makes the jet stream more
unstable.
When I was young some 50-60 years ago,
the jet stream essentially went directly across the USA.
Now it dips down into Texas and seemingly stabilizes there
as it just fits the continental USA. The resulting snow cover in the winter
changes the earth's albedo and may be the causal factor
in a flip from warming to cooling.

I just heard a week or so ago on NPR that Siberia is experiencing record
snowfalls.
So apparently stabilization of the jet stream over the USA, if that is
indeed true,
may stabilize it across the entire globe. Time will tell.

The Republicans should be willing to pay me good money for such a theory.
But I hate what they are doing to the USA so much
that I hope you all will keep this possibility a secret.

Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/9/2014 7:42 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 ...

  As I said, I haven't developed a strong opinion in regards to
 anthropogenic global warming, so I certainly wouldn't label myself a
 climate change denier though perhaps some would take the fact that my
 mind is not settled as sufficient reason to put me in that bucket. However,
 there are some reasons that I remain unconvinced. Among them:

  1. The fact that the question is so heavily politicized and that there
 is so much money involved naturally arouses my suspicion (must take every
 news article and report with a grain of salt unlike say, a paper on pure
 number theory)


 The money is essentially all on the side of the fossil fuel industry.
 Nobody gets rich being a serious climatologist.

   2. Lack of consensus on what the effects will be: in the 1970s the fear
 was global cooling,


 There was never such fear.  It was a popular book based on the cyclic
 ice ages that predicted a new ice-age (eventually).  It has been picked
 up as by AGW deniers as proof that climatologists don't know anything.
 http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

 http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/11/10/203320/killing-the-myth-of-the-1970s-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

in the 1990s it was global warming, and when neither long-term trend
 established itself it has since become climate change and extreme whether,
 but statistical studies have found no statistically abnormal increase in
 extreme weather events.


 Why cherry pick extreme weather as the indicator?  There's plenty of
 empirical evidence for global warming, based on the most cutting edge
 statistical analysis and data and conducted by a former AGW skeptic.
 http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

   3. Failure of models: Early climate models projected an increase in
 global temperatures over the last 10 years, but those increases never
 materialized.


 Ten years is very short in climate terms.  And global warming doesn't
 necessarily imply global temperature increase.  A lot of ice can melt
 without the temperature increasing.
 http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/has-global-warming-stopped.pdf

   (As a side-note, I used to find the existence of models which could
 accurately follow past temperature changes used to be extremely convincing
 with regards to the dangers of global warming, but years later I found
 after experimenting with developing currency trading algorithms that
 through training, genetic algorithms, etc. that it was relatively easy to
 create models that were exceptionally good at reproducing past trends, yet
 they utterly failed to have any predictive power. After this experience, I
 came to realize that generating models that match a given trend is easy,
 but that is no indication of the model's legitimacy)


 So you're accusing climate scientists of using adaptive curve fitting
 algorithms, rather than physics based models?  And the simple calculations
 of Arrhenius in 1890 no longer apply?

   4. Recent exposes on the corner cutting and general bad practices of
 climatologists involved in developing reports for policy makers.


 What are these bad practices?  The exposes I've read have been cheap
 nit-picking by fossil fuel industry flacks.



  If human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, does that mean we
 should adopt a Kyoto (or similar) proposal? This is even less clear. This
 would require all of the following to be true:


 Why not add:
 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
 2. Burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the air.
 3. Human burning of fossil fuel has almost doubled atmospheric CO2 - even
 though about half of that produced has been absorbed in the oceans.


  1. Climate change exists
  2. Human CO2 emissions are a significant factor in 

Re: real A.I.

2014-12-08 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Hi Richard,



 On 07 Dec 2014, at 15:16, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno,

 You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a
 constant.
 Is that so?



 I think indeed, assuming QM (without collapse),  that the total energy of
 the multiverse is constant, and even equal to zero. Cf DeWitt-Wheeler
 equation: H = 0.

 Have you read Wilczek short paper referred to by Bruce Kellett?

 http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf

 It explains why QM implies, at least formally, why we should not add the
 energy of the different terms in the superposition.


Yes, and I thought it was a snooker. He is saying that E1 and E2 are both
less than E=E1+E2 where E is the original energy of the waves in the
incident branch.

Let's say the original branch contained one photon of frequency E/h. Then
the two resulting branches contain photons of E1/h and E2/h respectively so
that two photons of differing frequencies result. That is contrary to
experimental results as well as common sense.
Richard.


 That seems obvious to me. We never consider that a particle going through
 two slits needs the doubling of its energy. If that was the case, a quantum
 computer solving big factorization by using Shor algorithm would need more
 energy than the one available in the observable universe.

 Bruno



 Richard

 On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 06 Dec 2014, at 12:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:


 On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?


 Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the
 conservation of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different
 branch of the superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would
 violate energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
 Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem
 in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the
 physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.



 Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.


 Because QM's equation allows only interference between the branch, not
 physical interaction. You can formally add the energy of course, but that
 sum of energy is not available in any branches. According to Weinberg, that
 would be the case if the SWE was slightly delinearize. Strict linearity
 avoids all physical or observable mixture of the components of the
 universal wave, making such a sum of energy in different branches of the
 wave non physical. An hydrogen atom with an electron in a superposed state
 of two level of energy has not an energy being the sum of the two energies.
 You don't need that sum of energy to put the electron is such a state. the
 superposition of the incoming photon will be enough.
 I might think of a more formal treatment of this.

 Bruno




 Richard


 Bruno





 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

 I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from
 primary existence.


  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic
 case? the example we point to when asked to define exits?


  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
 to equate physical existence with the idea of something existing
 independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
 seriously. No?


 Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a
 mental hospital?

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 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

Re: real A.I.

2014-12-07 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno,

You seem to be arguing that the total energy in the multiverse is a
constant.
Is that so?
Richard

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 06 Dec 2014, at 12:59, Richard Ruquist wrote:


 On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?


 Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation
 of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the
 superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate
 energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
 Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem
 in the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the
 physics extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.



 Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.


 Because QM's equation allows only interference between the branch, not
 physical interaction. You can formally add the energy of course, but that
 sum of energy is not available in any branches. According to Weinberg, that
 would be the case if the SWE was slightly delinearize. Strict linearity
 avoids all physical or observable mixture of the components of the
 universal wave, making such a sum of energy in different branches of the
 wave non physical. An hydrogen atom with an electron in a superposed state
 of two level of energy has not an energy being the sum of the two energies.
 You don't need that sum of energy to put the electron is such a state. the
 superposition of the incoming photon will be enough.
 I might think of a more formal treatment of this.

 Bruno




 Richard


 Bruno





 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

 I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from
 primary existence.


  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic
 case? the example we point to when asked to define exits?


  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
 to equate physical existence with the idea of something existing
 independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
 seriously. No?


 Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a
 mental hospital?

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: real A.I.

2014-12-06 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 05 Dec 2014, at 20:04, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?


 Yes. Quantum mechanics without collapse does not violate the conservation
 of energy. You just cannot sum up the energy in the different branch of the
 superposition. If you do, just the two slits experiment would violate
 energy conservation, but the math shows otherwise.
 Similarly thanks to the quantization modal principle which is a theorem in
 the material modalities (hypostases) we have good reason that the physics
 extracted from comp will conserve energy, and the probabilities.



Please explain how you cannot sum all the energies in each branch.
Richard


 Bruno





 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

 I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
 existence.


  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case?
 the example we point to when asked to define exits?


  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend
 to equate physical existence with the idea of something existing
 independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
 seriously. No?


 Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a mental
 hospital?

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: real A.I.

2014-12-05 Thread Richard Ruquist
What I want to know is if anyone takes conservation of energy seriously?

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/5/2014 8:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



 On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 12/4/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

 I suspect that Bruno is differentiating physical existence from primary
 existence.


  What's the difference?  Isn't physical existence the paradigmatic case?
 the example we point to when asked to define exits?


  Not wanting to bypass Bruno's more sophisticated explanations, I tend to
 equate physical existence with the idea of something existing
 independently of an observer. Or, to put it another way, taking 3p reality
 seriously. No?


 Sure.  Does anyone not take it seriously - I mean anyone outside a mental
 hospital?

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
John,

Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at some
point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which despite
it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same wave
function- so they say. It seems to me that if all particles in the universe
share the same wave function, that must be a state of very low entropy. I
invite discussion on whether my thinking is correct.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, George gl...@quantics.net wrote:

  http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-3016-9 As I have
 explained in previous posts, it is my opinion that Loschmidt was wrong in
 thinking that a Maxwellian gas column could power a perpetual motion
 machine of the Second kind which would decrease in entropy in an isolated
 system.


 Yes, Loschmidt was wrong about that.

  Loschmidt was wrong with respect to the direction of time. In summary:
 entropy can decrease but time always flows forward.


 Loschmidt said the link between the second law and time can explain why
 entropy will be higher tomorrow than today, but it can't explain why it was
 lower yesterday than today. And Loschmidt was quite right about that, you
 have to take initial conditions into consideration to explain that. In
 retrospect this shouldn't have been surprising, even in a Newtonian world
 the laws of physics alone are NEVER enough to figure out what a physical
 system will do tomorrow or did yesterday, you also have to know exactly
 what state the system was in for at least one moment in time before
 yesterday. Only then can you use the laws of physics to figure out how the
 system will evolve.

  His argument was that if the laws of physics are perfectly reversible,
 then entropy is just as likely to increase as to decrease.


 No, it would be far worse than 50/50. His argument was that even if the
 laws of physics were perfectly reversible entropy would still almost
 certainly increase because there are astronomical to the astronomical power
 more ways to be disorganized than organized, so the chances are
 overwhelming that yesterday, the state that produced the state that things
 are in today, was one of those EXTREMELY numerous states. But nobody really
 thinks that entropy decreased between yesterday and today; the thing that
 saves us from this paradox is initial conditions, the universe must have
 started out in a very very low entropy state and has been winding down ever
 since.

   John K Clark





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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:07 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
 to be relatively negligible?


 Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in
 terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
 course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
 interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe,
 if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You
 are 100% in the logic IMHO.

 I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle.
 That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result.
 Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner
 madness.

 But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else
 provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me.

 If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on
 his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there.

 Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to
 tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a
 brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also
 an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of
 his own personality or personal biases.

 his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media
 distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't
 follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and
 training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it
 worthwhile.

 look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

 In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a
 lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the
 frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy
 away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer).

 GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them.
 Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the
 universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me.
 Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might
 look at even if you can't find the one in question re here.



 But then again, who is.

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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
 become correlated.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf


 I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
 them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations
 may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't,
 have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow.

 Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows
 each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape
 because some involve correlations of distant objects)

 So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these
 different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of
 each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained
 together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently
 derives the two local explanations.

 Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky.

 At some point objects like the historic cosmological view need to be
 included. And the big bang. And then more widely things like stable
 enduring structure and biological life.

 The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all
 together.


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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.

However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on
the same basis.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
 But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
 So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
 Richard


 I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of
 correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:
 http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

 I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the
 data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it
 isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations.

 obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for
 that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably
 exceed mine.



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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
Zibby,

They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.

Zappy

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:56 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
 and I are talking about.
 It is a form of cosmic entanglement.


 how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
 idea or a catch-all explanation?


 However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
 must be intelligent to be monogamous


 I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going
 on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned
 at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to
 include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they
 talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get
 inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory
 explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory
 before it comes up empirically?


 And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work
 on the same basis.


 same response as above

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


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


Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-29 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Richard,

 On 28 Nov 2014, at 19:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum
 effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general
 if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world,
 maybe with a little fuzziness.


 Classical, or quantum, will not change the fact that we must sum up on all
 computations occurring in arithmetic.


I can understand the need for summation from the Many Histories (Feynman)
quantum theory.
But Bruno, I wonder why you say it is necessary. Does the summation
requirement come from the arithmetic or the logic,
or some other principle?



 There is no quantum cloning (in arithmetic or in some quantum reality),
 but there is still multiple preparation of the states, both in arithmetic
 and in some possible quantum reality.

 Normally the quantum aspect of nature is due to the inside or internal
 points of view in arithmetic, but of course this must be continually
 verified. The verifications done so far confirm this.

 Bruno






 Richard

 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

  Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that
 there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual
 fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's
 jump into the shoes of objective reality.


 OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't detect
 subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see
 actions but it can't see intentions.  And the more intelligent a animal's
 actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next
 generation.

  we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its
 delivery has been negatively impacted.


 And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know that is
 if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction
 from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies
 consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer,
 this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today
 everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every
 single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when
 they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the
 idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the
 intelligence/consciousness link is controversial.

 I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not
 the way we wish they were.

  Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities


 If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is)
 then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness
 too.


  Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the
 efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.


 Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it
 if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution
 did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably
 trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that
 consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence.


  John you need a strong answer to this.


 If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is
 not valid then you are conscious.  Now ask yourself if you are conscious or
 not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough?

   John K Clark






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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-28 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno,

It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum
effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general
if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world,
maybe with a little fuzziness.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

  Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that
 there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual
 fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's
 jump into the shoes of objective reality.


 OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't detect
 subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see
 actions but it can't see intentions.  And the more intelligent a animal's
 actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next
 generation.

  we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its
 delivery has been negatively impacted.


 And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know that is if
 you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from
 that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies
 consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer,
 this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today
 everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every
 single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when
 they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the
 idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the
 intelligence/consciousness link is controversial.

 I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not the
 way we wish they were.

  Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities


 If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is)
 then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness
 too.


  Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the
 efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.


 Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it if
 it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution did
 somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably
 trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that
 consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence.


  John you need a strong answer to this.


 If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is
 not valid then you are conscious.  Now ask yourself if you are conscious or
 not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough?

   John K Clark





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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-28 Thread Richard Ruquist
I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each of
us.
And if the latter, how would we know.?
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 LizR wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier
 reply I got (not from you)


 It is not at all clear what you are talking about. When you delete all
 context your point becomes obscured.

 Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and
 clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and
 solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand,
 unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of the system. This
 is not happening at any noticeable rate, so what's the theory in question?

 Bruce


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


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


Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-28 Thread Richard Ruquist
It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part,
but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent
as a group than individually.

I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement
in a mind/matter duality.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:





 On 29 Nov 2014, at 2:42 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kim Jones:

  Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing
 intelligence without consciousness.


  iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc.
 etc.


 If you believe all these things are smart then fine,



 Smart I take to mean highly competent in a way that a human can
 understand and benefit from. I don't think this exhausts the possibilities
 of being smart. My iPad exists relative to me on the level of a trusted
 slave-labourer. When Siri asks me to pay her for the service of finding a
 great Vietnamese restaurant within walking distance, I will attribute
 consciousness to her - given that Apple isn't pulling my leg somehow.




 but what makes you think they're not conscious?



 They may well be. I can certainly hold that thought in my mind and give it
 good consideration. To me this question exists on much the same level as
 have extraterrestrials visited the Earth? Well it's entirely possible,
 but highly improbable given the evidence available. It's also possible that
 we haven't seen anything like all of the evidence for or against that yet.
 I recently read somewhere that Google engineers have admitted that Google
 now does things they themselves have not directly authorised nor fully
 understand the need for. That, if true, is super-smart. And just a little
 scary. If something as autonomous as that is happening without an ego or an
 experiencing self observing itself doing these things then we have already
 eliminated the need for consciousness in the MV. In fact there is
 precisely NO need for consciousness at all if intelligence (IQ =
 horsepower; grunt of the engine) alone is enough to invent a self-driving
 car or an orbital space station. Yet, we do have consciousness - whether we
 need it or not. This, to my mind leads straight to the mind-body problem
 that you seem eternally ready to deny. Intelligence is like the colour of
 your eyes or your height or the dimensions of your schwannstücker. It's
 fixed and immutable. You have an engine upstairs of a certain horsepower,
 that's all. Can't change that. Intelligence is more like low-level
 consciousness, without Löbianity. Still, this is immensely effective and
 powerful. Ant colonies. Forests. Bee hives. Corporations. Flying cars. All
 hugely intelligent and adapted to the environment in which they arose.
 Conscious? Could be, could be. Basically, I am undecided on that. Anyone
 who is decided on that on the basis of available evidence has fallen
 headlong into the Intelligence Trap.



 When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much
 much easier to produce emotion than intelligence,



 Not really. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution
 produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to
 emotions.

 It works like this: emotions are the qualia. Qualia are events. A
 non-conscious subject cannot differentiate events happening inside from
 events happening outside. That somewhat unnecessary distinction requires
 consciousness. An amoeba simply reacts to events, and learns strategies for
 survival from them. That's intelligence.



 so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we
 make the same sort of thing?



 Because intelligence is easy to produce. Emotions are hard to produce.
 It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Evolution always produces
 intelligence, even when it delegates the evolutionary process to the
 accelerated-intelligent entities (us) and there appears to be no end to how
 far intelligence can evolve. If Google becomes any more competent I think
 they should stick it in the White House and let it run the planet for us
 while we all romp naked through the heather and smell the wildflowers...and
 other bizarre behaviour of conscious beings. You are definitely right when
 you say that evolution cares not a fig about consciousness. Evolution is
 not itself an experiential subject of any sort, so that's hardly
 surprising.  Evolution is the name given by conscious beings to a rhythmic,
 harmonic process of adaptation observed happening over time. Evolution
 means simply things persist or they don't, given their behaviour.
 Consciousness would then fit in as a new kind of adaptive behaviour - from
 evolution's perspective.


  Evolution is supposed to be the only game in town


 I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at
 least not anymore.



 PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their atheist/physicalist
 talkfests



 At one time Evolution was the only way 

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-26 Thread Richard Ruquist
Turns out that I do not understand it either.
The pinhole thought experiment should decrease the coherent photons
by a factor of 2 regardless of whether the incoherent photons
are in separate branches or not.
So the result is the same for MWI and wave collapse.
Richard

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:54, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
 slits

 Richard: You should be ashamed


 That's hardly an argument.


 Agreed


 Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
 phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
 a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
 finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
 would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used
 to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
 and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
 can stop here ...


 Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
 incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
 So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
 where r is distance from the hole.
 If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
 density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
 sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
 photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
 make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
 wrong.

 With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
 energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So
 the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the
 number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve
 energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the
 original photon.



 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
 in branches, not in the multiverse.


 Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
 quantum probabilities


 No, the conservation of energy is global, and should be statistically
 verified in the normal (non Harry-Potter-like) branches.









 But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
 fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
 with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
 indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
 structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.



 My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.


 That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
 making directly the physical into something psychological.


 Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
 branch


 ?






 Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that
 could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4
 dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the
 physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It
 is just how I see reality.


 OK.



 For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
 wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
 computations.


 I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
 illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.


 And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before
 the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
 because there are no evidence for it.



 I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?



 I think it is well known, at least by the scholars. I agree that I am a
 bit oversimplifying, by lack of time. The fact is that is that until
 Maimonides, there were as much platonist and aristotelian among the
 religious people.

 Religion, in a wide sense, are platonist at the start. What we see is not
 the real or the whole thing. Thus comes the idea of God, as the reason
 *behind* what we see, and the idea of science: let us find what really is.
 But Aristotelianism, which is very natural from the first person view (the
 brain is programmed to take seriously what we see), has made the human
 forgetting that science (including

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-25 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 meekerdb wrote:


 ISTM there are two ways of looking at it.  In one you say before the
 event there were several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites
 a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened.  The energy before x was the same
 as after x, so energy is conserved.  In the other you say x happened with
 probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the
 multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,...  And in
 each of x,y,z energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is
 conserved in the multiverse. Non-conservation only appears when you use
 these two pictures inconsistently.


 This seems to be the same as the renormalization that Wilczek talks about
 -- you essentially re-weight energies in the same way as you re-weight
 probabilities.


 If you mean by re-weighting the energies that the particles in different
branches have different energies,
then for example if the particle were a photon, each branch would have a
photon of a different frequency.
That would make MWI chaotic.

But if each branch has the same photon at the original frequency, energy is
not conserved.

OTOH if there is a probability that a branch will not happen, which is
always the case with renormalization,
then that's pretty close to a wave collapse. With renormalization there is
a probability that no branch will happen.
That also leads to chaos.
Richard



   From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) energy
 is just the conjugate variable of time.  We want our theories to apply at
 all times so we seek formulations of energy and time that do this as simply
 as possible.  Having a conserved quantity called energy is a consequence
 of having theories that apply uniformly in time.


 Without local energy conservation QM, on which MWI is based, is in real
 trouble.

 Bruce


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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-25 Thread Richard Ruquist
The article was about the bad fit.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
 article is about.

 I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
 mention of expanding galaxies.


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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-25 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
 slits

 Richard: You should be ashamed


 That's hardly an argument.


 Agreed


 Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
 phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
 a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
 finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
 would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used
 to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
 and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
 can stop here ...


 Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
 incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
 So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
 where r is distance from the hole.
 If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
 density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
 sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
 photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
 make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
 wrong.

 With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
 and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
 energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
 detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
 detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
 photon.



 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
 in branches, not in the multiverse.


 Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
 quantum probabilities


 No, the conservation of energy is global, and should be statistically
 verified in the normal (non Harry-Potter-like) branches.









 But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
 fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
 with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
 indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
 structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.



 My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.


 That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
 making directly the physical into something psychological.


 Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
 branch


 ?






 Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that
 could possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4
 dimensional muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the
 physical space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It
 is just how I see reality.


 OK.



 For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
 wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
 computations.


 I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
 illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.


 And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before
 the 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
 because there are no evidence for it.



 I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?



 I think it is well known, at least by the scholars. I agree that I am a
 bit oversimplifying, by lack of time. The fact is that is that until
 Maimonides, there were as much platonist and aristotelian among the
 religious people.

 Religion, in a wide sense, are platonist at the start. What we see is not
 the real or the whole thing. Thus comes the idea of God, as the reason
 *behind* what we see, and the idea of science: let us find what really is.
 But Aristotelianism, which is very natural from the first person view (the
 brain is programmed to take seriously what we see), has made the human
 forgetting that science (including theology) comes from askeptical attitude
 with the idea that we are directly related to what we can measure and
 observe.






 I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but
 that waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that
 is not an argument..

 My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
 physical as MWI poses

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
 slits

 Richard: You should be ashamed


 That's hardly an argument.


Agreed


 Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
 phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
 a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
 finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
 would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used
 to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
 and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
 can stop here ...


Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
where r is distance from the hole.
If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
wrong.

With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
photon.


But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
 fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
 with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
 indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
 structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.



My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical. Everything else
is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could possibly happen
can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional muliverse that I
call the Math Space With collapse, the physical space becomes lines
in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just how I see reality.

For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the wave
 is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
 computations.


I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism. I
prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
not an argument..

My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
physical as MWI poses, would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to
exist, and more and more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So
MW reality must be illusion.

Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from
Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block
multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.


The alternative is some kind of mathematical  wave collapse to conserve
both energy and quanta, which fortunately results in a unique reality where
time matters. I have suggested that if the wave has BEC entanglement
properties, that collapse may be instantaneous.But that collapse mechanism
uses experiment-derived properties rather than math for lack of any time
dependence.
Richard

 Bruno





 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.


 I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
 doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
 doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
 state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
 be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
 a zero.

 Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality,
 and all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all
 computations including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical
 reality, and it is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative
 notion. Of course we need to justify why the reversible computations win
 the limit measure game.

 Bruno




 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 It seems, yes. In our branch

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
MWI renormalization is just a snooker.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:51 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, November 23, 2014 9:52:23 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

 LizR wrote:
  On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com
  mailto:yan...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
 
  I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so,
  or thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can
 grasp?

 If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin
 projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the
 particle still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if
 there are two possible spin states, then you have created two worlds,
 each of which has all the energy of the original. That is the sense in
 which energy is not conserved.

 The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it,
 is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the
 daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability
 of spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result
 'up', the probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy
 could have been expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization
 restores this to 100% in each world.





 If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a
 stretch.


 exactly

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 18:11, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two
 slits

 Richard: You should be ashamed


 That's hardly an argument.


 Agreed


 Einstein already understood that if the collapse was a physical
 phenomenon, and if special relativity was correct, then locality would make
 a wave possibly collapse on two different eigenvector, like sometimes
 finding literally the photon going in both hole. In that case, the energy
 would be double, and the schroedinger diffusion of the wave could be used
 to ... create energy. A quantum perpetual machine could be constructed,
 and, pace George Levy, but following John Clark's quote of Eddington, we
 can stop here ...


 Yes. I like Einstein's single pinhole thought experiment the best. The
 incident photon spreads in spherical waves beyond the hole from ray optics.
 So if waves could carry energy, the energy density would  drop by 1/r^2
 where r is distance from the hole.
 If we wrap the experiment with a spherical detector sheet, the energy
 density incident on the sheet would be a constant across the spherical
 sheet and the amount incident on any detector would be a fraction of the
 photon energy. So there is not enough energy incident on any detector to
 make a photon of the original energy. That's classical thinking and it is
 wrong.

 With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same energy
 and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So the total
 energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the number of
 detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
 detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the original
 photon.



 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
 in branches, not in the multiverse.


Fine as long as the input energy in each branch is normalized by the
quantum probabilities







 But the collapse is not physical, it belongs to the mind of the people,
 fungible and then differentiated, in the infinite tensor product, which,
 with computationalism, should be a mirror of the fact that we are
 indeterminate on infinitely many sigma_1 sentences, where the ortholattice
 structure is determined by the logic of self-reference.



 My opinion is that collapse is what makes objects physical.


 That is my opinion too. But the collapse is a psychological phenomenon,
 making directly the physical into something psychological.


Fine as long the process uses the correct initial conditions for each
branch




 Everything else is just math (and deterministic.) So everything that could
 possibly happen can be computed ahead of time in a block 4 dimensional
 muliverse that I call the Math Space With collapse, the physical
 space becomes lines in the Math Space. That is not an argument. It is just
 how I see reality.


 OK.



 For a computationalist (who thinks), the collapse is not real, but the
 wave is not real too. It is itself the product of a Moiré effect on all
 computations.


 I agree. With computationalism nothing is real except the math. All is
 illusion- maya. So comp must have the support of Hinduism and Buddhism.


 And christianism before the 5th century, and judaism and Islam, before the
 11th century. The obsession with matter came later. I find this weird,
 because there are no evidence for it.



I'll take your word for it. So its not in history books?




 I prefer to think that both quantum waves and particles are real, but that
 waves are math objects and particles are physical objects. Again that is
 not an argument..

 My argument is that the block multiverse, if it were to become entirely
 physical as MWI poses,


 Not necessarily. In fact comp offers a compromise between the idealist
 (the quantum describes only information) and many-worlds, by introducing
 the idea that reality is the many-dream aspect that arithmetic got when
 seen from inside. Of course, both the idealist and the MW are not
 satisfied, and in science, we still kill the diplomats.



Yes, many-dream arithmetic is part of Math Space


 would require a nearly infinite amount of energy to exist, and more and
 more as time goes on. That of course is impossible. So MW reality must be
 illusion.


 Unless energy is an illusion.


Of course, along with matter.




 Another way to look at it is that conservation of energy comes from
 Noether's time symmetry. But there is no need for time in a block
 multiverse. So there is no need for the conservation of energy.


 Conservation of energy is still an open problem in computationalist
 theology. But the logic of self-reference seems to be capable of explaining
 it, by imposing reversibility and linearity at the sigma_1 bottom

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
Isn't this news a few months old?

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html

 my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest.


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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

  With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at the same
 energy and frequency as the original photon but in a different world. So
 the total energy in the multiverse will locally have increased by the
 number of detectors times the photon energy. The only way to conserve
 energy is to detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as the
 original photon.


 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be accounted
 in branches, not in the multiverse.



 I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that is just
 a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies energy conservation
 by construction (time translation invariance and Noether's theorem).

 You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed branch-wise
 energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only for the multiverse.


Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation. No
renormalization results in chaos.



 Bruce

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
 mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

 Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a photon at
 the same energy and frequency as the original photon but in
 a different world. So the total energy in the multiverse
 will locally have increased by the number of detectors times
 the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is to
 detect only one photon of the same energy and frequency as
 the original photon.


 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has to be
 accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.



 I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE, and that
 is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It satisfies
 energy conservation by construction (time translation invariance and
 Noether's theorem).

 You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
 branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic only
 for the multiverse.


 Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No conservation.
 No renormalization results in chaos.


 Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not affect
 the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly, but doesn't
 lead to difficulties.

 Bruce

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Wrong. Renormalization multiples the total energy in the multiverse.


 I can do no more than refer you to Frank Wilczek:

 http://frankwilczek.com/2013/multiverseEnergy01.pdf


Excerpt: In this precise sense those two branches describe mutually
inaccessible (decoherent) worlds, both made of the same materials, and
both occupying the same space. 

Two whole worlds of extra energy and matter. You got to be kidding.



 Bruce



  On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
 mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

 Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett
 bhkell...@optusnet.com.au mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
 mailto:bhkellett@optusnet.__com.au
 mailto:bhkell...@optusnet.com.au wrote:

 Bruno Marchal wrote:

 On 24 Nov 2014, at 11:35, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 With MWI thinking, every detector will detect a
 photon at
 the same energy and frequency as the original photon
 but in
 a different world. So the total energy in the
 multiverse
 will locally have increased by the number of
 detectors times
 the photon energy. The only way to conserve energy is
 to
 detect only one photon of the same energy and
 frequency as
 the original photon.


 ... or the conservation of energy is something which has
 to be
 accounted in branches, not in the multiverse.



 I don't think so. The multiverse is described by the SWE,
 and that
 is just a unitary transformation in Hilbert space. It
 satisfies
 energy conservation by construction (time translation
 invariance and
 Noether's theorem).

 You have to renormalize in each branch to get the observed
 branch-wise energy conservation -- conservation is automatic
 only
 for the multiverse.


 Renormalization increases the energy of the multiverse. No
 conservation. No renormalization results in chaos.


 Renormalizing the (collapsed) wave function for a branch does not
 affect the wave function of the multiverse. The procedure is ugly,
 but doesn't lead to difficulties.

 Bruce


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


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


Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

2014-11-24 Thread Richard Ruquist
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
 expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
 scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
 there evidence of this sort of change?

 On 25 November 2014 at 10:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Isn't this news a few months old?


 dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups

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


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


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


Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

2014-11-23 Thread Richard Ruquist
If Feynman could renormalize, why can't MWIers(;)

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruce Kellett bhkell...@optusnet.com.au
wrote:

 LizR wrote:

 On 22 November 2014 09:31, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com mailto:
 yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.

 I've been trying to follow this, but I still don't get why this is so, or
 thought to be so. Is there a simple explanation that even I can grasp?


 If you have a particle of a certain evergy and you measure its spin
 projection, then in each world you get a certain result, but the particle
 still carries all the energy of the original particle. So if there are two
 possible spin states, then you have created two worlds, each of which has
 all the energy of the original. That is the sense in which energy is not
 conserved.

 The answer according to MWI advocates, at least as I have understood it,
 is that just as probabilities have to be renormalized in each of the
 daughter worlds, so does energy have to be renormalized. The probability of
 spin up was 0.5 pre-measurement, but once you observe the result 'up', the
 probability is renormalized to unity. Similarly, the energy could have been
 expected to be 50% of the original, but renormalization restores this to
 100% in each world.

 If you believe in MWI, believing in this renormalization is not such a
 stretch.

 Bruce




 It seems to me that if you have fungible universes which diverge (as in
 FOR) then you already have a continuum of particles available, and these
 get shared out when the universes diverge. But they get shared out
 continuously - we have a continuum of universes and a continuum of
 particles...

 (At this point I try to follow what's happening and my head explodes, as
 in Scanners)


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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread Richard Ruquist
Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
 whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.

 Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.

 Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

 I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
 multiverse, in the MWI view? The approximately being because branches are
 only approximately defined?


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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-23 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno:  I doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits

Richard: You should be ashamed

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 23 Nov 2014, at 12:32, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Yes, and as the branches multiply, so does the energy.


 I doubt this, but eventually this will depend on how we define energy. I
 doubt a photon needs to double his energy to go through two slits, and I
 doubt Shor algorithm needs energy to handle 10^500 parallel superposition
 state. Energy is a local relative (gauge) notion, which I am not sure can
 be easily applied to the whole configuration space, which energy can be put
 a zero.

 Of course with computationalism there is only an arithmetical reality, and
 all physicalness is a view from inside. All branches of all computations
 including the one with oracle are run in the arithmetical reality, and it
 is clear, imo, that energy is only an internal relative notion. Of course
 we need to justify why the reversible computations win the limit measure
 game.

 Bruno




 On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 3:52 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 21 November 2014 23:07, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a
 whole, where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would 
 say.

 Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.

 Energy is not constant in a general-relativistic universe.

 I believe energy is approximately conserved within a branch of the
 multiverse, in the MWI view? The approximately being because branches are
 only approximately defined?



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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Nov 2014, at 12:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:


 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
 which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
 clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
 a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
 is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
 Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

 Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
 - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
 bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
 state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
 the wave not collapse.





 Bruno proved that information is not conserved.


 ?

 On the contrary, I insist that information is conserved in the global
 picture. Unitary evolution conserves basically everything, the scalar
 product, the probabilities, information, etc. It is the collapse which
 introduces an abnormal elevation of information in the memories of the
 subsystem involved, but this is already explained in the self-suplication:
 the guy who wake up in Washington get one bit of information, and the guy
 who wakes up in Moscow get one bit of information, despite no information
 is created in the duplication.



 Collapse conserves energy.



 The collapse does not make sense to me. I don't know what is the collapse,
 except a magical non local trick to pretend that we are unique.



I give up. Bruno, you have to learn for yourself how collapse and QM
conserves energy.
Just think of a single pinhole experiment like Einstein did. One particle
in, the same particle out, every time.
Seems you are so anti-materialistic that energy is just an illusion and
need not be conserved.
Richard


 Well, I came in this list, because it was based on the appreciation of the
 many-worlds, if not verything idea, given that I show that
 computationalism entails a many-dream interpretation of elementary
 arithmetic, from which the many interfering compuations must be derived, so
 that we can test computationalism.

 Bruno





 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
 Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new
 information - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds
 some random bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds
 that new state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics,
 by having the wave not collapse.

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

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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Nov 2014, at 19:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:

  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:


 The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
 energy
 and information in the universe.
 Richard



 Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

 Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
 evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.


 Exactly. It is the advantage of the many-worlds. The evolution of the
 universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
 (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
 probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
 explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
 indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
 assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.

 Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
 contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
 observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
 imo.



 With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
 function is mapped out on the detector screen.


 Locally, I mean in your branch of the universal wave (say). But the number
 of branch is the same, in the differentiation (as opposed to splitting)
 view.



 Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
 energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.


 It seems, yes. In our branch. But not in the physical reality as a whole,
 where information and energy are constant, and arbitrary I would say.

 Energy is not constant in the MWI multiverse.
Richard

 Bruno



 Richard



 Bruno





 --

 
 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
 
 

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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
 may be testable.

 “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
 Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are
 ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the
 beginning of time. “




 Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even
 for computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The
 mutiplication (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II).


 I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in
 terms of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise
 invariant in all dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has,
 and ever will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule.


That is exactly how I see it. From computationalism, everything that can
possibly happen can be computed ahead of time
in a deterministic block multiverse. No need for time, energy or matter- it
is entirely mathematical- a 4 dimensional math space (actually pops out of
my metaverse` string cosmology). In a deterministic universe consciousness
and free will seem to also not be needed. But once the quantum mechanics of
energy and matter, along with conservation of mass/energy are introduced,
the multiverse becomes unique. That's what physics says. But lately, a
strong dose of entanglement is thought to be needed to change quantum
probabilities into statistical mechanics, the basis of ordinary
thermodynamics.
Richard



 You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and
 how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial
 shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you?

 Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer
 the question that he will not despite many times my asking.

 Deutsch explains in BoI chapter The Reality of Abstractions that
 abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent
 features from underlying, increasingly physical layers

 So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical
 mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger
 divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are
 independent of quantum forces?

 How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single
 time, how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never
 endure

 Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent
 universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is
 therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others
 diverge.

 Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we shall
 see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment.
 Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable.


The one-slit pattern is a smear with perhaps some diffraction oscillations
on the fringe of the smear.
The double-slit experiment shows a very distinctive interference pattern
instead and in place of the smear.



 Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way?


There are an infinity of other universes in the one-slit experiment.
But say the incident photon has a certain frequency, that is a fixed energy.
The detection screen then records only one photon of the same frequency and
same energy.
Thereby quantum collapse ensures conservation of energy.
The infinite number of other worlds still exist mathematically in the Math
Space of the block multiverse...
But a recalculation, like making a wrong turn, must be done in Math Space
to account for quantum collapse.
The need for continual recalculations may be the foundation of time.
Richard

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


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


Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
You are right. My racewalking buddy and college classmate, a Doctor
Professor (retired) on the Yale Medical School faculty,
is engaged in Big Data regarding reading tissue data as to whether it is
carcinogenic. Right now that is entirely done by visual inspection of
doctors using their personal judgement. Doctor's pay will be reduced if
they succeed.
Richard

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:06 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:39:14 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, November 16, 2014 10:56:37 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Nov 2014, at 08:45, LizR wrote:

 On 16 November 2014 07:42, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:39 PM, zib...@gmail.com wrote:

  The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history.


 I would maintain that from a long term operational viewpoint it doesn't
 matter if the humans on the Supreme Court consider computers to be people
 or not, the important thing is if computers consider humans to be people or
 not.

 Making certain probably reasonable assumptions, that is quite likely.



 Only if we remember that money is a tool, and not a goal. If money is
 the goal, machines will correctly conclude that humans are not affordable:
 they need 02, plants, a very rich and complex environment, etc. But with
 some luck we will be digital before, and get more affordable in the
 machine's point of view.

 To say that corporation are person is, imo, a rather big error. Only
 machine having the Löbian ability can be considered as person, and
 corporations are not.


 What he said that was most new for me was, the supreme court may decide
 corporations are individuals or not, but that algorithms increasingly
 define corporations, and what those programs do, they have not say over at
 all.

 The damaging mythology was the way a small cadre of
 technologist-computationalist-futurist self-reinforce themselves into an
 unchallenged space of defining the vision for A.I. in wholly positive and
 historical inevitable terms. A.I. is coming, it's here now, it's going to
 change everything, it'll be better, it'll be the better version of us even.

 Which gets the same structure of delayed response that ultimately because
 dominated by the merchants of doom who think this is going to end badly,
 either A.I. here, or alien A.I. Which reinforces the next version of the
 same version of the positive cadre emitted before. It becomes invariant.

 Which would be fine, but neither one of the scenarios are anything like
 reflective of what is taking place on the ground. A.I. is no closer than
 it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. But what is new and big is Big Data. But
 Big Data does not involve theories of A.I. nor efforts. it's about taking
 very large sets of paired data and converging by some basic rule to a
 single thing. This is how translation services work. It's very large sets
 of translations of sentences, and sentence components, simply rehashed for
 best fit to the text in translation.


 It actually works fairly adequately for most translation needs. Which
 would be great, except this:

 -- The Big Data system is not independent at any point. Every day there
 needs to be a huge scrape of the translations performed by human
 translators.

 -- Human translation professions are in a state of freefall. There used to
 be a career structure with rising income and security and status. Now there
 isn't. Now, there isn't even a diary scheduling up coming translation
 contracts, the requirements and the research project timelines that there
 used to be. Now it's much more a 'realtime' industry. You be available and
 up to date. You be available first for a job if one comes up. It might. Or
 it might not, today. It's back to hand to mouth for them.

 -- which would be a case of so...wheels of changerelocate, retrain,
 already. Save, the Big Data that has brought this about - the algorithm
 defining the corporation, cannot operate unless those translators stay in
 post. The Big Data system takes from them every day, but does not ask or
 receive permission, and does not pay them, and by another draft under the
 floorboards sucks their years coming specialism away..and their dreams and
 life-plan.

 The other salient insight he mentioned was that Big Data, such as it is,
 is most easily established in those transactions that naturally involve a
 degree of manipulation. Seduction, misdirectionlike dating sites. Or
 personal activities in the real and cyber/financial landscape of servicing
 consumption. The shopping trail. Browsers, footprints.

 Because manipulating behaviour in complex ways is something Big Data is
 well positioned to do. It can learn...purely from statistical modelling and
 the daily scrape. A.I. you can forget about until there's a little new
 progress. But corporate algorithms that synthetically  mirror intelligent
 behaviour, specifically around convergences relating to human malleability
 is a serious 

Re: Can we test for parallel worlds?

2014-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 21, 2014 12:40:11 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 7:02 AM, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, November 17, 2014 11:49:06 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 16 Nov 2014, at 20:32, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 Interesting speculative physics… that makes claims that parallel worlds
 may be testable.

 “A new theory, proposed by Howard Wiseman, Director of the Centre of
 Quantum Dynamics at Griffith University, is different. No new universes are
 ever created. Instead many worlds have existed, side-by-side, since the
 beginning of time. “




 Well, to be sure, this is how Deutsch interprets Everett. Me too, even
 for computationalism, where I sum up this by the Y = II rule. The
 mutiplication (Y)  in the future duplicate the past (Y becomes II).


 I once asked you if you shared Deutsch's interpretation of the MWI in
 terms of fungible worlds divergent by decoherance, but otherwise
 invariant in all dimensions a frozen structure, every thing that ever has,
 and ever will, ever can occur, frozen in little multidimensional capsule.


 That is exactly how I see it. From computationalism, everything that can
 possibly happen can be computed ahead of time
 in a deterministic block multiverse. No need for time, energy or matter-
 it is entirely mathematical- a 4 dimensional math space (actually pops out
 of my metaverse` string cosmology). In a deterministic universe
 consciousness and free will seem to also not be needed. But once the
 quantum mechanics of energy and matter, along with conservation of
 mass/energy are introduced, the multiverse becomes unique. That's what
 physics says. But lately, a strong dose of entanglement is thought to be
 needed to change quantum probabilities into statistical mechanics, the
 basis of ordinary thermodynamics.
 Richard



 You said you didn't, you saw it differently. I forget precisely what and
 how. Have you changed your mind at a point between? What was the crucial
 shift that fundamentally changed the picture for you?

 Perhaps you are now closely enough aligned with him that you will answer
 the question that he will not despite many times my asking.

 Deutsch explains in BoI chapter The Reality of Abstractions that
 abstractions have physical reality independent of dependence of emergent
 features from underlying, increasingly physical layers

 So, given independence, that is causal isolation, what is the physical
 mechanism by which decoherence at the quantum level, will trigger
 divergence, and divergence will replicate abstract layers that are
 independent of quantum forces?

 How does that happen? And if it doesn't happen precisely every single
 time, how can macroscopic reality be stable? Cause and effect would never
 endure

 Second challenge: If the two slit experiment is explained by divergent
 universes, then the pattern we see in the interval of 'collapse' is
 therefore the momentary isolation of just this universe as all the others
 diverge.

 Which means it should be distinctive in its own right, from what we
 shall see as the pattern in 'one slit' experiment.
 Is it? I shall bet it is indistinguishable.


 The one-slit pattern is a smear with perhaps some diffraction
 oscillations on the fringe of the smear.
 The double-slit experiment shows a very distinctive interference pattern
 instead and in place of the smear.


 I don't agree. There must be an interference at this level. It just take
 place at a resolution or displacement (i.e. dimensionality) that isn't
 obvious and/or a non-trivial analytical problem teasing out. But it will be
 there. The carry-on by infinity theorists that it is not stands directly in
 contradiction of the current lynchpin for why a multiverse is...IS
 QM...and QM isMULTIVERSE(taken seriously you see). That would
 be the invariant universality of the wave function.

 At all scales, levels, universes and sensesexcept the one
 slit experiment where it isn't. That's actually a wave function
 collapse event too, you know.




Simple ray optics tells you that beyond the pinhole or single slit,
the wavefront proceeds spherically for a pinhole or cylindrically for a 2D
slit.
Collapse is necessary if you wish to conserve energy.
There is no interference for a pinhole or single slit.
Richard



 Then, is the one slit experiment isolating this universe in some way?


 There are an infinity of other universes in the one-slit experiment.
 But say the incident photon has a certain frequency, that is a fixed
 energy.
 The detection screen then records only one photon of the same frequency
 and same energy.
 Thereby quantum collapse ensures conservation of energy.
 The infinite number of other worlds still exist mathematically in the
 Math Space of the block multiverse...
 But a recalculation, like making a wrong turn, must be done in Math Space
 to account for quantum collapse.
 The need for continual 

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
 which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
 clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
 a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
 is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
 Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

 Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information -
 the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
 bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
 state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
 the wave not collapse.





Bruno proved that information is not conserved. Collapse conserves energy.


 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 5:39 pm
 Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

  Collapse also doesn't conserve information. It generates new information
 - the specific way in which the collapse occurred, which adds some random
 bits to a value one could be constructing, and in any case adds that new
 state to the universe. Only the MWI preserves information afaics, by having
 the wave not collapse.

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

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
where every possibility is known ahead of time;
whereas information is created, but energy conserved
in in a wave-collapse physical space.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
 of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
 compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
 than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
 math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
 area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
 just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
 have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
 shoe on this.

 If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
 random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
 went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
 that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
 outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a
 smaller scale.)




 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
 Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
 which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
 clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
 a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
 is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
 Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
 random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
 went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
 that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
 outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a
 smaller scale.)

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

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
Objective Math-Space data recovery is nearly zero dependent on the
classification of channels and revelation.

Subjective Math-Space data recovery is possible, maybe even probable, but
is soon forgotten.

Richard

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:18 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Ok, understood now. Math Space, a.k.a. Platonic Space?). You wouldn't care
 to speculate on a data recovery for 'Math Space'? Some sort of magical
 read-write head? Sigh! I thought not. Thanks for the dear up.

 Mitch

 It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
 where every possibility is known ahead of time;
 whereas information is created, but energy conserved
 in in a wave-collapse physical space.




 -Original Message-
 From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 8:08 am
 Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

  It seems that information is conserved in an MWI Math Space
 where every possibility is known ahead of time;
 whereas information is created, but energy conserved
 in in a wave-collapse physical space.

 On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 This, I comprehend, I was just musing that why just keep the same concept
 of universes? Why not go tegmark, or trans tegmark, with this. Why not
 compare the super cosmos to be a data storing thing like a database, rather
 than an acorn, hold merely biological data? Since reality seems to be
 math(s) based, why not computational? Why not have a giant SAN, a storage
 area network, rather then just a random access memory with lower mem? Its
 just a conjecture from, and idiot, me, but since people like Seth Lloyd
 have conjectured that the universe does processing, I am dropping the other
 shoe on this.

 If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
 random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
 went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
 that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
 outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a
 smaller scale.)




 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Nov 19, 2014 9:59 pm
 Subject: Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

   On 20 November 2014 12:04, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Ah! You don't think that the collapse in one universe, creates one, in
 which the information is preserved? Not uncovers one, splits of a new
 clone, like an amoeba does. Perhaps there are universes that split off when
 a decision gets made where, where it is analogous to a data file. If this
 is so, then part of the multiverse is a relational database. Call it
 Oracle-1 Delta Googleplex. I have dibbs on the name. Patent Pending!

  If only one universe results, information has been created - genuinely
 random bit(s) of data that didn't exist before, such as which way a photon
 went or whether a cat is alive or dead. It's only in the multiverse view
 that the information content is preserved, because you have all possible
 outcomes and overall they cancel out (like in Theory of nothing but on a
 smaller scale.)

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


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

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 19:43, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.


 The mutiverse is only the quantum configuration space taken seriously.
 The SWE describe all quantum evolution as a rotation (a unitary
 transformation) of a state vector  in the Hilbert space.  I can hardly
 imagine something more reversible.


 It's not Hermitian


 It is unitary.



Well it lacks enough energy to go forward in time,
going backwards cannot be that hard.


 Bruno




 Richard

 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
  wrote:

  I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding
 of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the
 universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to
 say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th
 century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But
 unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or
 imagination in the history of science.


  Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past.


 Yes but  Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and
 the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that
 in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy
 state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about
 that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of
 entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the
 velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into
 the low entropy state A that produced it.  And knowing that there are
 VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what
 state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was
 almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states
 UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that
 the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state.

   John K Clark





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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Nov 2014, at 01:03, Russell Standish wrote:

  On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:06:47AM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:


 The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
 energy
 and information in the universe.
 Richard



 Wavefunction collapse creates information, it does not conserve it.

 Conserving information is equivalent to demanding unitarity of
 evolution. Wave function collapse is non-unitary.


 Exactly. It is the advantage of the many-worlds. The evolution of the
 universe/multiverse is a unitary transformation in the configuration space
 (the Hilbert space). It is deterministic, reversible, and let the
 probabilities and the information invariant. It is also local. And it
 explains why the memories of the observers contains appearance of
 indeterminacy (in a way coherent with computationalism that Everett
 assumed), non-locality, irreversibility, etc.

 Like you say: the collapse, if it was a physical phenomenon, would just
 contradict QM. The collapse is really an axiom saying that QM is false when
 observers do measurement. But this has never been successfully clarified,
 imo.



With a sufficient number of observations/measurements the entire wave
function is mapped out on the detector screen.
Therefore experimental measurements verify QM. It seems we live in an
energy conserving but non-unitary, information-creating universe.
Richard



 Bruno





 --

 
 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
 
 

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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

2014-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
statistical-mechanical ensembles arise naturally from quantum
entanglement

http://people.physics.anu.edu.au/~tas110/Teaching/Lectures/L5/Material/Lloyd06.pdf

a lecture given by Seth Lloyd

QUANTUM THERMODYNAMICS
Excuse our ignorance
Classically, the second law of thermodynamics implies that our knowledge
about
a system always decreases. A more flattering interpretation connects
entropy
with entanglement inherent to quantum mechanics.
SETH LLOYD
is in the Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts
Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 20 Nov 2014, at 02:15, George wrote:

  Hi everyone


 This post is relevant to a few threads in this list

 “Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?”  and “Two
 apparently different forms of entropy”.


 I am sorry that I haven’t posted to this list for a while. I have been
 very busy with my work.

 In my latest research I have found that Quantum Mechanics, in particular
 the Pauli Exclusion Principle, can be used to go around limitations of
 classical physics and break the Second Law.



 Papers describing the research are publicly available at



 http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/11/4700



 and




 https://sites.google.com/a/entropicpower.com/entropicpower-com/Thermoelectric_Adiabatic_Effects_Due_to_Non-Maxwellian_Carrier_Distribution.pdf?attredirects=0d=1
 (Currently under review)



 Nice to hear from you George. It has been a long time indeed. I will take
 a look, but up to now, my computer refuses to open the document ...

 To be frank, I doubt very much that QM could break the Second Law. If you
 could sum up the reason here, it would be nice. Take your time (I am also
 rather busy those days).


 Best,

 Bruno




 These papers describe experimentally observed thermoelectric adiabatic
 effects (the existence of a voltage without any heat flow, and the
 existence of a temperature differential without any input current.)



 Here is some background: The story begins with a thermodynamicist of the
 nineteenth century, Josef Loschmidt, who challenged Boltzmann and Maxwell
 regarding the Second Law. Loschmidt argued that the temperature lapse in
 the atmosphere could be used to run a heat engine, thereby violating the
 Second Law. Loschmidt was wrong as shall be explained below but it is
 instructive to go through his reasoning. Loschmidt argued that the
 atmospheric temperature lapse occurs spontaneously, is self renewing and is
 due to the decrease in kinetic energy of molecules as they go up against
 the gravitational gradient between collisions. Therefore the atmospheric
 temperature decreases adiabatically with altitude and could be used to run
 a heat engine.

 However, Loschmidt ignored the fact that molecular energies are
 distributed over a range of values and that gravity separates the molecules
 according to their energy in a fashion analogous to a mass spectrometer
 separating particles according to mass. Molecules with greater energy can
 reach greater heights. If one assigns a Maxwellian distribution to the
 molecules (exponentially decaying function of energy), then any vertical
 translation of a group of molecules results in a lowering of their kinetic
 energy, corresponding to a left shift of their distribution. After the
 distribution is renormalized to account for the lower density at higher
 elevation, the original distribution is recovered indicating that the gas
 is isothermal, not adiabatic as Loschmidt conjectured. This effect is due
 to the exponential nature of the distribution. An addition (of potential
 energy) in the exponent corresponds to a multiplication of the amplitude.
 So Loschmidt was wrong: the Loschmidt effect (lowering of KE with
 altitude) is exactly canceled by the energy separation effect caused by
 gravity. However he was only wrong with respect to gases that follow
 Maxwell’s distribution.



 Electrical carriers in semiconductor materials are Fermions following
 Fermi-Dirac statistics and the above argument does not apply to them. When
 subjected to a voltage they do develop a temperature gradient. This
 temperature differential is hard to observe because it is promptly shorted
 by heat phonons. As experiments at Caltech have shown (see my papers), it
 can be observed in certain circumstances such as in high Z thermoelectric
 materials in which electrical carriers and heat phonons are strongly
 decoupled. The Onsager reciprocal of the temperature differential is a
 voltage differential which has also been experimentally observed.



 The two papers above describe these results in detail.



 In summary, quantum mechanics, in particular the Pauli Exclusion
 Principle, can be used to bypass classical mechanics in generating
 macroscopic effects violating the Second Law.

 Other relevant papers:

 1)  Hanggi and Wehner arXiv:1205.6894 http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6894

Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:

  On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)


 And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything.  Which is why
 science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.


  Ideally, or FAPP, perhaps.

  But fundamentally, science cannot test correctness, not even define it
 properly.


  Are you saying that a theory cannot be tested an found incorrect??


 I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is
 science cannot show that something is correct.


 Is that right, Bruno?


 Yes.



 Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than
 showing it's right, which is Popper's observation.


 Indeed.



 I'm curious as to how you define correctness properly?


 I can't do it for myself, nor can any machine do it for herself. But a
 sufficiently strong machine can do it for a lesser strong machine. You
 can define arithmetical truth and PA's correctness in the set theory ZF for
 example. In that case correctness is defined in the manner of Tarski: p
 is correct if it is the case that p is satisfied by this or that
 mathematical structure, (for RA and PA, you can use the usual (N,+, *)
 structure, and with computationalism, that arithmetical truth (not
 definable in arithmetic) is enough).


This sounds like a description of which mathematical theories suggest the
existence of higher more-correct selves.
Richard



 Bruno






 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only other
 worlds do,


  ?

 !

  and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
 way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.


  Indeed,


 Then why the ? ?


 Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
 world is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.




  You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?


 Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
 Wave;


 OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.



 none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
 philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
 want to do, figure out how the world works.


 I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
 which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
 axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
 physical universe, and that we are unique.


The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
and information in the universe.
Richard



 Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
 philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
 explanation.




  In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
 theories are equivalent,


 Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
 tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
 vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
 the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
 language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
 good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
 should take seriously and think through the implications of what
 mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.


 Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself. You
 can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality. You
 can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural numbers,
 and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts, for
 example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum of
 four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
 product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
 the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
 language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
 is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
 input independently of the language used to describe those machines and
 input.





  but that does not make the thing described into a convention or
 language.


 True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
 description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
 of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
 Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
 Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
 some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
 are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
 to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write
 true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you
 can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of
 mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities and the Real Numbers are
 mathematical Harry Potter novels. Actually I kinda doubt it but maybe.


 Sure. but may be electron are only useful fiction to get the voltage right
 for the working of my fridge. Here math and physics are alike, and it asks
 some familiarity with the subject to develop an intuition of what might be
 conventional and what might be a deep truth independent of the subject.





  On the contrary, it points on something real beyond the language.


 But that's exactly what I was getting at, maybe it points to something
 real beyond the mathematics.


 I was meaning it points on something real and mathematical beyond the
 language.




 I don't insist that is true, maybe mathematics is more than just a
 language, but maybe not, I believe it's worth thinking about. Unlike
 philosophers who are always certain but seldom correct I just don't know.


 The choice of a theory might be conventional, but some truth will not
 depend on that choice. And with computationalism, I explain that even
 physics is theory independent. You can use the axiom of arithmetic, or
 the axiom on 

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
 other worlds do,


  ?

 !

  and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
 way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.


  Indeed,


 Then why the ? ?


 Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
 world is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.




  You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?


 Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
 Wave;


 OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.



 none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
 philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
 want to do, figure out how the world works.


 I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
 which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
 axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
 physical universe, and that we are unique.


 The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total energy
 and information in the universe.


 From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
 information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
 of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
 generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
 bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
 the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
 (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
 I suspect it is like that for energy too.



Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever happen
can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for each
universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
distinct, for the most part.
Richard


 Bruno





 Richard



 Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
 philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
 explanation.




  In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
 theories are equivalent,


 Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
 tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
 vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
 the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
 language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
 good, is World War 2. I said it before but it's worth repeating, maybe we
 should take seriously and think through the implications of what
 mathematicians have been saying for years, mathematics is a language.


 Mathematics use a mathematical language, but is not a language itself.
 You can use different language to describe a similar mathematical reality.
 You can use the combinators, or the sets, to *represent* the natural
 numbers, and admit quite different axioms, but you will get the same facts,
 for example that the number of ways to write an odd natural number as a sum
 of four square is given by 24 times the sum of its odd divisor. Like the
 product scalar does not depend of the orthonormal base, in linear algebra,
 the truth of the arithmetical statements do not depend on the theory and
 language used to describe them. It is the same for computer science, which
 is actually a branch of number theory. Some machines will stop on some
 input independently of the language used to describe those machines and
 input.





  but that does not make the thing described into a convention or
 language.


 True. A electron is not a  convention or a language, but what about a
 description of the electron written in a particular dialect of the language
 of mathematics, like the Schrodinger Wave Equation? Yes Schrodinger's
 Equation does a good job describing the behavior of a electron, but Dirac's
 Equation does better, and Feynman's sum over histories even better.  And
 some equations do a terrible job describing the electron even though the
 are grammatically correct sentences in the language of mathematics, that is
 to say they are logically self consistent.  So maybe you can not only write
 true descriptions of the electron in the language of mathematics maybe you
 can also write the equivalent of a Harry Potter novel in the language of
 mathematics. Maybe Cantor's infinities

Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 16:44, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 05:18, meekerdb wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 4:57 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 19 November 2014 06:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 11/18/2014 5:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 17 Nov 2014, at 21:13, meekerdb wrote:

  On 11/17/2014 2:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 The bible explains better (if we assume it is correct)


 And if it isn't correct it doesn't explain anything.  Which is why
 science seeks to test correctness prior to explanatory power.


  Ideally, or FAPP, perhaps.

  But fundamentally, science cannot test correctness, not even define it
 properly.


  Are you saying that a theory cannot be tested an found incorrect??


 I would think the obvious way to parse what Bruno has said here is
 science cannot show that something is correct.


 Is that right, Bruno?


 Yes.



 Of course empirical tests are better at showing a theory is wrong than
 showing it's right, which is Popper's observation.


 Indeed.



 I'm curious as to how you define correctness properly?


 I can't do it for myself, nor can any machine do it for herself. But a
 sufficiently strong machine can do it for a lesser strong machine. You
 can define arithmetical truth and PA's correctness in the set theory ZF for
 example. In that case correctness is defined in the manner of Tarski: p
 is correct if it is the case that p is satisfied by this or that
 mathematical structure, (for RA and PA, you can use the usual (N,+, *)
 structure, and with computationalism, that arithmetical truth (not
 definable in arithmetic) is enough).


 This sounds like a description of which mathematical theories suggest the
 existence of higher more-correct selves.


 Not more correct, but knowing much more things. ZF knows that PA is
 consistent, and ZF knows much more than PA about arithmetic, although of
 course we still don't know if ZF knows the truth or the falsity of Riemann
 hypothesis, but few doubt that ZF has any doubt about it.

 Note that ZFC (ZF + the axiom of choice) does not know any more than ZF.
 The axiom of choice has no consequences for arithmetic. (That is not
 entirely easy to prove, but is a good exercise if you know Gödel's
 constructible sets).

 By Gödel's theorem, arithmetical truth is no exhaustible, so all machines
 are superseded by other machines, and in fact this remains true for the
 machine invoking Oracles (divine being which are supposed to know the
 answer of Pi_1, Sigma_2, ...  questions (by divine I just mean here non
 computable, yet well definite in the standard model of arithmetic (true or
 false).

 ZF + kappa knows much more thing than ZF. In fact ZF + kappa believes that
 ZF is consistent. And ZF+kappa believes vastly much more than ZF about
 arithmetic, but is still under the jug of incompleteness, and the
 hypostases apply to PA, ZF, ZFC, ZF+kappa, etc. (Assuming ZF+kappa is
 consistent).

 You can't be more correct, as you are correct, or not. But the spectrum
 of what you can believe in arithmetic can be very different. The whole of
 the computable, Turing universality, is equivalent with Sigma_1 complete.
 RA is already sigma_1 complete, and is quite humble in her arithmetical
 knowledge. From PA and the extension, you have the Löbianity (PA is not
 only sigma_1 complete, but PA knows that it/he/she is sigma_1 complete, and
 it knows the plausible reason why it has to be humble with respect to the
 arithmetical truth, on which it can only point, without explicit
 definition).

 Sigma_1 completeness, the ability to prove all true sentences having the
 shape ExP(x), with P recursive/decidable, is universal with respect to
 computability, but is very humble with respect of provability, and there is
 no universal provability notion: all provability predicate or machine can
 be extended (even mechanically) to a more powerful machine, where
 powerfulness is measure in term of classes of arithmetical propositions.
 There is just no complete theory, definable by a machine, for the
 arithmetical reality. Gödel's and Tarski's theorems makes the arithmetical
 truth quite transcendental for the machines.



Another post worth saving from the obscure Archives.

But it sounds like you are defining differing Logic-Arithmetic-Dependent
LAD higher worlds
in relation to our Sigma_1 complete world.
Does the RA world control gravity?
PA-biology?
 ZF-Intelligence?
  ZF+kappa-Theology? etc.
Richard


 Bruno




 Richard



 Bruno






 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.
It's not Hermitian
Richard

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:40 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:

  I'd say that by about 1850 when people started to have a understanding
 of what Entropy was physicists had all they needed to have known that the
 universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state, that is to
 say they could have predicted the Big Bang in the early to mid 19th
 century; and they wouldn't have needed to go near a telescope to do so. But
 unfortunately they didn't, it's one of the great failures of nerve or
 imagination in the history of science.


  Boltzmann indeed predicted a low entropy state sometime in the past.


 Yes but  Boltzmann thought that you could ignore boundary conditions and
 the second law of thermodynamics alone was enough to logically deduce that
 in the distant past the universe must have been in a very low entropy
 state, but in 1876 Loschmidt pointed out that Boltzman was wrong about
 that, he said you can't deduce a irreversible process, like the increase of
 entropy, from classical dynamics alone because if you just reverse the
 velocity of the particles in high entropy state B it will evolve back into
 the low entropy state A that produced it.  And knowing that there are
 VASTLY more high entropy states than low entropy states and asked what
 state produced the stat we're in now you'd have to answer that it was
 almost certainly one of those enormously numerous high entropy states
 UNLESS you made a further assumption, the past hypothesis, the idea that
 the universe must have started out in a very very low entropy state.

   John K Clark




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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 18:41, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Nov 2014, at 17:06, Richard Ruquist wrote:



 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Nov 2014, at 18:34, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
 other worlds do,


  ?

 !

  and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the only
 way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.


  Indeed,


 Then why the ? ?


 Probably because I did not parse well the sentence above, and the term
 world is a but fuzzy in this context. But I guess we are OK.




  You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?


 Every physicist alive uses both Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's
 Wave;


 OK, and other pictures and formulations of QM too.



 none use Positivism or any other school of philosophy because no
 philosophical franchise is of the slightest help in doing what scientists
 want to do, figure out how the world works.


 I disagree. The collapse axiom, which is still in amost textbook, and
 which is used by bad pedagog to avoid hard question, is a philosophical
 axiom relying on a religious belief: the belief that there is only one
 physical universe, and that we are unique.


 The collapse hypothesis is correct if we need to conserve the total
 energy and information in the universe.


 From quasi zero information, you can generate without adding any
 information, all informations. Just split an observer and put them in front
 of 1 or 0, and repeat. Similarly, the MW (quantum) view of the vacuum
 generates all the physically consistent possibilities, without spending one
 bit. The collapse seems on the contrary to generate bit from nothing. But
 the collapse is only in the eye of the partial subsystem, as we can read of
 (the diaries) of the observer in the terms of the waves (this in any base).
 I suspect it is like that for energy too.



 Since MWI is deterministic, all possibilities that can possibly ever
 happen can be known ahead of time and stored in a 4 dimensional space for
 each universe. The actual physical space is recorded and embedded as causal
 lines in the 4D mathematical space. Quantum mechanic random selections
 during energy-conserving wave collapse make those lines fuzzy, but
 distinct, for the most part.


 The problem is that I cannot even understand what is the collapse, doubly
 so in the relativistic context, and it seems to me that it uses a lot of
 energy, because it erases a lot of information.


Wave collapse only conserves energy if the energy and its information can
be moved almost instantly from quantum state to quantum state. All of the
available energy is required say in the double slit experiment to put the
original photon back together. I have suggested that if wave functions act
like BECs, then BECs may be the basis a valid wave-collapse 'mechanizm'.
Richard


 I have not yet seen a theory of collapse which makes sense. It is like
 saying that when an observer look a particle, suddenly QM get wrong, when
 QM explains exactly what happens, and why the observers will believe at
 first sight to collapse a wave.

 (and then my point is that if we use computationalism in that reasoning,
 as Everett did, we have to justify the wave itself, from a refinement of
 the relation between machine and their mind). We must explain why an
 universal unitary transformation (rotation) win the measure game at the
 bottom. We need the equivalent of Gleason theorem for some classes of
 number relation. I am open to the idea that string theory can give clues,
 but then the Monster munshine itself must be explained in term of the
 material hypostases. Theoretical Physics looks too much already to Number
 Theory, but with computationalism, you can see that this again masks the
 role of consciousness, which is the ultimate projector, the one which
 differentiates and believe in collapse. The fire in the equation are
 explained by the personal memories, especially those who are not
 communicable by the subject (the qualia).

 Bruno





 Richard


 Bruno





 Richard



 Some physicists used it as a rule of thumb, and as a way to not do
 philosophy, but of course, that is eventually like a use of God-gap type of
 explanation.




  In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
 theories are equivalent,


 Yes, just like Heisenberg's Matrices and Schrodinger's Wave, they both
 tell a story with a identical plot they just use different symbols in the
 vocabulary of mathematics to do so,  just as 2 books about World War 2 tell
 the same story but use different symbols in the vocabulary of the English
 language to do it; however neither book about World War 2, no matter how
 good, is World War

Re: Reversing time = local reversal of thermodynamic arrows?

2014-11-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
You cannot really believe that coherency controls your life.??

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:56 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  In MWI it is rather difficult to reverse time and unsplit the universe.


 Reversing time and unspliting universes are not the same thing. When a
 electron passes 2 slits the universe splits, when they hit the photographic
 plate (or a brick wall) they unsplit, but time does not reverse. Many
 Worlds is not needed to explain time's arrow.

   John K Clark





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


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


Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-17 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:



 On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 As Nicolás Gómez Dávila said (more or less): The modern man indulge
 itself thinking that he is a mechanism, but protest loudly when he is
 treated as such.


 I would argue that Gödel provides some excuse for this apparently
 paradoxical behaviour.


Is that because Godel has explained that our system, whatever it is,
Is open to the input of truth, whatever, from more complete systems
that we are embedded in..




 2014-11-15 18:39 GMT+01:00, zibb...@gmail.com zibb...@gmail.com:
  I know this comes up a lot, so there's a risk this guy isn't saying
  anything new here, but I browsed and decided to view the video and
 thought
  I'd throw it out in case anyone else wants to enter that process.
 
  Here's the first few paragraphs, linke at bottom. Edge basically.
 
  *THE MYTH OF AI*
 
  A lot of us were appalled a few years ago when the American Supreme
 Court
  decided, out of the blue, to decide a question it hadn't been asked to
  decide, and declare that corporations are people. That's a cover for
 making
 
  it easier for big money to have an influence in politics. But there's
  another angle to it, which I don't think has been considered as much:
 the
  tech companies, which are becoming the most profitable, the fastest
 rising,
 
  the richest companies, with the most cash on hand, are essentially
 people
  for a different reason than that. They might be people because the
 Supreme
  Court said so, but they're essentially algorithms.
 
  If you look at a company like Google or Amazon and many others, they do
 a
  little bit of device manufacture, but the only reason they do is to
 create
  a channel between people and algorithms. And the algorithms run on these
  big cloud computer facilities.
 
  The distinction between a corporation and an algorithm is fading. Does
 that
 
  make an algorithm a person? Here we have this interesting confluence
  between two totally different worlds. We have the world of money and
  politics and the so-called conservative Supreme Court, with this other
  world of what we can call artificial intelligence, which is a movement
  within the technical culture to find an equivalence between computers
 and
  people. In both cases, there's an intellectual tradition that goes back
  many decades. Previously they'd been separated; they'd been worlds
 apart.
  Now, suddenly they've been intertwined.
 
  The idea that computers are people has a long and storied history. It
 goes
  back to the very origins of computers, and even from before. There's
 always
 
  been a question about whether a program is something alive or not since
 it
  intrinsically has some kind of autonomy at the very least, or it
 wouldn't
  be a program. There has been a domineering subculture—that's been the
 most
  wealthy, prolific, and influential subculture in the technical
 world—that
  for a long time has not only promoted the idea that there's an
 equivalence
  between algorithms and life, and certain algorithms and people, but a
  historical determinism that we're inevitably making computers that will
 be
  smarter and better than us and will take over from us
 
  http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
  Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an
  email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 


 --
 Alberto.

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


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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group 

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-16 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 15 Nov 2014, at 17:02, John Clark wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation
 in MWI is said to be irreversible
 even though the equation of QM are time reversible.


 The Many Worlds split is not necessarily irreversible, but like
 thermodynamics it usually is. When the electron approaches the 2 slits the
 universe splits, but  when it hits the photographic plate (or just a brick
 wall) the split is reversed; of course that is not a typical situation, it
 was specifically set up by experimenters to be as simple as possible, in
 most situations they never recombine because so many things would have to
 conspire together it would be astronomically unlikely.

  That might account for the arrow of time.


 You don't need Many Worlds or even Quantum Mechanics to explain the arrow
 of time, all you need is for things to start out in a low entropy state and
 the fact that there are VASTLY more ways to be disorganized than organized.

  Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to
 that extent.


 You keep talking as if the quantum wave function is a real physical thing
 rather than just a calculating device like the lines of longitude and
 latitude,  but Quantum Mechanics can get along just fine without
 Schrodinger's Wave Equation.


 Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.



 In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave equation
 Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that had nothing to do
 with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the Schrodinger Wave Equation
 because he felt that a good theory must be based on directly observable
 magnitudes. And nobody can observe a quantum wave function.


 Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The Vienna
 circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad philosophy, and
 we can say that is is virtually abandoned. Positivism is easily shown
 self-defeating or just an instrumentalism which abandon fundamental
 research.




 If you measure what a particle is doing at point X Heisenberg could use
 matrix algebra to tell you what measurements you are likely to get at point
 Y, and he could do it all without using a unobservable wave, he only used
 measured quantities .  Heisenberg's original formulation of Quantum
 Mechanics works just as well as Schrodinger and his Wave Equation, they are
 equivalent, and which one you use is strictly a matter of taste.

 The only advantage Schrodinger had is that it allowed human beings to form
 a mental picture of what is going on, but Heisenberg felt that the mental
 picture was wrong and the quantum world was so strange that none was any
 better, so it would be best to just forget about visualization and only
 worry about what you can measure.  Everett disagreed and thought that
 mental pictures were important but agreed that Schrodinger's was wrong,
 however he believed that he had found a better one and so do I.


 ? he agreed that Schroedinger was wrong when saying that he was sure that
 the cat is definitely alive or dead. But Everett agrees with schroedinger
 equation, and picture. But Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world
 picture, and its locality, are more simply explained in the Heisenberg
 picture. Those are different formalism for the same theory (as long as we
 don't introduce the collapse, which is just a magical trick to eliminate
 the parallel realities. of course, with computationalism, the other
 realities exists like numbers, so it is just dishonest to make abstraction
 of them, without making precise some selection principle (and the UDA shows
 that such a selection principle is contradictory with the computationalist
 assumption).


Sorry to be disagreeable but many many-world  adherents still claim the
total energy in the multiverse is conserved
and if so wave collapse is necessary from quantum mechanics of particle
energy conservation.
That it preserves a single world universe is a by product.


 Bruno





   John K Clark





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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http

Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
The Hamiltonian for the process of de

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:

  The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of the
 evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
 Hamiltonian is Hermitian.


The Hamiltonian for the process of universe differentiation or splitting
has to be Hermitian as well.

Or to put it more simply, it you use your theory to add up all the
 probabilities about what particle X is going to do it had better equal 1,
 if it's less than 1 then the theory is incomplete it it's greater than 1
 then it's ridiculous. Many World's passes that test, but to be honest so do
 a lot of other quantum interpretations.

  I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
 conservation of information


 Yes, and that's why it's so important to figure out if a Black Hole really
 does destroy information; it probably doesn't but if it does then a lot of
 physics is going to need to change.


The Black hole may leak information over an er-epr Bridge that requires a
black hole to operate anyway. ;)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0289


   John K Clark


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


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


Re: Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
Russell's 'nothing/everything duality' reminds me of one mechanism in
string theory
by which a nearly Planck scale point reflects the entire outside universe
within itself in a r-1/r transformation, that point being each Calabi_yau
compact manifold.
Richard

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:27:50PM -0800, Peter Sas wrote:
  Hi Russell, thanks for your answer... I will definitely give your book a
  closer reading in the near future, if I can get my poor philosopher's
 head
  to understand the mathematics :)
 
  I hope you don't mind answering some questions in advance. You wrote:
 

 No - it's a good question. Hopefully my answer makes sense.


  Exactly. The source of the symmetry breaking is the action of an
 
   observer. Symmetry is restored by considering all other observers out
   there in the Nothing-verse (more commonly called the Plenitude).
  
 
  This what I don't get: How can there already exist observers (or at least
  one observer) prior to the symmetry breaking, given that it is this
  breaking that turns zero-info into info? In other words: if you already
  presuppose an observer, your Nothing is not absolutely nothing... it is
 an
  observed nothing, but in my view we can't even presuppose an observer if
 we
  want to answer Leibniz' question by starting from nothing...  I admit
 there
  is some paradox involved in imagining a 'situation' in which nothing
  exists, not even an observer... we have to imagine a situation where we
  ourselves do not exist... to some extent that's impossible of course...
  after all, I have to exist in order to imagine my own non-existencee...
 so
  some observer is always pressupposed (Kan would call this the
  transcendental subject)... but in my view we can't let that presupposed
  observer interact with the original nothing to cause symmetry
  breakingHow do you think about this?
 

 You are imagining things temporally, which is inappropriate here.

 Once we conflate Nothing and Everything - that is the point of the
 discussion about the mathematical notion of duality - then it is clear
 that the Everything contains observers, observing their own points of
 view, since the Everything, well, contains everything (at least every
 possible thing).

 Whilst Nothing (and Everything) is perfectly symmetric, the observers'
 points of view are not. The act of observation has broken the
 symmetry. The symmetry breaking is spontaneous, for same reason as
 Bruno's
 FPI is random.

 Thus my mantra, which has become something of a quotable quote:
 Something is the inside view of Nothing.

 Now this might seem quite different to the physicists notion of
 spontaneous symmetry breaking - eg the direction of the magnetic field
 when a ferromagnetic material is cooled below it's Curie point - but if
 you think in Multiverse terms it is the same thing. The act of
 observing the magnetic material means the magnetic material is in some
 direction. Somewhere else in the Multiverse, there is an observer
 seeing the magnetic field in the opposite direction.

 Cheers

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
Zipsey,

If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
clem

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:36:57 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, November 15, 2014 4:57:14 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:



 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:23 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote:

  The numbers of ways the system could have gotten to the way it is
 isn't the usual formulation


 If you want to say that Entropy is proportional to the number of
 microstates that produce the same macrostate then it's also proportional to
 the number of precursor states.

  and I think it's ambiguous.  In general there are arbitrarily many
 possible histories and different possible starting points.


 Unless you're talking about hypothetical new physics there are not
 arbitrarily many previous states that could have produced the present
 state, just a astronomical number.

  Boltzmann's formulation was the logarithm of the numbers of possible
 states consistent with constraints defining the system, e.g. its total
 kinetic energy


 Entropy is inversely proportional to work not kinetic energy. A box of
 gas may have a lot of kinetic energy because all the atoms in it are moving
 around  at high speed, but they're all moving in different directions,
 Entropy is a measure of how well all that activity can be translated into
 moving something in just one direction (work). The higher the Entropy the
 less work you can get out of it with the same heat sink

  In the case of a BH the constraints are its classical defining
 parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.


 Yes, a Black Hole is the simplest macroscopic thing in the universe,
 just 3 numbers tells you all there is to know about a particular one; but
 there are a gargantuan number of ways that Black Hole could have formed,
 perhaps it was made by putting a lot of sand together in one place, or
 encyclopedias or too many puppy dogs, it doesn't matter. And that's why
 Black Holes have such a enormous Entropy.


  Would you help me to understand this?

 It's just that I'm seeing the number of ways a black hole could have
 formed as a non-physical conception that depends some kind of
 information deficit across the event horizon.

 Like, if I have special information...like maybe a theorythat
 eliminates 50 percent of the ways a specific black hole could have formed,
 by some process of elimination. The entropy should now physically read half
 what it did to start with.


 Isn't this an approach on what Susskind contributes as the holographic
 principle (or as what then leads to that)

 Along with the time invariant term in that equation...that has the outside
 observer see the falling man freeze at the event horizon as a badly mangled
 splodge of subatomic fragmentation.

 That then acts as the informational record of everything that goes inside.
 Which makes Hawking look like a right plum circa 1985








   John K Clark












  Classically there is no finer grained description, so that's what seems
 to make BH entropy more fundamental that the usual thermodynamic system.


 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-li...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
zibbsey,

Same here. I hypothesize a collection of intelligent black holes can
communicate with each other over classical bridges, but only one bridge at
a time per black hole..  Well really it takes two black holes to focus
their entanglement entropy EEin on each other or on the same
interconnecting bridge; to communicate classically (like talking)  instead
of quantum mechanically, which is fraught with randomness and information
gets scrambled.

Each black hole is multiply-connected to other black holes and the EEin is
proportional to the cross sectional area of the ith bridge on the nth black
hole. So the black hole chooses to squeeze all its bridge connections
except one to communicate classically instead of quantum mechanically
across the selected bridge.

It all comes from this one paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
which proves that classical bridges have to have monogamous EPR
correlations.
which just means that blacks holes can only talk to each other one on one,
which means black holes need to activate the bridges just one at a time,
which means black holes must be intelligent to have that ability???

Richard

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 9:24 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sunday, November 16, 2014 2:04:29 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 Zipsey,

 If you care to understand how black communicate with each other, read
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf.
 clem


 Thanks for that. It's good work. A classic case of how Science to now has
 succeeded. The theory is good and robust. Backs off onto good robust
 foundations. All of it totally wrong but nevertheless directly connected
 with objective reality as if they had been correct theories. All very
 mysterious. Unless you happen to be in my strange circumstances. I know
 already how they communicate and what drives the evolution of that. And
 what it means and how it affects us.

 I know this, the same way I know their theory is wrong yet objectively
 wired as true. All of these things I know because I have access to a medium
 of knowledge that no one else on Earth has. The medium is knowledge -
 objectively true knowledge - with the power to inform me whether or not I
 am bullshitting out a shaggy story.

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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than the
speed of light.
However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI requires the creation
of two particles
for every one particle. That doubles the energy requirement.
Considering the total number of particles created in the huge number of
interactions
resulting in what MWI calls new universes, where does all this extra energy
come from.
Personally I prefer to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  It has been proven that entangled BECs can transfer information
 instantly or at least so much faster than the speed of light that time
 delay cannot be detected.


 That is incorrect. It's true that somethings can travel faster than light
 but information is not one of them, a Bose Einstein Condensate can't do it
 nor can anything else. What has been proven experimentally is that Bell's
 Inequality is violated, so there can no longer be any doubt that if things
 are realistic then things CAN influence each other over vast distances much
 faster than light, probably instantly. However influencing something is not
 the same as communicating with it. To transmit information you not only
 need to change things far away you also need a standard to measure that
 change by. Changing one apparently random thing into another apparently
 random thing isn't enough to send a message because you can only tell that
 it really wasn't random after all  by directly comparing the 2 things,  the
 send message and the receive message, and that can only be done at the
 speed of light or less. So you can't use Morse code to send a message on a
 faster than light telegraph.

   John K Clark






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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
In other words you do not know

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:33 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014  Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

  OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
 the speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
 requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That doubles
 the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles created
 in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new
 universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I prefer
 to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.


 The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's
 theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same
 during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the same
 in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of momentum.
 The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in
 our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no
 reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire
 multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are
 fundamental.

 Of course there must be some sort of meta-laws we know nothing about that
 have always held true throughout the entire multiverse, and according to
 Noether if the laws are symmetrical with respect to time then there must be
 a corresponding conservation principle of some sort, for lack of a better
 name call it the law of conservation of meta-energy (what we think of as
 energy is just a special case of meta-energy); but we have no idea what
 those meta-laws are and even less understanding of what meta-energy could
 be.

   John K Clark






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


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


Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

2014-11-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
Along these lines of thought, the universe splitting or differentiation in
MWI is said to be irreversible
even though the equation of QM are time reversible. That might account for
the arrow of time.
Of course wave collapse is also irreversible and is similar to MWI to that
extent.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:47 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 14, 2014 9:30:00 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

 On 13 November 2014 18:57, LizR liz...@gmail.com wrote:


  There appears to be a discrepancy between entropy as it is ascribed to
 black holes and entropy in the form of configurations of mass-energy far
 from thermodynamic equilibrium. Black hole entropy appears to be a
 fundamental feature of physics, while the other sort only emerges due to
 coarse graining. I'd be interested to know if anyone can shed any light on
 this apparent discrepancy.


 I'm not sure what you mean that there are 2 types of Entropy, it always
 works the same way. The Entropy of a Black Hole (and the Entropy of
 anything else) is Boltzmann's  constant time the logarithm of the number of
 ways the Black Hole could have gotten into the state it's in now. The
 reason we use a logarithm in the definition is we want to be able to say
 that the total Entropy of the combined system X and Y is the Entropy of X
 PLUS the Entropy of Y,  if we didn't use logarithms it would be X times Y.
 For example, if system X could have gotten to the way it is now in 3
 different ways and system Y could have gotten to the way it is now in 5
 different ways then the combined system could have gotten to the way it is
 now in 3*5 =15 different ways, but ln 3 + ln 5 = ln 15.

 Any constant could be used but it is convenient to use Boltzmann's
 constant because it's nice if Entropy is in units of energy/temperature.


 this where you strong strong strong. But the other day you say big
 bang was consequence of entropy by 1851 as a direct consequence. You
 obviously have never been in a situation of new discovery to be saying
 that. People need masses of convergence and independence and linking and
 all kinds of shit to progress a long chain of consequences. Anyway, why
 would it have been rigourous in 1851 to say entropy was a universal when it
 might have been tied to the steam turbine? or when the sun seemed to burn
 forever and the cosmos seemed static and eternal.

  I still quite fancy yer mind

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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:33:15PM -0500, John Clark wrote:
  On Fri, Nov 14, 2014  Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   OK, I will accept that information cannot be communicated faster than
 the
   speed of light. However, even in single particle EPR experiments MWI
   requires the creation of two particles for every one particle. That
 doubles
   the energy requirement. Considering the total number of particles
 created
   in the huge number of interactions resulting in what MWI calls new
   universes, where does all this extra energy come from. Personally I
 prefer
   to believe in the conservation of energy than MWI.
  
 
  The conservation of energy is not a law of logic, according to Noether's
  theorem it's just the result of the laws of physics remaining the same
  during different times, and in any universe where physical law is the
 same
  in different parts of it there must be a law of conservation of momentum.
  The laws of physics remain the same in different regions of spacetime in
  our universe so we have both those conservations laws, but there is no
  reason to think they would remain the same throughout the entire
  multiverse, and thus no reason to think those conservation laws are
  fundamental.

 The Multiverse equivalent of conservation of energy is unitarity of
 the evolution of Schroedinger's equation. Or equivalently, that the
 Hamiltonian is Hermitian.


But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
is not


 I also like to point out that unitarity is also equivalent to
 conservation of information, or in other words if something can
 happen, it will happen, somewhere in the Multiverse.

 Cheers
 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-11-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 05:14:24PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
 
  But QM equations are time reversible, The differentiation of the universe
  is not

 Your point being?


 Differentiation may not be unitary

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

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


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


Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

2014-11-01 Thread Richard Ruquist
I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.

A basic feature of string theory is that a number of dimensions
curl up into ultra-fine particles of space called Calabi-Yau Manifolds CYMs.
Being an array rigid particles in space,
we hypothesize that they form a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.

Since astronomical observations of the structure constant alpha
indicates a slight variation of it across the universe,
we hypothesize that the landscape of 10^500 to 10^1000 CYM designs
allows for each CYM of 10^90/cc to be distinct throughout the universe
and therefore capable of computing the wave functions of quantum theory.

If so the wave functions themselves are likely to be BECs
that can be entangled when strings like electrons and photons interact.

All of the above explains how electrons and photons
can pass through a double-slit one at a time and be detected one at a time,
because if the wave functions are entangled BECs,
information is transmitted instantaneously between them.
Richard

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via
 Everything List wrote:
  Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle
 interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
 
 
  Read more at:
 http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
 
  Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
 science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
 interactions between, parallel universes.
 
  In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X,
  Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre
  for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
  California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of
  science fiction and into that of hard science.


 Michael was a fellow PhD student of me. He was two doors down during
 my PhD. In fact we shared the same supervisor at the time. I haven't
 seen him for about 10 years, at which time he was essentially supported by
 his wife to play around with fundamentals of QM. I didn't know he'd
 moved to Queensland (Griffith uni), as he was in Canberra then.

 Good to know he's still thinking about stuff. He had a very
 interesting take on the relationship between the Heisenberg
 uncertainty principle and the Cramer-Rao inequality.

 Cheers

 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

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


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


Fwd: Fw: the physics arXiv blog

2014-11-01 Thread Richard Ruquist
Random Image Experiment Reveals The Building Blocks of Human Imagination
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/unyAKuGka7E/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email
-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Subject: Fw: the physics arXiv blog
To: Mind Brain Mind Brain mindbr...@yahoogroups.com, Thoretical_physics
Yahoogroups theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com, Physical Sciences 
physical_scien...@yahoogroups.com, achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com,
Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com




   On Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:10 AM, Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review noreply+feedpr...@google.com wrote:


the physics arXiv blog
http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent
--
  Random Image Experiment Reveals The Building Blocks of Human Imagination
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/unyAKuGka7E/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email
 Posted: 31 Oct 2014 09:34 AM PDT
Scientists have discovered how to extract the template images that the
human mind uses to recognise objects, such as balls, cars and people.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:dnMXMwOfBR0
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:gIN9vFwOqvQ
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:7Q72WNTAKBA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:V_sGLiPBpWU
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:l6gmwiTKsz0
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=unyAKuGka7E:UCCC_Pwn1QU:qj6IDK7rITs
   You are subscribed to email updates from Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=e3tbo0xvx8J8FRNN-hWeF1p6ST4
. Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-31 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 2:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 10/31/2014 7:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 30 Oct 2014, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:

  I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.


 Why not particles?  But then you are heading toward Bohm-de Broglie type
 of non local hidden variable, which seems to me adding more mystery than
 solving one.


I base my thinking on double-slit experiments where a single photon is
transmitted at any one time and the detectors are set to record photons
having the original energy/frequency. The experimental results indicate
that only one photon is detected per one incident photon. With enough
single-photon detections the interference pattern can be discerned at the
detector plane. Yet EM theory suggests that the photon energy is spread
across the entire interference pattern.

So never mind what might be happening in other worlds, what makes all of
the photon energy suddenly appear at just one detector.

I certainly reject the idea that human consciousness makes all waves
collapse into one. But I have a different idea that may or may not make
sense.

My conjecture is that the EM fields (or in general the wave functions in
any particle-particle interaction) are entangled as though they are BECs.
Experiments demonstrate that entangled BECs transmit information instantly
between isolated but entangled BECs. If so, even if the photon energy is
spread out across the entire pattern, the information of where the photon
energy should go is available to the entire EM field.

That does not allow you to predict where any particular photon detection
will occur. But the instantaneous transfer of information may allow for a
single photon detection for each transmitted photon. The alternative in
single-photon experiments would be no detections at all since the EM field
on any particular detector is insufficient to create a detection.

If anyone buys this, I can also speculate on how wave functions could be
BECs or act like them.
Richard







  Because of quantum theory the interaction energy
 may or may not exceed particle-creation level.
 If the creation level is exceeded by not very much
 all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state
 else no particle is created.

 For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the
 Born probabilities.

 Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded,
 all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one
 state.
 That must be quantum collapse logic QCL.


 I am not convinced, but don't mind to much. I think we have some
 agreement on what we disagree on. Of course, in the computationalist
 theory, strictly speaking this belongs to open problems. Just that Everett
 gives the closest physics to the one we have to derive from
 computationalism, if I am correct.

 Bruno


 I don't think Everett explicitly considered quantum field theory, but it's
 not conceptually different.  A particle can be created or not, it's a
 probabilistic event.  So in MWI there are worlds where the particle is
 created and worlds where it isn't.  There are no worlds where a
 half-particle is created.  This is just another example in which everything
 *nomologically* possible happens; which is not the same as everything
 imaginable (logically consistent) happens.  Quantum mechanics puts lots of
 constraints on what can happen.

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
Peter Sas needs an education in physics.
He came to the right place.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
 photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
 attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
 are emitted or absorbed) ?

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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
What- a delayed post eraser suggesting self-interference is extant(;)

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 you can delete your posts (I think?)

 On 30 October 2014 12:07, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:

 Well that WAS the point of my original post...

 : D

 On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)



 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
 that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
 many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.

 Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post
 by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)

 Bruce



 I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler .


  sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment
 actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these
 words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not
 quibbling today.

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


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


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


Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
Magnetic forces are neither attractive nor repulsive.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
 between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
 know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as
 attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too
 simplistic?

 Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 11:10:59 UTC+1 schreef Liz R:

 I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
 photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
 attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
 are emitted or absorbed) ?

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


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


Fwd: Neural Turing Machine

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:32 AM
Subject: Neural Turing Machine
To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Thoretical_physics Yahoogroups 
theoretical_phys...@yahoogroups.com, Mind Brain Mind Brain 
mindbr...@yahoogroups.com, Physical Sciences 
physical_scien...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com


mimics the short-term memory of the human brain


   On Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:12 AM, Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review noreply+feedpr...@google.com wrote:


the physics arXiv blog
http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent
--
  Google's Secretive DeepMind Start-up Unveils A Neural Turing Machine
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/dr1HzaZSk8M/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email
 Posted: 29 Oct 2014 07:41 AM PDT
DeepMind has built a neural network that can access an external memory like
a conventional Turing machine. The result is a computer that mimics the
short-term memory of the human brain.

One of the great challenges of neuroscience is to understand the short-term
working memory in the human brain. At the same time, computer scientists
would dearly love to reproduce the same kind of memory *in silico*.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:yIl2AUoC8zA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:dnMXMwOfBR0
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:gIN9vFwOqvQ
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:7Q72WNTAKBA
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:V_sGLiPBpWU
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:l6gmwiTKsz0
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/arXivblog?a=dr1HzaZSk8M:gaHqO_rH4c0:qj6IDK7rITs
   You are subscribed to email updates from Emerging Technology From the
arXiv - MIT Technology Review
http://www.technologyreview.com/stream/26986/?sort=recent
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
https://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=e3tbo0xvx8J8FRNN-hWeF1p6ST4
. Email delivery powered by Google  Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist
I envision wave functions as empty shells that can be filled with energy.
Because of quantum theory the interaction energy
may or may not exceed particle-creation level.
If the creation level is exceeded by not very much
all of the interaction energy must go intl one quantum state
else no particle is created.

For many published reasons the state probabilities for creation are the
Born probabilities.

Yet in any interaction if the particle-creation energy is exceeded,
all of the energy that goes into creating the particle goes into one state.
That must be quantum collapse logic QCL.
Richard

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 30 Oct 2014, at 13:08, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 What- a delayed post eraser suggesting self-interference is extant(;)



 Glad you see the problem. I knew I couldn't be the only one :)

 Well, if QM is really 100% correct, we can't delete anything anyway. We
 can just hide things for some period, but that asks for relative works and
 energy.

 In math forgetting is abstraction.

 Bruno



 On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:12 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 you can delete your posts (I think?)

 On 30 October 2014 12:07, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 11:03:01 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 6:17:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 28 Oct 2014, at 22:48, LizR wrote:

 Well that WAS the point of my original post...

 : D

 On 29 October 2014 00:55, Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Maybe 'spam of infinity' is a better term ;)



 'Spam of infinity', or 'Span of Infinities!' You remember surely, Liz,
 that Cantor proved (in some theory) that there are many infinities, even
 many sort of infinities. With the plural, span might make sense.

 Sorry for quibbling on your infinite joke, but I just answered a post
 by John Clark, and it seems I need to quibble a little bit myself :)

 Bruce



 I would say you're more a obfscator than a quibbler .


  sorry wasn't meant to send the post right then...the above comment
 actually represent what is usually the beginning of humour around these
 words. And I was actually going use that as a way to explain why you're not
 quibbling today.

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



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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-29 Thread Richard Ruquist
Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular
predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing
velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data
that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing
frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within
measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks
for thinking of me.
In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember
everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now
at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for
dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable.
Richard

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Oct 2014, at 23:18, LizR wrote:

 On 28 October 2014 10:56, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.

 I would say it's an abstract property of certain mathematical systems (or
 something similar). If GR is right and spacetime is a continuum, then it
 will contain infinities even in a finite region, which would mean that it's
 a mathematical abstraction that happens to be realised in the physical
 universe. But I don't think anyone knows if that is true at present, and I
 believe most theories of quantum gravity attempt to make spacetime into
 something other than a continuum.


 It looks like the natural idea. To quantize gravitation, we need to
 quantize space-time. But is not string theory still using the continuum in
 the background? Richard? Does not some experiment refute some granularity
 prediction of the loop-theory (which tries to make space time a non
 continuum)?

 Bruno





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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-29 Thread Richard Ruquist
Been there. Done that. Dementia comes from sleep deprivation due to ... too
many details.

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 30 October 2014 09:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Yes to both questions. String theory treats spacetime as a continuum and
 the loop quantum gravity LQG theories in which spacetime is granular
 predict that photons at differing frequencies propagate at differing
 velocities, which has apparently been falsified by Fermi Telescope data
 that indicates that gamma rays about an order of magnitude of differing
 frequency or energy arrive at the telescope at the same time within
 measurement accuracy. I can get the reference for you if interested. Thanks
 for thinking of me.
 In my career I have encountered many researchers who seem to remember
 everything of importance. Not me and that has really been a handicap. Now
 at 77 even my short-term memory is failing me. I seem to be heading for
 dementia but a quick trip to the afterlife would be preferable.

 Apparently eating lots of chocolate can help stave off dementia and even
 senior moments. That and a bottle of red wine a day.

 (And hell, even if they can't)

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


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-28 Thread Richard Ruquist
Liz,

I define consciousness as my ability to make choices.
But my simple-minded view of MWI is that whatever choice I make in this
world
the opposite will be made by the splitting of me in another world'
and perhaps every possibility in between.
So in the 3p view, all choices balance out.

Bruno responds with the Gaussian  (somewhat like measure theory)
which suggests that some worlds are less important than this one.
(Peter wrote that in his blog) and which seems inconsistent with
duplication.
Richard


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 October 2014 17:14, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 My simple-minded view of MWI is that it is deterministic and if it is
 true then my consciousness is an illusion, period


 Not necessarily your consciousness, you can be aware of things in a
 deterministic universe surely? But probably your free will, yes.

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


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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-27 Thread Richard Ruquist
I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
found in the negative in other universes of the multiverse. I referred to
this as the GWI of reality and suggested that it might be consistent with
Zurek's Quantum Darwinism http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD?  And doesn't the
 egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily?  As well as all
 the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...

 Is this true? And do these gods also exist in an Everett multiverse? (in
 the same way that Harry Potter does)

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


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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-27 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 27 Oct 2014, at 13:05, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 I have not seen any discussion of what Bruno calls the Gaussian nature of
 comp or MWI with which he claims that his beliefs in this universe are not
 found in the negative in other universes of the multiverse.


 It is like the quantum white rabbits, or the possible extravagant path
 of the electron, which have small amplitude of probability thanks to
 Feynman quantum phase randomization.

 The physical reality, with comp, becomes a sum on all fictions, that sum
 must be one, by construction/definition, or by the global FPI on the UD*.
 The gaussian is there if you agree with the P=1/2 in the self-duplication.

 What remains amazing is the negative amplitude of probability, but then
 that is what I show being still possible thanks to the presence of an
 arithmetical quantization in arithmetic, at the place we need the
 probabilities.




 I referred to this as the GWI of reality


 Gimini- Weber ?


Gaussian World Interpretation GWI of quantum mechanics


 and suggested that it might be consistent with Zurek's Quantum Darwinism
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf


 I will try to find the time to read that paper.

 Bruno




 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:57 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 25 October 2014 06:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 And doesn't such a god exist necessarily in the UD?  And doesn't the
 egomanical, despotic god of Abraham also exist necessarily?  As well as all
 the gods of Olympus and the Norse gods and the Hindu gods...

 Is this true? And do these gods also exist in an Everett multiverse? (in
 the same way that Harry Potter does)


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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: The Span of Infinity

2014-10-27 Thread Richard Ruquist
But the span of infinity is outside spacetime.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 28 October 2014 10:18, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:


 Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 That! My friend is an ex-parrot.  I didn't come here for an argument. Yes
 you did!

  This could go on forever.. maybe we've discovered the span of
 infinity

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


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-27 Thread Richard Ruquist
My simple-minded view of MWI is that it is deterministic and if it is true
then my consciousness is an illusion, period

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:38 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

   So far the only real (non-sarcastic, non-insult-based) objection I've
 heard comes down to a semantic quibble to do with redefining our concept of
 an individual person.


 The entire point of Bruno's proof and all of his bizarre thought
 experiments is to examine and get rid of that semantic quibble, and yet
 from page 1 Bruno acts as if the concept of personal identity was already
 crystal clear even though in his thought experiments such things were
 stretched about as far as they could go. In such circumstances using person
 pronouns with abandon as Bruno does without giving them a second thought is
 just ridiculous.

   This is exactly the same redefinition that was brought up by Everett in
 1957.


 No it is not for 3 reasons:

 1) Everett was trying to explain the strange observations of the Quantum
 world in a logically cohesive way and to show why Quantum Mechanics was
 able to make good prediction about future physical events. Everett said
 nothing about personal identity or consciousness because he didn't need to,
 and that is the HUGE advantage Many Worlds has over other Quantum
 interpretations and is the only reason I'm a fan of the MWI. In the other
 Quantum Interpretations consciousness soon enters the picture, that would
 be OK if they could explain consciousness but they can't. Everett can't
 explain consciousness either but he doesn't need to because consciousness
 has nothing to do with his theory.

 2) Like Everett Bruno is also interested in prediction but he seems to
 think that good predictions are the key to personal identity, and that's
 just nuts. The sense of self depends on the past not the future.

 3) With Everett the meaning of the personal pronoun he is always
 obvious, it is the only person that we can observe using the laws of
 physics that fits the description of Bruno Marchal, but in a world with
 matter duplicating machines there are 2 (or more) people who fit that
 description, and so the word he conveys zero  information.

   a physicist who believes the MWI to be correct will come to the same
 conclusions about indeterminacy that someone using Bruno's matter
 transmitter would


 Obviously, but a person wouldn't need to believe in the MWI or even be a
 physicist to know that what is observed when a door is open a door is
 uncertain.

  both comp and Everett allow for the possibility that from the third
 person viewpoint the duplication could be observed


 If you say so, but I'm not a bit interested in comp and except for a few
 member of this list I don't think anybody on the planet is either.

  And of course, making up silly versions of Bruno's acronyms


 I didn't make a single one up, they were what Wikipedia or Google though
 they most likely meant. For example, Wikipedia lists  27 possible means of
 comp and not one of them has anything to do with intelligence or
 consciousness or personal identity, and only one had anything to do with
 computers,  a class of Usenet groups devoted to computers and related
 technology.

  John K Clark

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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2014-10-23 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, I'm not a physicists but a philosopher, so I cannot give a
 physicist's answer. My approach is to start with the most fundamental
 question (Why is there anything at all?) and then see how far we can get
 with pure logic alone. It is of course very, very tricky to try to derive
 fundamental laws of nature in this way. But I think that we can actually
 get quite far with such an a priori method. Now with respect to your
 question, I understand that dark energy is a basically repulsive force
 driving inflation. I don't want to say I can derive dark energy from a
 priori principles (that would be absurd). But I think I can derive a
 duality of attraction and repulsion in that way. The reasoning I emply,
 however, is very abstract, using ideas taken from philosophers like Hegel
 and Heidegger, although on the whole I feel more attracted to the
 rationality of Anglo-American philosophy (and science) than to postmodern
 philosophy (which I think is basically a fraud). Perhaps my reasoning is
 closest to German idealists like Hegel and Schelling who still feld they
 could derive the basic principles of natural science from philosophical
 principles. So here is how my argument goes in nuce, I hope you can make
 sense of it:

 First I argue that nothing is self-negating (for logical arguments see the
 blog piece). Simply put: nothing is nothing to such a degree that it isn't
 even itself! Thus, as nothing negates itself, it produces being, it becomes
 something. Now, since nothing is different from itself, being (as the
 negation of nothing) must be different from something else. This then is
 how I define being: as difference from something else. Now it is easy to
 see that this difference must take two forms. First, being is being because
 it differs from non-being or nothing (let's call this ontological
 difference, following Heidegger). Second, being must also be internally
 differentiated, that is to say: there must be multiple beings differing
 from each other (let's call this ontic difference). Then we can say: a
 being is what it is because of its ontic difference from other beings.
 (Ultimately, I think, this imlies that beings are mathematical, for lacking
 intrinsic qualities of their own, they canly be distinguished in
 quantitative ways, such that it is their position in a quantitative
 structure which determines what they are.) Now we can say: the source (or
 cause) of what beings are is (ontic) difference. This difference, then,
 must precede them, just as any origin must precede the originated (at least
 logically, if not temporally). But what is this difference that precedes
 the different beings? It's like a relation that generates its own relata.
 Thus we must postulate something like a pure difference or a pure
 negativity underlying the mutual non-identity of beings. But what is this
 pure negativity? It seems clear to me that we are now back with our
 starting point, the concept of nothing as differing from itself. And this
 is not surprising if the self-negating nothing generates all beings, for
 then it must also act as the pure negativity that differentiates beings.
 But now comes the rub: there is a contradiction between ontological and
 ontic difference. Recall: ontological difference requires that beings
 differ from nothing (i.e. pure negativity), whereas ontic difference
 requires that there is pure negativity between them. Hence: to have
 existence (i.e. ontological difference) beings must stand in a negative
 relation to the negativity between them, they must differ from their mutual
 difference. But to differ from their mutual difference, beings must become
 the same and loose their separate identities. Hence there is a
 contradiction between identity and existence, i.e. between the determinacy
 of beings (ontic difference) and their existence (ontological difference):
 in short, existence is unifying, determinacy is separating. Now given the
 fact that being must be logically consistent, we must interpret this
 contradiction not as logical but as an opposition of forces. Thus existence
 becomes a unifying force, determinacy (ontic difference) becomes a
 separating force. The separating force must manifest itself as repulsion,
 i.e. as resistance against unification. The unifying force must manifest
 itself as resistance against repulsion, i.e. as attraction. Hence repulsion
 and attraction are the basic forces that govern being.

 I spelled out this argument in more detail on another blog piece I wrote:

 So if you want more detail, please check this piece. I have to emphasize,
 however, that I am still working on these ideas and that I hope to publish
 a fuller account on my blog in the near future.
   http://critique-of-pure
 http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/06/theses-towards-dialectical-ontology_8246.html
 -interest.blogspot.nl/2014/06/theses-towards-dialectical-ontology_8246.html

Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
Brent,

That is certainly true for Schrodinger's equations,
but is it also true for matrix theory?
Re: real and complex numbers.
Richard

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/21/2014 8:05 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 22 October 2014 08:40, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:14:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
  On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:
  
   So you don't assume the real numbers exist?
  
  
  
   Indeed.
  
 
  Interesting.
 

 In Bruno's TOE, real numbers don't exist in the same way as integers,
 much in the spirit of Kronecker's famous quote:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kronecker


  Quantum theory would appear to support Kronecker.


 Quantum mechanics assumes real and complex numbers.

 Brent

   Relativity is more concerned with real numbers, not to mention continua
 - but I have a feeling that most physicists would bet on QM as being closer
 to reality than GR, if pushed.

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


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


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


Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

2014-10-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
Peter,

Could you elaborate on how Dark Energy fits into your thesis?
Richard

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:33 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi guys,

 Here is a blog piece I wrote about nothing as the ultimate source of being:


 http://critique-of-pure-interest.blogspot.nl/2014/09/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html

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


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


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

2014-10-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 19 Oct 2014, at 21:14, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Very well, and now we go to the primal. I am presuming, but who wrote the
 programs for computationalism,


 I guess you mean who wrote the programs for the computations
 (Computationalism is just a religious belief, or a philosophical axiom).

 If you are ready to accept that 2+2 = 4 independently of us (the living
 being), then we don't need to write the programs of the computations, or
 the program of the UD (which generates and executes all computations),
 because their existence is of the same type as the truth of 2+2=4. That is,
 elementary arithmetic implements all computations already.




 who thought the great thought, who made Plato's ideals?



 It is part of elementary arithmetic. You need only to believe in the
 axioms of arithmetic, like:


Bruno,
You seem to be basing Platonia on human belief, which I admit is consistent
with First Person Indeterminacy.
But I prefer your prior comment that elementary arithmetic is independent
of us.
And I do not see how elementary arithmetic produces logic.
Sorry to keep asking the same old questions.
You need not answer.
Richard




 0 ≠ s(x)
 s(x) = s(y) - x = y
 x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
 x+0 = x
 x+s(y) = s(x+y)
 x*0=0
 x*s(y)=(x*y)+x


 We see cause and effect in nature on our planet.


 Platonist don't believe that what they see is necessarily real. If it is
 persistent enough, they will take that as an evidence that there is
 something real, but not that what they see is the real thing.


 What causes lightning and thunder, or droughts, or earthquakes, and so
 forth, however, these are local events, or  apparently local, in the sense
 of this region of the universe. But laws, or programs are more subtle. Yet
 more profound. We have no indication, as of today, that life is prevalent
 in the universe.


 It is not well know, but there are strong evidences that life is prevalent
 in arithmetic. In fact, it is provable once you accept computationalism.



 Not many scientists see panspermia as the dominating force, and what is
 life but a chain of programs governing chemical action?


 That is how we see them, but life is in the immaterial relations leading
 to the experiences.



 If a law or program is said to emerge, then what from, Planck Cells?


 Just from elementary arithmetic, as you have learned in high school. There
 is no other assumption beside computationalism.



 How do planck cells produce programs. Is there a look up table, or akashic
 database to be read? How did this relational database evolve?



 evolves is how it seems to us, but time, space, energy comes from the
 First Person Indeterminacy on all computations seen from the first person
 points of view (if computationalism is correct). That is computable, so it
 makes computationalism a testable hypothesis.

 Bruno





 -Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Oct 19, 2014 12:19 pm
 Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)


  On 18 Oct 2014, at 17:00, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

 Moreover, can consciousness be copied? Can we be duplicated mentally and
 how well can we. If, consciousness is a substance, as Tegmark asserts, then
 the pattern can be copied, right?



  If consciousness is a quantum substance, integrally, then it cannot be
 cloned.

  But then also, computationalism is false. Computationalism is that
 consciousness can be duplicated in the 3-1 view, like in the WM-duplication
 experiment. Consciousness cannot be duplicated in the 1-view, though, that
 is why there is a first person indeterminacy to begin with. But it is only
 relative (like in QM, actually).

  But then, assuming comp, we have also that the physical substance, the
 apparent primitive matter cannot be cloned, as it is a sum of infinities.
 This must be weakened by the renormalization needed to hunt the white
 rabbit away, and which is already consistent with the observable-logic
 extracted from classical comp (comp + Theaetetus).

  Keep in mind that once we assume computationalism, we cannot refer to
 the current physics in the argument, for logical reason. that elimiantes
 consciousness with or without saying. With computationalism, it is also
 equivalent with using God in a scientific explanation in theology. We can't
 do that, independently of the existence of god or not, or here of the
 physical universe or not.

  Bruno




 -Original Message-
 From: Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sat, Oct 18, 2014 9:23 am
 Subject: Re: Are We Really Conscious? (NYT Article today)

  On 17 October 2014 09:40, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
  On 16 October 2014 19:54, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  A necessary side-effect roughly equates to the idea of weak 

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
Likewise,  the most interesting aspects of string theory are outside the
purview of explanations that can be tested in any even vaguely obvious
direct, empirical manner. and they may form the basis of MUH.
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is
 something rather than nothing. Going from almost nothing (the quantum
 vacuum, say) to something is, simply, starting from something. That's fine
 from the viewpoint of the continuing saga of physics, which doesn't attempt
 to address fundamental questions (like why is there something rather than
 nothing) for a good reason - it's outside the purview of explanations that
 can be tested in any even vaguely obvious direct, empirical manner.

 This is precisely the appeal of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. It
 goes from nothing (or rather logical necessity) to something. This doesn't
 make the MUH true, but it certainly makes it worth considering.

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


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


Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Oct 2014, at 13:02, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Bruno: Then by the ONE, I mean God, in the greek sense of whatever is
 needed to have a reality and consciousness.

 Richard: If MWI can be derived from comp and if the MWI is deterministic,
 then IMO there is no need for consciousness.
 I claim that a reality and consciousness , that is a single world SWI
 reality, can be obtained by a cosmic consciousness that selects a single
 quantum possibility in every particle interaction to become physical- which
 amounts to a god or just how nature works. An alternative that does not
 require consciousness is Zurek's Quantum Darwinism.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf (Perhaps that is equivalent to your
 Gaussian Worlds GWI).


 Belinfante (who wrote an impressive book on hidden variable theories and
 QM) wrote (another) book where he defends the idea of collapse made by an
 observer outside the physical universe, to select a unique cosmos.


This is consistent with my Metaverse string cosomology
http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194
Richard


 As mechanism is my working hypothesis, I recover it from self-reference
 and its intensional nuance from arithmetic. Alhough this entails an
 inflation of dreams, we have to do the math to see if the dreams of number
 cohere enough to define a universe, or a multiverse, or a
 multi-multi-verse, etc.

 There are some problem of language, beacsue the term universe is never
 really well defined, a bit like the term God. It is a fuzzy pointer.

 Bruno




 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

  Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
 enough,


 Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some
 of my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things would be even better
 if they were just more diphlesadory in a refungent sort of way.


  with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist connotations,
 including racial overtones, like correcting others for sharing and
 communicating in your language properly.


 Mr. Cowboy, may I make a humble suggestion, before you honor us with
 another of your patented stream of consciousness word salads try waiting 5
 minutes and then read what you've written aloud to yourself. If you had
 done that I don't think you would have hit the send button and sent the
 ASCII sequence quoted above to the list.


 Humble? You're giving snobby English lessons to people with spell
 checkers to distract still avoiding topic. PfffGC


 You are right. Eventually all this is distracting talk, to avoid the real
 thing, like why he stops in step 3.

 What I try to understand, is why he does that. Is it fear of
 understanding, or fear of not understanding. is because he has a (blind)
 faith in physicalism? (He pretended that this is not the case).

 I try to understand why human can be so anti-rational on the fundamental
 questions.

 Bruno





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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




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



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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-19 Thread Richard Ruquist
Liz,

I am not sure that you can call the underpinning  physical. But you
certainly have a good point.

According to one string theory, what seems to exist before the creation of
the universe are dimensions and flux, and symmetries and quantum theory. At
the big-bang some of the dimensions inflate as double that number
compactify or curl up. What makes the dimensions compactify is the flux
that winds thru about 500 holes in each resulting compact particle. That
flux is related to the EM waves (or light) that exist after inflation ends
and the gluon-quark plasma dissipates.

The string landscape, the 10^500 possible unique compactifications, is
based on the flux windings thru the 500 topological holes, each winding
having 10 possible quantum states. If there were 100 quantum states, the
landscape would be 100^500 or 10^1000 unique compact particles. BTW all the
above is a standard 10 dimensional supersymmetric string theory

So what exists in this string theory before the big bang, I must admit,
sounds rather physical. But I prefer to reserve the word physical for the
part of nature that we can observe. For example we can observe the
quark-gluon plasma at several high energy colliders and it turns out to be
a superfluid like a BEC. But observational evidence for inflation is
suspicious because of dust.
But we cannot observe the compact particles or for that matter even
consciousness. So it is not certain that either exists even though we all
experience something we call consciousness.

All my hypotheses start from that basis. In a series of 3 papers, I first
assumed that 26 dimensions exist and used the two-time physics developed by
I. Barrs to derive what a possible Metaverse or Megaverse (used to be
called the multiverse before the MWI people co-opted that word) could look
like. Then I learned that astronomical observations indicated that the
structure constant varied across the universe, from which I hypothesized
that each compact particle in our universe was unique, so that they formed
a set of natural numbers and computation, which became my second paper and
which took me to this forum. You are reading the 3rd paper where I try to
put it all together.

I am a physicist, not a mathematician. I believe in symmetries and
conservation laws. So something from nothing makes no sense to me. That's
why I like black hole creation of baby universes. I even suggest that the
Metaverse came from a 26 dimensional black hole resulting in a 4
dimensional spacetime and compact particles capable of consistent and
effectively complete mathematics (because it is so huge and energetic) that
is capable of computing matter (according to CUH). But since writing that
last paper a few years ago, I have come to see that its full of loose ends-
something you have picked up on- I am impressed.
Rich










On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Richard

 I'm only on page 2 of your paper, but already confused. You appear to be
 positing that a mathematical universe might have a physical underpinning.
 If so, this rather defangs the MUH, which obtains its importance from being
 logically prior to (the appearance of) a material universe. Without that
 assumption there seems no point in the MUH, since one is back needing to
 explain something from nothing to obtain the underlying physical
 universe. (Similarly with the CUH and Comp, of course.)

 Or have I misunderstood?

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


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


Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-18 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno: Then by the ONE, I mean God, in the greek sense of whatever is
needed to have a reality and consciousness.

Richard: If MWI can be derived from comp and if the MWI is deterministic,
then IMO there is no need for consciousness.
I claim that a reality and consciousness , that is a single world SWI
reality, can be obtained by a cosmic consciousness that selects a single
quantum possibility in every particle interaction to become physical- which
amounts to a god or just how nature works. An alternative that does not
require consciousness is Zurek's Quantum Darwinism.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.5082v1.pdf (Perhaps that is equivalent to your
Gaussian Worlds GWI).

On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 18 Oct 2014, at 02:19, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 2:12 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

  Of course, the next distraction is to complain the world ain't murcan
 enough,


 Yeah, I've always said the world needs to be more murcan, in fact some of
 my best friends are reoflactacly murcan; and things would be even better if
 they were just more diphlesadory in a refungent sort of way.


  with all the appropriate colonial hillbilly imperialist connotations,
 including racial overtones, like correcting others for sharing and
 communicating in your language properly.


 Mr. Cowboy, may I make a humble suggestion, before you honor us with
 another of your patented stream of consciousness word salads try waiting 5
 minutes and then read what you've written aloud to yourself. If you had
 done that I don't think you would have hit the send button and sent the
 ASCII sequence quoted above to the list.


 Humble? You're giving snobby English lessons to people with spell checkers
 to distract still avoiding topic. PfffGC


 You are right. Eventually all this is distracting talk, to avoid the real
 thing, like why he stops in step 3.

 What I try to understand, is why he does that. Is it fear of
 understanding, or fear of not understanding. is because he has a (blind)
 faith in physicalism? (He pretended that this is not the case).

 I try to understand why human can be so anti-rational on the fundamental
 questions.

 Bruno





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


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-10-17 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 2:17 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:18 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


  there was no one around in the big bang that we know of, yet it would
 appear any maths that might be involved in physical processes managed to
 work OK.


 Yes, but to math make the Big Bang or did the Big Bang make the math? I
 don't know and I'm not going to pretend that I do.

  By the way, what is the recent discovery that information is physical?


 1961 is pretty recent and in that year Landauer discovered that the
 absolute minimum energy it takes to erase one bit of information is
 ln(2)kT , k is Boltzmann's constant 1.381 X10^-23 J/K, and T is the
 temperature of the computer in degrees Kelvin. In 1972 Bekenstein
 discovered that the maximum amount of information you can put inside a
 sphere is proportional not to it's volume as you might expect but to it's
 surface area, and it's 2PI*R*E/h*c*ln2 where R is the radius of the sphere,
 E is the mass-energy inside the sphere h is Planck's constant and c is the
 speed of light.


Here is something I do not understand. The Bekenstein formula for max
information is proportional to the radius of the sphere and not its area.
Only when you put in a black-hole's mass-energy dependence on the radius of
the event horizon does one get a dependence on surface area of the event
horizon. For example the information content of a spherical volume of
vacuum would appear to contain at most zero information. Is this correct?
Richard


   John K Clark


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


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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/15/2014 7:25 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:



 On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  Bruno seems to think that if you fail to believe in the existence of
 Santa Claus you must have a definite idea of what Santa Claus refers to
 and therefore you do believe in Santa Claus.  A curious inference for a
 logician.


  That's just fancy language, wherein semantic of Santa is mapped to
 fictitious entity, old, fat, gift giving etc; so you applying belief
 predicate to it results in believing untrue fiction.

 What's more curious than this is why you choose Santa instead of house
 or Brent in your example.

  But roughly I'd say yes, to negate some proposition you have to know
 semantic it refers to and point to/represent that idea, with all its
 possible flaws, and note said negation. And that isn't curious, I'd call it
 normal because I can't think of some inversion before I have a grasp on
 some usual state of affairs. PGC


 I works with house and Brent too.  What's curious is that failing to
 believe in anything implies that you do believe in it.  I suppose it goes
 along with the spirit of everything.  If I can think of it clearly enough
 to fail to believe it exists then it must be among the the everything that
 exists.



I suggest that believing and not believing in anything is consistent with
MWI (and therefore comp) for if you believe something in one world, you
will fail to believe in it in some other world.
Richard


 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 14-Oct-2014, at 5:03 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com wrote:

  If the Quran has told Muslims to put terror into the hearts of the
 unbelievers and if the Quran really is the word of God then you will be in
 a constant state of war until the last unbeliever has been converted or
 murdered.


  Incorrect. God and his angels will put terror in the hearts.


 Then God isn't doing a very good job, I guess He needs reinforcements.
 Neither God nor His angels puts terror into my heart, but religious
 nincompoops with a fetish for dynamite do.


 Are you at war with Islam? Why should God put terror in your heart? He
 knows your innermost thoughts and knows how honestly or otherwise you seek
 to understand and make meaning of it all. God knows the set of
 circumstances He put you in the world with, including your family and
 education and other influences, and He knows and understands what and how
 you think and react and why. We do not know whether your heart is one day
 meant to acknowledge and appreciate God or not. It's between you and God.

 It is important to also keep in mind that the Messengers were sent to
 people who not only did not believe in monotheism, but as a nation these
 people were committing many transgressions and sins, and some of the
 greatest of Muslims were from people with such backgrounds.

 If I were to cite an example from Prophet Mohammad's time, Omar was an
 ardent disbeliever in the message, very angered by the prophetic mission
 and was on his way to murder the prophet. Yet, God saw good in him and
 guided him to faith. He went on to become the second leader of the Muslims
 after the prophet's death. There are many historical records about him,
 both pro and anti, depending on who wrote it,  you may wish to look them
 up.



  Muslims are not asked to do that.


 And yet Muslims are told to:

 “Say to the unbelievers: ‘You shall be overthrown and driven into Hell—an
 evil resting place!’” .

 And

 “Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will
 spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their
 hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is
 the hatred which their breasts conceal” .

 And

 “Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels


  According to the Quran [...]


 Samiya, this is 21st century, other than the fact that you mommy and daddy
 told you it was true why would you care what the Quran said?

  God doesn't force faith on anyone.


 But Muslims and Christians do.

  In fact, on the contrary, those who do not want to believe, God
 withholds guidance from them.


 What I want to know is why a omnipotent being would consider a belief (or
 the desire to have a belief) in something for which there is no evidence a
 virtue, in fact the very greatest virtue there is. It's childishly easy to
 understand why a bipedal hominid like Jesus or Mohamed or any
 mountebank who wished to gain some control over his fellow hominids would
 push this idea, but I don't see why a omnipotent being would.


  if you put one toe out of line  a loving God with torture you in ways
 beyond imagining for a infinite number of years.


  Well, if you do not believe in God or after-life, why do you worry
 about it?


 I worry that God will torment me in the afterlife about as much as I worry
 that the big bad wolf will huff and puff and blow my house down, however I
 do worry that other people worry about it because nothing in human history
 has causes people to do more stupid and destructive things than religion.

  I think the God of the Quran is the second most unpleasant character in
 all of fiction, only the God of the Old Testament is worse.


  I think Allah ( The Deity) is the most loving and compassionate.


 Well you'd better think that God is most loving and compassionate because
 if you don't your religion says that most loving and compassionate being
 will torture you in ways too horrible for our present human minds to
 contemplate. And a most loving and compassionate God will continue
 performing His butchery on you not for a million years, or a billion years
 or a trillion years but for a INFINITE* number of years.


 God sent us in this world and provides sustenance for all of us whether we
 remember Him or not. He gives freely to all in countless ways: the oxygen
 we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the education that feeds
 our minds, the knowledge and feelings that nourish our hearts, the natural
 beauty that provide for our senses of sight and hearing and so on. God also
 provides wealth and comfort in varying degrees. God does not discriminate
 on the basis of faith in this world, as here we all have equal opportunity
 to believe or reject. And God keeps inviting to forgiveness. However, God
 warns of a Day when all mankind has a 

Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-14 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:



 On 14-Oct-2014, at 3:28 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 12 Oct 2014, at 18:33, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 10 Oct 2014, at 20:37, Samiya Illias wrote:



 On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:


 On 10 Oct 2014, at 00:21, John Mikes wrote:

 Samiya, I did not participate in the sequence about your wisdom on the
 list, because you did not refer to my question: WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did it
 occur that you first thought of the existence of God? (I suggested tha it
 was your Mummy and at your age as a baby when you were taught to pray,
 giving you the overtone of your thinking. Later on you may have expanded
 into the wisdom your father was studting.)  I am not a Bible-scholar,
 consider the

 Jewish Bible a compendium of earlier tales from (mostly mid-eastern)
 people - then the
 Christian Bible a second tier leaving out things and adding
 Jesus-related stories, (attached some modifications from reform-thinking),
 while

 some hundred years after Jesus the Prophet Mohammad presented the Quran
 as the work of Allah.

 We are not capable of thinking otherwise than in our human logic PLUS
 restricted to our 'knowledge-base' we (to date) accumulated and believe.
 Teleology - the AIM of the World - is beyond that.
 What I believe in my gnostic thinking is a WORLD of infinite
 complexity of which we got only limited glimpses - even those not correctly
 understood.


 That's exactly how the arithmetical truth looks like from the
 perspective of the universal numbers.




 Of this 'treasure' of knowledge we THINK we know the World. Well, we
 don't.


 Nor do they. But the wisest know they don't know.



 We don't know what is good, or bad,


 I agree if you mean the moral good or moral bad and other theories, but
 basically we know very well what is good and bad. I agree that if we look
 at the details, it can look a bit like the Mandelbrot set, but for the main
 things I think all the mammals knows the difference between good (like
 eating, mating, dancing, ...) and bad (sick, desperate, broken, burning,
 etc.).
 Now the good divides into the good good and the bad good, and the bad
 divides into the good bad, and the bad bad.
 Amateur of wines and beers knows things around this.







 what (so far) unknowable factors do influence whatever happens in
 addition to those we (think) we know. If there  is a 'Godly' teleology, our
 human logic asks: Why did a 'Creator' not create it as it is to be finally,
 but that would go into your prohibition of questioning God.


 Samiya, does the Quran prohibits questioning God?
 Do you think we can avoid questioning when praying?


 No, rather it exhorts us to think deeply.
 [3: 191=192 Translator: Sahih International] Indeed, in the creation of
 the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are
 signs for those of understanding. Who remember Allah while standing or
 sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the
 heavens and the earth, [saying], Our Lord, You did not create this
 aimlessly; exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the
 punishment of the Fire.

 Prophet Abraham's faith is greatly praised in the Quran. Consider the
 following verses about him:
 *[*2:260 Translator: Pickthall] And when Abraham said (unto his Lord):
 My Lord! Show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: Dost thou not
 believe? Abraham said: Yea, but (I ask) in order that my heart may be at
 ease. (His Lord) said: Take four of the birds and cause them to incline
 unto thee, then place a part of them on each hill, then call them, they
 will come to thee in haste, and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.

 [6:74-78 Translator: Pickthall*]* (Remember) when Abraham said unto his
 father Azar: Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk in
 error manifest. Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and
 the earth that he might be of those possessing certainty: When the night
 grew dark upon him he beheld a star . He said: This is my Lord. But when it
 set, he said: I love not things that set. And when he saw the moon
 uprising, he exclaimed: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said: Unless
 my Lord guide me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray. And
 when he saw the sun uprising, he cried: This is my Lord! This is greater!
 And when it set he exclaimed: O my people! Lo! I am free from all that ye
 associate (with Him).


 OK, that is a bit of platonism. Truth is beyond all representations, and
 the physical might be a representation, in fact an unknown sum on
 infinities of representations.




 PS: in 6:76, the word that's translated as star I think should be
 translated as planet.

 And I think the following verses partially address the question John
 Mikes hesitates to ask:
 [33:72-73  

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

2014-10-12 Thread Richard Ruquist
If the universe is a toroid as predicted by string theory, then the
universe has on center

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:


 On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:05 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  Are We Really Conscious?
 By MICHAEL S. A. GRAZIANO

 OF the three most fundamental scientific questions about the human
 condition, two have been answered.

 First, what is our relationship to the rest of the universe? Copernicus
 answered that one. We’re not at the center. We’re a speck in a large place.


 What is at the centre of the Universe, if the Universe does have a centre?
 Or does everything appear to be moving away from everything equally in all
 directions, and the Universe appears equally deep in all directions from
 every point in space? If the Universe is an expanding sphere, where is the
 centre?
 Samiya


 Second, what is our relationship to the diversity of life? Darwin
 answered that one. Biologically speaking, we’re not a special act of
 creation. We’re a twig on the tree of evolution.

 ...


 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/are-we-really-conscious.html?ref=opinion

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


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


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


Re: Do today's philosophers even think about the existence of God anymore?

2014-10-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 Hmm. Please read this blogpost and let me know if this meets your 
 'demonstrating
 factual accuracy in this sense here, of course.':

 http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/06/dhu-al-qarnayn-polar-regions-of-earth.html?m=1



 You changed the subject and focus. Why?

 I did not refer to your blog but to this:

 http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htm


I am not a muslim, but I also disagree with the fundamental premise of
Foundalis, which I quote below. I claim that just the opposite is true. A
theory that explains already existing data is considered less important or
impressive than one that predicts data that does not yet exist. Example are
numerous, but Einstein's GR is the best known example.
In science we don’t start with a theory and then try to find data to
support that theory. Instead, we first gather data through observation, and
then we see which theory explains best the data.






 You said you disagree and I asked why, which you ignored.

 Concerning your link, I'd see that as less on-topic for following simple
 reason:

 That's interpretation without a critical position against it, and this is
 perhaps why there is a disconnect between some of your claims and how some
 members, including myself, react.

 A positive aspect of science is that, when done correctly, we are not
 forced to trust interpretations. That's why it would be more instructive
 for me to see you address the points in the Foundalis link, rather than
 what you have interpreted and convinced yourself of already.

 It creates perspective, that would enrich your points perhaps. As a tool,
 science tests ideas and reasoning; and contrasting a perspective that
 differs from yours, and you refuting it, would tell me much more than
 personal interpretation you link to above. PGC


 Samiya


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

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


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


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


Re: generalizations_of_islam - God Matter

2014-10-07 Thread Richard Ruquist
I worship nature. Is it not made of matter?

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:


 But it's pejorative to refer to it as god.  Nobody worships matter.
 Physics textbooks don't have moral prescriptions derived from QED.  To call
 it god is to give into Bruno's desire to make all fundamental science
 theology.


 I think you have to distinguish Bruno's use of theology here from more
 conventional uses, which is something like believing that X is fundamental
 is an act of faith.

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


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


Re: generalizations_of_islam

2014-10-04 Thread Richard Ruquist
Nobody worships matter

But many worship nature.
I do not see much difference.
Richard

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/3/2014 10:20 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:

 A lot of evidence for some God (like the god Matter), is not a proof of
 its existence, still less so in front of complex open problems.



 I have been having a very long argument -- on another list – with a man
 whose intellect and mind I very much respect, but who is irrationally
 attached to the notion of the god Matter. It has gone on for over fifty
 back and forth posts and this person – who is intelligent and very aware of
 events in the world and in the mind… a man who has had deep spiritual
 experiences and is someone I generally respect.

 But my questioning of the “need” for actual real stuff in the universe and
 my pointing out that fundamentally all we know about the universe is
 information we can measure about it and that it is information itself (and
 information processes – i.e. computation)  that seems to be – and arguably
 could be – fundamental… it hit a brick wall in his brain. There is just no
 budging him on it and he has become quite heated in his insistence on the
 existence of – as you put it god Matter. It keeps creeping up in the
 arguments he puts forth as a given.

 It is a difficult problem to even get someone to question whether or not
 this “god Matter” is even necessary for the formulation of an explanation
 for reality.


 Matter is something not very well defined, even in physics.  It's roughly
 fermions.  But fermions are thought to be excitations of a more fundamental
 field.  That's why physicists like Max Tegmark are led to propose it's math
 all the way down.

 But it's pejorative to refer to it as god.  Nobody worships matter.
 Physics textbooks don't have moral prescriptions derived from QED.  To call
 it god is to give into Bruno's desire to make all fundamental science
 theology.

 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-09-26 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:09 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 9/26/2014 1:14 AM, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 03:17:07AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

 On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 
 wrote:


 Well done for being obtuse! The platonically malleable urstuff is
 usually taken to be integer arithmetic, although any system capable of
 universal computation will do, such as Bruno's combinators
 example.


 You appear to be making the dog chase its tail.

 ?


  But conscious does not supervene on that, for the reasons
 given in my paper, but rather on sheaves of computations that make it
 up, by assumption of COMP.


 Not in your sense of requiring physical, concrete realizations: why do we
 need those?

 We don't, if by concrete you mean what Bruno means by it.

  What are they and how do we avoid attributing originality to
 all your doppelgangers distributed in UD if such is given?

  originality?

  It also must supervene on the emergent
 phenomenal physics that arises. That is a raw empirical fact that no
 pussy-footing around can eliminate.

 The MGA demonstrates the

 fundamental contradiction between COMP and physical supervenience in a
 non-robust universe, consequently the only way to save COMP is for the
 universe to be robust.

  You pretend that this is common sense. That's much less clear to me.

  This stuff is far from common sense. It is a simple matter of logic,
 however.

 If you accept the empirical fact of physical supervenience (as I do,
 and indeed also have arguments for why it must be so - see the Occam
 Catastrophe discussion in my book), then the fact that the MGA forces
 a contradiction between physical supervenience and computational
 supervenience in a non-robust universe really just says there is a
 choice: either we live in a robust universe, or computationalism is
 false. The fact that we additionally observe quantum phenomena really
 supports the idea we live in a robust universe. In a non-robust
 universe, quantum phenomena is just weird.

 Additionally, in a robust universe, the Church-Turing thesis tells us
 that physics we supervene on must be emergent from the properties of
 universal systems (Bruno's reversal result). Thus the matter we supervene
 on cannot be primitive. The primitive urstuff is something else
 entirely - the arithmetic of integers, perhaps, as Bruno suggests -
 but not matter as we know it.


 I think I agree with you (see further query's below).  But it's not
 entirely clear why matter cannot be primitive.  It's not clear because
 matter isn't defined (as Bruno likes to point out when criticizing what
 he calls Aristotelianism).  I think your point is that naively conceived
 matter isn't complex enough to avoid the reductio's like the MGA.  But at
 PGC intuites quantum matter may well be.  Lots of physicists have already
 observed that the matter they talk about has become so abstract it's hard
 to say how it differs from mathematical objects.


  You may think robust universes are baroque, but I don't. Infinite,
 symmetrical ensembles of universes are simpler from an information
 theoretic perspective than specific finite instances. This is
 ultimately the strongest argument in favour of platonism.

 But there is a sense that nature doesn't have to play by our
 rules. Maybe we really do live in a non-robust universe. If so, we
 cannot have our COMP and eat it.

  I don't see how stating that UD (straight, not shaken or stirred with
 Quantum computer material stuff actualizing) is too cumbersome to realize
 physically wherever it is that we are,

 ie assuming non-robustness (which IMHO is virtually equivalent to
 assuming ultrafinitism - like Norm Wildberger's position).

 gives you convincing leverage

 concerning consciousness relating to experiential outcome of some A/B
 experiment, as the relation of selection is invariant for delays and
 locations of reconstitution.

  It demonstrates an inconsistency between physical supervenience and
 computational supervenience, notably that physical supervenience
 entails that certain very simple computations, such as the replaying
 of a recording, will be conscious.

 This only works in a non-robust universe, however, a point that is
 often overlooked in treatments of this.


 So are you agreeing with my point that the world (being quantum) is so
 complex that to take all the counterfactuals into account in the MGA
 requires creating a whole simulated universe in which the playback
 occurs, thus vitiating the reductio?

 Brent



I thought you taught me that Special Relativity provides playback as well
as prediction, reference-frame dependent.
Richard





 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to 

Re: BICEP2 results even more in question

2014-09-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
Here is an alternative paper suggesting the dust is not negligible but also
not disastrous:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4491 published 3 days before the Planck paper
(above).

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:



 Dust, damned dust. Told yer.

 K


 On 22 Sep 2014, at 10:58 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 So cosmic inflation is apparently even less confirmed.
 http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5738



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

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


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-09-22 Thread Richard Ruquist

 Bruno merely asserts that nobody can mistake the fact that they exist.


Some people do, but it's considered pathological.  But Bruno does more than
merely assert this.  He then uses the same word, conscious in a
different, technical sense as a potential property of an axiomatic system.
And then he applies conclusions drawn from the technical sense to common
sense meaning.  This is isn't necessarily wrong, but as an argument it
leaves a big gap.

Brent

A potential property of an axiomatic system is the evolution of conscious
human beings
who know they exist or are otherwise pathological.
Richard

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 9/22/2014 12:07 AM, Kim Jones wrote:

 On 22 Sep 2014, at 3:21 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 That's why he can say consciousness is all-or-nothing (potentialities
 are all-or-nothing).  That's why he thinks an infant is more conscious than
 an adult - it has more potential (but less realization).  That's why he
 thinks losing all your memories would leave you with the same consciousness.

 That's all follows from his definition and it's OK, although it's not
 the common meaning of conscious.  What's not OK is to then rely on the
 intuition that everybody knows what consciousness is and that no one can
 seriously doubt it's existence.  Those statements are true of common usage
 of conscious, but not necessarily true of Bruno's definition.

 Brent

 Are we not conflating slightly (to be) conscious - the fact of being
 aware and sensate; experiencing being as it were.with consciousness
 that woolly philosophical football? I think even in comman usage we don't
 do that. I am conscious of this or that. My consciousness is kind of my
 whole psyche (whatever that is - could be the whole universe or a lotus
 blossum or whatever).

 Bruno merely asserts that nobody can mistake the fact that they exist.


 Some people do, but it's considered pathological.  But Bruno does more
 than merely assert this.  He then uses the same word, conscious in a
 different, technical sense as a potential property of an axiomatic system.
 And then he applies conclusions drawn from the technical sense to common
 sense meaning.  This is isn't necessarily wrong, but as an argument it
 leaves a big gap.

 Brent

  To be conscious is to experience being. My consciousness on the other
 hand, is the me the self, the subject, the I - you could probably say
 soul if you wanted to allude to the fact that this platonic thing you are
 is immortal.


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


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


Re: MGA revisited paper + supervenience

2014-09-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
This list contains a number of opposites, people I mean, as exemplified by
John and Kim.
Yet the opposites in their own way are very knowledgeable and
sophisticated, far more than I,
I am afraid, which is why I am reluctant to post here very often.

But my point is that we all should learn to appreciate the opposites
as well as the integrators like Bruno, who finds theology in mathematics.

Personally I start with theology and assume that the most important
teachings in each religion are correct.
So from Judaism I take that the universe is one and not a mulitverse (ie.,
where every choice is materialized,
and consciousness and morality are illusions).

Judaism also tells me that I can become entangled with the unknown god(s)
in three ways- via heart, mind and soul.
The far eastern religions, not sure which, one tells me via hari kari that
my soul is located in my solar plexus
below my rib cage. My heart is of course under the rib cage and my mind is
in my brain in my head.

On this basis beheading is perhaps more spiritual than hari kari,
as the physical consciousness is separated from the heart and soul,
rather than the soul separated from the heart and head.

From Hinduism and Buddhism I learn that head, heart and soul are
characterized by chakras.
From the cabala I learn that there are 2 vertical rows of chakras,
and from personal personal touch I learn that there are 16 levels of
chakras:
4 levels for the soul, and above it 4 levels for the heart, and 8 levels
for the head including the neck..

This results in a correspondence with string theory where there are 16
different charges and a 32-fold symmetry.
I have already presented where I went from there- to  universes that create
cosmic consciousnesses, a metaverse that creates matter and even records of
everything that ever became physical in every universe perhaps along with
every future possibility
since all future possibilities can be computed... which makes predictions
confusing.

Anyway IMO this approach tells me what mathematics must do- compute all the
possibilities..
According to Liebniz, cosmic consciousness then chooses the best of all
future possibilities.
Humans do not always consciously choose the best of all possibilities.
Richard



On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:02 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au
 wrote:

  Then why didn’t Plato discover Quantum Mechanics 2500 years ago?

  He did!


 Like hell he did!

  The shadow cast on the wall of the cave was something he was prepared to
 doubt. Just as, much later, Young’s two-slit experiment cast the shadows of
 doubt about the structure of reality


 And Kennedy and Lincoln were strongly linked. The wife of Kennedy's killer
 Lee Harvey Oswald was named Marina,  and Lincoln once owned a rowboat.
 Coincidence? I think not.

   John K Clark

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


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


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >