RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal > >... >I just said you were deadly wrong here, but rereading your post I find it >somehow ambiguous. >Let me comment anyway. >Human classical teleportation, although possible in principle, will not be >possible in our life time (except for those who will succeed in some lucky >cryogenisation process). Artificial brain will first be developed with >graft of genetically engineered animals neurons, through progress in >harnessing the immune system and prion diseases (that will take time). Only >latter will come "purely" artificial digital brain, and even this will be a >matter of piece by piece progress (artificial hypocampus, artificial limbic >system, until artificial cortex (this one will take perhaps a >millenium), and pionner of immortality will have hard time for many >technical but also social and ethical reasons. Thanks for your patience. I can see that you are really very patient because you often reply many similar questions that you may have replied hundreds of times before. Although I appreciate your patience, I still don't agree with you about the teleportation. When we say teleportation, we mean we send someone from location A to location B *like a magic* (Start Trek stuff). The person at A is *exactly* the same as the one at B. This really has little to do with digital or artificial stuff. Human body and brain are analog, same for A & B. It's useless to use digital or artificial conversion (since I assume no substitution level). If I have a scar on my left hand, you need to teleport this scar also. Same for any of my old memories. We are not talking about the teleportation of some *standard PC parts* (like the CPU/HDD) from A to B. >But where I think you are wrong is that articial brain and body, even if it >needs a millenium of work to succeed with some reasonable probability, will >not really help us in understanding the brain and its functioning. It just >happens that, even if it is *very* difficult, the copy of a brain is almost >infinitely easier that the understanding of how a brain work (even assuming >some high substitution level). Assume no substitution level, if you can teleport me (a male) from A to B and let me agree completely that I am *exactly* (body, memory, consciousness etc.) the same me, I think it will let us own the complete understanding of the so-called consciousness, existence of soul? ... such big questions. >To be sure here comp says something rather negative: humans brains will >never completely understand the human brain. It is true that the 3000 AD >humans will perhaps eventually understand the basics of 2000 AD human's >brain, but only true their own bigger "brain" (including self-developing >machine) which will be beyond their comprehension. A little like bacteria >and amoeba "learns" to reproduce themselves without any higher level >understanding of what is going on. See my comment above. Sooner or later, I think human beings will have answers. > >Of course if comp is correct we can understand very fundamental principles >which are at the "logical origin" of the realities (that's what we are >discussing now). > _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: W. C. > > >From: Bruno Marchal > >... > >Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like observing > >your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an > >electron. > >... > >Any microscope (optical or electron type)? What's the min. magnification & >resolution to see it? >I need to find one to try what you said. > I tried to check my finger as you said with different resolutions of microscopes. But I still can't see that ""matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of interfering computations". Can you tell me why? Thanks. WC. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Stathis Papaioannou > >... >Classical teleportation cannot copy something exact to the quantum level, >but rather involves making a "close enough" copy. It is obvious, I think, >that this is theoretically possible, but it is not immediately obvious how >good the copy of a person would have to be (what Bruno calls the >"substitution level") in order to feel himself to be the "same" person. But >as mentioned above, I don't think we need to insist on perfect duplication >to the quantum level, because this doesn't even happen from moment to >moment in everyday life. > Thanks for the info. although I still don't think substitution level exists. If teleportation of human beings is real (I hope I can see it in my life), I think all biggest questions (such as consciousness, soul? Creator? the origin of the universe, meaning of life ... etc.) of this universe should have been solved. Thanks. WC.. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal >... >Not at all. I mean it in the operational physical sense. Like observing >your hand with a microscope, or looking closely to the "path" of an >electron. >... Any microscope (optical or electron type)? What's the min. magnification & resolution to see it? I need to find one to try what you said. Thanks. WC. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal >... >Comp says that there is a level of description of yourself such that you >survive through an emulation done at that level. But the UD will simulate >not only that level but all level belows. So comp makes the following >prediction: if you look at yourself or at you neighborhood sufficiently >close enough, you can in principle detect, indirectly, (by computing the >relative comp histories) the presence of all the sublevel computations. Are you talking about meditation? I still can't see how "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of interfering computations". Common people can touch and feel the matter (this physical universe). They don't need this strange process to see it. Your explanation is rather strange. As said before, I don't think substitution level exists. So Comp. and UDA won't work here. >So it is enough to observe closely your neighborhood. But of course >experimental physicists does exactly that, and the fact that they infer >Many-Worlds (many Histories/many computations) from their observations can >be seen retrospectively as a confirmation of comp. >(This explains that up to now, only people with a good grasp of the >conceptual difficulties of the quantum theory can swallow the consequences >of comp, more or less). I think many good physicist won't agree with you. >To be sure "negative interferences" remains quite astonishing (after such >an informal reasoning), but then if you take into account the results in >computer science and mathematical logic, there are evidence that "negative >interference" appears as related to some variant of the incompleteness >phenomena. This is somehow counter-intuitive and hard to justify in >"french". More in a summary which should come asap. I hope this already >helps. > Please provide more explanation. Thanks. WC. _ No masks required! Use MSN Messenger to chat with friends and family. http://go.msnserver.com/HK/25382.asp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
>From: Brent Meeker >... >But I like to eat. I like to eat steak. A world in which I can't eat >steak is not perfect for me. > > > People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a >PU > will be. > >I guess I have uncommon intelligence :-) since I can't imagine what a PU >would be. I can't even imagine exactly what would be a perfect universe >for me. Do I want more security...or more adventure? Sure I want to >suceed...but maybe not too easily. Do I really need to be the world's >greatest tennis, chess, and billiards player? > Don't worry. I already have a solution for this: Before I adjust the universe to become perfect, I will send everyone one message (by telepathy) to let you decide: (1) Stay with the current universe if you like. (2) Change to PU and become perfect. Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
>From: Brent Meeker >I don't think it's possible, because "perfect" is subjective. Perfect for >the lion is bad for the antelope. > Such problem doesn't exist in PU. In PU, there is no food chain like "A eats B; B eats C; C eats D ... etc.". Perfect beings (both living and non-living) mean no unhappiness (you don't feel happy when you are eaten, right?). Why living beings need to eat? People with common intelligence can easily *imagine* (or dream) what a PU will be. The difficult thing is how to make it. (The rule is always simple: If I can't make it, it's just dream.) Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal >... >But it is easy to explain that this is already a "simple" consequence of >comp. Any piece of "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of >interfering computations: there is no reason to expect this to be >"clonable" without cloning the whole UD, but this would not change any >internal measures (by Church thesis and machine independence). >... I remember you said "comp can be tested experimentally due to others consequences (like the observable interference among many computations, etc.)". Can you provide more details on how to do the experiment to see "matter" is the result of a sum on an infinity of interfering computations??? Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Does Heaven exist?
>From: Norman Samish > >I look forward to seeing your "math formulas/theorems etc." supporting the >Perfect Universe. Hi, Norman, I am more interested in finding some way to make PU real. Until now, PU is more like my dream. Writing some math formulas/theorems etc. may just provide some mental satisfaction (of human being). You may need to wait a long long time to see my math. >Your Perfect Universe sounds like the "heaven" that many true believers >aspire to. There can apparently be as many Heavens as there are Believers, >since each believer is free to define the specifications of his particular >Heaven. It makes sense that PU or heaven is possible because there are infinite resources in this (infinite) universe. Every perfect being can have what it needs perfectly (but not necessary to waste). >Maybe, if all possible realities exist (as many on this list suggest), >everybody's "heaven" DOES exist - as long as it is "possible." > >I'm told that a lot of people on earth believe that their "heaven" is a >place where qualified male humans would have some number of virgin women at >their disposal. I will avoid possible politics here. So I don't comment on specific heaven. But all beings are perfect in my PU. So all beings are equal. >Is such a place possible? I can't imagine that it is - but what I can >imagine has little to do with the reality we inhabit. > Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
>From: Quentin Anciaux > >Hi, I've checked and I do not see an absolute meaning to perfection. > OK. If you want more, I will say perfection in PU is *every being is perfect and feels perfect (if it has feeling)*. This doesn't mean that every being is exactly the same. They may have different special functions. But they are all perfect. They are born with highest self-fulfillment and happiness (if needed) and all resources, no need to follow life cycles (born, aged, sick, death etc.). So a PU is without any wars/crimes/conflicts, any bad things, any natural disasters ... etc. If you want even more, I think I need to write down some math. formulas/theorems etc. But it takes time. Thanks. WC. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Stathis Papaioannou > >Not at all. There is a *huge* difference between what is possible in theory >and what is possible practically. A person wearing down a mountain with his >fingers is a practical impossibility, but there is nothing in the laws of >physics making it a theoretical impossibility. A person flying to Alpha >Centauri in 5 minutes is logically possible, but the laws of physics make >it theoretically impossible. A person being simultaneously taller than >180cm and shorter than 170cm is a logical impossibility. These three >examples for everyday purposes are equally unlikely to happen, but they are >fundamentally different from a philosophical standpoint. In the case of >classical teleportation, there is nothing in the laws of physics making it >theoretically impossible, and it is certainly not logically impossible. >Time travel is much more dubious: it may be a physical impossibility, and >it may even be a logical impossibility. > Thank you for a very clear explanation of these 3 theoretical/practical/logical possibility differences. I remember I saw some papers before saying that time travel is theoretically possible, although it remains an open question. It's like teleportation. Maybe you can demonstrate with 1 or 2 particles in QM. But it's another very different thing when we are talking about human beings (or simple animals). Maybe other very knowledgeable prof. (like "scerir"???) in this list can provide useful ref. Thanks. WC. _ Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
Good question. But I don't think we need to define "perfect". You can check the dictionary to know its meaning. Your killing example won't exist in the PU. Otherwise it won't be PU. >From: everything-list@googlegroups.com The problem with perfection is that >this word has *no* absolute meaning. > >Then depending on your culture/history it can have a different meaning. > >Stupid example: Imagine you are a serial killer... perfect world for you >would be a world were you can kill at will ;) But you would say that a >serial killer cannot be in a perfect world (I'd say he cannot be in your >perfect world, not his). > >So unless there exists an absolute meaning of perfection, PU seems >impossible or I should say meaningless. > >Quentin _ No masks required! Use MSN Messenger to chat with friends and family. http://go.msnserver.com/HK/25382.asp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Bruno's argument - Comp
I think it's always good to have all different kinds of theories to explain our universe. Whatever current theories are, our understanding could be always limited by our limitations (as designed by the so-called Creator if any). So I always think it's possible to produce a perfect universe by some way (although other theories say impossible). Then all living beings can live in a paradise-like universe. In this (infinite) universe with infinite resources, it makes sense that all living beings should be in paradise. In one sentence, there should be free lunch for all. All beings should be created perfect with everything needed forever. Maybe the solution won't come from the so-called evolution and the slow science/technology development. It could come from some magic (sorry if you think I am unscientific). There should be some magic to make the universe perfect instantly. Thanks. WC. >From: John M >To All: >I know my questions below are beyond our comprehension, but we read (and >write) so much about this idea that I feel compelled to ask: > > is there any idea why there would be 'comp'? our computers require juice >to work and if unplugged they represent a very expensive paperweight. > >What kind of "computing unit" (universe? multiverse, or some other satanic >'verse') would run by itself without being supplied by something that moves >it? I hate to ask about its program as well, whether it is an "intelligent >design"? >Is it a pseudnym for some godlike mystery? > >Are we reinventing the religion? > _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal >Are you sure that this is possible, even just in principle? Actually, just >to show me that it could be possible in principle you have to give me your >fundamental assumptions. Actually it looks like you are assuming the >following: >a) there is a physical universe (well, with comp this is already >impossible) I remember other people mentioned before. *Normal* people can't accept that there is no physical universe. Even Buddhists won't say that. >b) accepting "a)" you assume that that universe has an origin (this would >be impossible even in principle in case there is no origin) Just like everything, it's more reasonable that there was an origin than no origin, even for the universe. >c) Accepting "a)" and "b)" you assume "physical laws" making time travel >possible (which is of course controversial; this could be in principle >possible with very special assumption, which could also be false in >principle with other assumption). Time travel is as possible as teleportation of human beings. >If you do theoretical reasonings you have to make clear the assumptions >which are making things "possible in principle". Up to here, I can follow >you (I can imagine such fundamental assumptions). Of course, there are many details and assumptions to say PUA is possible. My point is that PUA is possible just like teleportation of human beings. I think they have similar possibility. >Your "2" and "3" are unfortunately definitely impossible with comp without >deciding your PU (your Perfect Universe) being trivial. This is not obvious >(but follows from diagonalization similar to those I have already >illustrated). Let me just say that it can be shown that if you want your PU >enough rich for Universal machine to appear, then you cannot, even in >principle, filter those "bad" machines will easily makes your PU unperfect. Just like I can make a PC program running perfectly. I don't see why *this* universe can't be perfect. >So the PUA *is* incompatible with comp. The most basic contradiction is >given by the consequence of the UDA: there is no physical universe: only >computations/dreams some of which "coheres" so as to provides local first >person plural notion supervening on them. But even in the case those >coherence would define "for all practical purposes" a "physical universe", >and even if it has some sort of physical origin and you can teleport >yourself to its origin, the laws of computer science will eventually >prevent you of reprogramming "the universe" to satisfy your goal of making >it perfect. Which laws of computer science? My computer science says I can make a perfect program. >From: Stathis Papaioannou >Yes, but it's still possible to imagine what would happen *if* something >were done that at the moment seems impossible. If sodium chloride were >produced by a machine which causes the transmutation of hydrogen into other >elements, would it still taste salty? I would say that the answer is "of >course", whether or not such a machine could ever be built. I don't even >see how it is *logically* possible that pure NaCl could taste different >depending on where it came from. I still can't compare teleportation of human beings with NaCl. Too far away! Thanks. WC. _ No masks required! Use MSN Messenger to chat with friends and family. http://go.msnserver.com/HK/25382.asp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Interested in thoughts on this excerpt from Martin Rees
>From: Bruno Marchal >All we need to *reason* for getting consequence of comp is that such >substitution is *in principle* possible. Theoreticians does that, in many > >fields. I insist that the UDA (Universal Dovetailer Argument) is based on >the notion of generalized brain: you could say that your brain in the >entire galaxy. By comp this entails the entire galaxy is turing emulable, >then, this is enough to say the platonic UD will go through your >"generalized" brain soon or later (in term of number of steps), and that is >enough to understand that comp makes obligatory that the laws of physics >emerge from the relation existing among numbers (that + other steps of the >reasoning of course). The impracticality of substitution is just not >relevant to throw out the theoretical consequences. Then comp can be tested >experimentally due to others consequences (like the observable interference >among many computations, etc.). OK? I have an idea (or dream) for some time. Let's call it the "perfect universe argument" (PUA). The purpose of PUA is to produce a perfect universe (a perfect world without any crimes, any bad things, any natural disasters ... etc.). It's as follows: (1) I teleport myself to the origin of the universe. (2) I adjust some parameters of the universe. (This is like adjusting some parameters in a modern PC program so that you can get the perfect result when running the program.) (3) The adjustment changes the whole universe immediately and the universe becomes perfect. PUA is possible in principle, right? Does it agree to Comp. and UDA? >From: Stathis Papaioannou >Do you believe that IF you vanished at point A and a copy of you created at >point B who was physically and mentally similar to the original to the same >extent as if you had walked from A to B you would have survived? If you >answer "no" then you are opening yourself up to the possibility that would >not survive the walk either. If you argue that the copy might be >physiacally the same but mentally different then you are saying there is >some non-physical basis to identity which survives walking but not >teleportation, which I suppose is possible, but there is no reason to >believe that such a strange thing would or could have evolved. I can't compare teleportation of human beings with walking since teleportation is still a fiction now. It's also unknown if there is something non-physical in human (or living) beings. Thanks. WC. _ Learn English via Shopping Game, FREE! http://www.linguaphonenet.com/BannerTrack.asp?EMSCode=MSN06-03ETFJ-0211E --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
