email function check
Hello Everyone: Just a check of my new email account so I can resume participation. Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: My model, comp, and the Second Law
Hi everyone: Unfortunately I have been very ill for the last 15 months or so. I am working on this project again and hope to post soon. Hal Ruhl From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of auxon Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 3:08 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: My model, comp, and the Second Law I can't wait to dig into this. On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 7:02:13 PM UTC-5, hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Everyone: Its been a while since I posted. I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my model, or comp, or their combination. As references I will start with use are: "Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" , 1992 by Micheal Mackey "Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" 2001 by Michael Mackey. my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014. My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to be computable and this causes computational termination and/or computational precision issues. This should make the operable phase space grainy. This ambiguity causes entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the same at each evolutionary [trajectory] step. The system should also not be reversible for the same reason. If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified? Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> . Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
My model, comp, and the Second Law
Hi Everyone: Its been a while since I posted. I would like to start a thread to discuss the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the possibility that its origins can be found in perhaps my model, or comp, or their combination. As references I will start with use are: "Time's Arrow: The Origin of Thermodynamic Behavior" , 1992 by Micheal Mackey "Microscopic Dynamics and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" 2001 by Michael Mackey. my model as it appears in my posts of March and April of 2014. My idea comes from the fact that almost all the real numbers fail to be computable and this causes computational termination and/or computational precision issues. This should make the operable phase space grainy. This ambiguity causes entropy [system configuration uncertainty] to increase or stay the same at each evolutionary [trajectory] step. The system should also not be reversible for the same reason. If correct, would [my Model,Comp] be observationally verified? Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi Bruno: On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:36:13 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hal, > > Yes, we might be on the same length wave for the "ultimate" TOE, > Thank you > but your terming is rather terrible. > > I will work on it, perhaps needing some help. Today I tend to think of the current state of my model as managing to parachute in using a bed sheet without sustaining a fatal injury. Hal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi Bruno, John, Liz, and everyone:
Bruno:
Your comments helped me to refine my thoughts about my model and the model
itself.
See below.
Thank you.
I believe my model as clarified below has convinced me that Comp to the
degree I may understand it and to the degree it is “machine” is at least
one component of a correct and complete description of our observer
experience. This because I believe it to be a different expression part of
if not all of my approach. There may be other components but this may be
TBD.
On 01 Apr 2014, at 01:48, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model:
A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see
definition ”i”. As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive
integer ?].
-
Do you mean the code of a program computing a predicate P(x), that is a
function from N to {0, 1}, so that some digital machine can distinguish if
some number, of finite input, verifies or not that property?
---
*I am not very strong on computer science but just an MSEE minted in 60’s,
however I think my answer would be a qualified yes with the following
qualifications:*
*a) I take your “predicate” to be the subject number itself.*
*b) The program for the machine is in that number.*
*c) The rest of the number is the data for the machine.*
*d) Not all numbers, such as maybe zero, can be distinctions since they
encode an incomplete machine and or incomplete data.*
---
This makes a divisor - a collection of distinctions by definition “ii” - a
collection of numbers.
Why use "divisor", where "x is divisor of y" already means Ez(z*x = y),
(i.e. it exists a number z such that z times x is equal to y).
*By definition “ii” regarding “divisors” I merely give a relevant short
name to a subset of numbers.*
*Also by “ii” some divisors contain zero distinctions [the “N”s by
definition “iii”] but nevertheless can contain numbers that contain
incomplete code. *
*Further some divisors can contain numbers that are distinctions and some
that are not because such numbers encode incomplete machines or data or
both.*
*Notes:*
*I need to clarify definition “ii” per the underlined words above*
*Here I have tried to structure the clarifications so that there is no need
to resort to a machine that is external to a divisor.*
The collection of numbers (codes of the total computable predicates) will
not be a computable set of numbers, but you can compute a superset of them,
--
*I am not sure I understand. Some numbers [+integers] are excluded from
being distinctions in the above because they contain incomplete codes. *
*However the full set of distinctions [call it “d”] should still be [I
think] a countable infinite set of integers. *
*Divisors include all subsets of the set {“d” Union [the set of all
integers that are not distinctions - call this set “I”]}*
* This I think makes “A” - the set of all divisors - an uncountable
infinite powerset of {“d” U “I”}. So by your comment I think both {“d” U
“I”} and “A” are computable (perhaps some with the aid of a random oracle.
*
--
by accepting that some code will not output any answer for some predicate
("distinction")
---
*I think the above covers that.*
--
No machine can distinct the totally distinguishable from the non
distinguishable.
--
*I do not think this applies, but I think my clarifications may help
decide the issue.*
*Many incomplete codings [machine, data or both] should produce output
which is at least partly a guess on some of the incomplete coding [output
of a random oracle]. I would identify this as the transition from an
incomplete divisor [a universe state by assumption A2] to a successor
divisor [universe state] which itself may be incomplete – a trace in “A” is
started, continued or terminated [on a complete divisor]. *
--
Since I think any number can be description and thus a member of a divisor,
“A” since it contains all divisors by assumption A1 contains all numbers. I
consider “A” to be the Everything.
---
*See the clarification of “Divisor” above.*
It works with the superset above. I think. As you are a bit unclear, I take
the opportunity to understand you in the frame which makes already some
sense to me (mainly the mechanist hypothesis).
--
*See my last comment below.*
--
To get a dynamic in the “A” - one of my personal goals - I point to the
incompleteness of a subset of divisors.
A universe [see assumption A2] needs to answer all meaningful questions
relevant to it, so it must eventually become complete in this sense.
Thus a trace from state to state is created within “A” for each universe. The
trace eventually ends on a complet
RE: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi Liz: A number can be interpreted as encoded information. The decoder can even be a segment of the number. Hal From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 7:53 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything On 1 April 2014 12:48, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Bruno: Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model: A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see definition "i". As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive integer ?]. Sorry I don't quite see this. If you want to draw a distinction between a particular shade of red and any other colour, how is that a number? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi Bruno: Reintroducing some mathematical terms to my model: A distinction is a description of a boundary between two things see definition ”i”. As a description it is a number - I suppose [a positive integer ?]. This makes a divisor - a collection of distinctions by definition “ii” - a collection of numbers. Since I think any number can be a description and thus a member of a divisor, “A” since it contains all divisors by assumption A1 contains all numbers. I consider “A” to be the Everything. To get a dynamic in the “A” - one of my personal goals - I point to the incompleteness of a subset of divisors. A universe [see assumption A2] needs to answer all meaningful questions relevant to it, so it must eventually become complete in this sense. Thus a trace from state to state is created within “A” for each universe. The trace eventually ends on a complete divisor. I see “A” and its traces as a UD. As for the issue of the nature of life please see my draft at: *http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*<http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/> It is a pleasure to converse with you again. Hal On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:12:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I read and try to understand. I am not sure life is inherently > self-destructive. It is more inherently self-replacing. > Can you define the A of your assumption more specifically? Your notion of > divisors is quite vague for me. > > Best, > > Bruno > > > On 31 Mar 2014, at 01:21, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > Hi everyone: > > I am currently interested in two questions: > > Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything > [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno. > > If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of > life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the > Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of > possible universes? > > Comments welcome. > > Thanks > > Hal Ruhl > > > > DEFINITIONS: > > i) Distinction: > > That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors. > > ii) Devisor: > > That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some > divisors are thus collections of divisors.] > > iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call > them Nothing(s). > > iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of > distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s). > > > MODEL: > > 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible > divisors. Call this set “A”. > > “A” encompasses every distinction. “A” is thus itself a divisor by > definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times > [“A” contains “A” which contains “A” and so on. > > 2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor > is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to > change? It cannot be both. > > This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential > distinction of being static or dynamic. > > 3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no > such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one. This is a type > of incompleteness. [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful > question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes > another] That is the “N”s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless > meaningful to them. [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar > functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic > Systems – See Godel.] > > The “N” are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition. They > each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction. > They thereby transition into “S”s. > > 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. > > 5) Some of the “S”s resulting from “N”s [see (3)] may themselves be > incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction > family. They must evolve – via similar incompleteness driven transitions - > until “complete” in the sense of (3). > > 6) Assumption # A2: Each element of “A” is a universe state. > > 7) The result is a “flow” of “S”s most of which are encompassing more and > more distinction with each transition. > > 8) This "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions > from element to element of the All. That is (by A2) a transition from a > universe state to a successor universe state. > > 9) Our Universe’s evolution would be
My model re Comp and Life re the Everything
Hi everyone: I am currently interested in two questions: Does my model of why there are dynamic universes within the Everything [latest version is below] include Bruno's Comp? Hi Bruno. If life is inherently self destructive under any reasonable definition of life [see some of my recent posts], then how does this impact the Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of possible universes? Comments welcome. Thanks Hal Ruhl DEFINITIONS: i) Distinction: That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors. ii) Devisor: That which encloses a quantity [zero to every] of distinctions. [Some divisors are thus collections of divisors.] iii): Define “N”s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). iv): Define “S”s as divisors that enclose a non zero number of distinctions but not all distinctions. Call them Something(s). MODEL: 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors. Call this set “A”. “A” encompasses every distinction. “A” is thus itself a divisor by definition (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times [“A” contains “A” which contains “A” and so on. 2) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to change? It cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 3) At least one divisor type - the “N”s, by definition (iii), enclose no such distinction but by (2) they must enclose this one. This is a type of incompleteness. [A complete divisor can answer any self meaningful question but not necessarily consistently i.e. sometimes one way sometimes another] That is the “N”s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless meaningful to them. [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic Systems – See Godel.] The “N” are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition. They each must at some point spontaneously enclose this stability distinction. They thereby transition into “S”s. 4) By (3) Transitions between divisors exist. 5) Some of the “S”s resulting from “N”s [see (3)] may themselves be incomplete in a similar manner but perhaps in a different distinction family. They must evolve – via similar incompleteness driven transitions - until “complete” in the sense of (3). 6) Assumption # A2: Each element of “A” is a universe state. 7) The result is a “flow” of “S”s most of which are encompassing more and more distinction with each transition. 8) This "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from element to element of the All. That is (by A2) a transition from a universe state to a successor universe state. 9) Our Universe’s evolution would be one such path on which the "S" constantly gets larger. 10) Since incompleteness can have multiple resolutions the path of an evolving “S” may split into multiple paths at any transition. 11) A path may also originate on an incomplete “S” not just the "N"s. 12) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions. 13) Transition paths [“traces” may be a better term] can be of any length. 14) A particular transition may not resolve any incompleteness of the subject evolving "S". 15) White Rabbits: Since many elements of "A" are very large, large transitions could become infrequent on a long path [trace] whereon the particular "S" itself gets large. (Also few White Rabbits if both sides of the divisors on either side of the transition are sufficiently similar in size). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Hi Russell and everyone I appreciate the comments in the thread such as those on entropy vs universe dynamics which reveal the fact that I may be somewhat old school re physics. In the blog discussion I pointed to in my earlier post I do cover many points. For example at definition #3, I discuss closed systems. I hypothetically designate our solar system as essentially closed for the purposes of the blog post. Over the duration of my posting on this list I have presented a collection of models regarding how the Everything can allow and implement dynamic universes at least as viewed by life entities inside those universes. I am currently interested in several aspects of the results of the observation of life in our local life system, how the observational results can be understood, and what impact do the resulting conclusions have on models of the Everything and humanities [Homo Sapiens Sapiens] continued existence or perhaps imposed life style changes. In the blog post I am trying to explain why numerous warnings of impending socio-economic disaster have been, by prior trials, largely ignored. I would like to refine the blog [or even abandon it if it is shown to be unrealistic] so I would deeply appreciate comments on it. Hal Ruhl On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:28:15 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:17PM +1300, LizR wrote: > > > Yes, I think that's what Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life > > existing indefinitely, too. The entropy ceiling goes up indefinitely, > but > > the energy remaining goes down, and ultimately I would imagine it ends > up > > at the noise level. Since entropy is an emergent concept I'm not sure > where > > the rising ceiling gets us in the long run, although it certainly helps > in > > the "short" term (the big bang was near equilibrium, yet we're now far > from > > it). > > > > It's not as clear cut as that. In a Friedman universe, gravity > eventually slows the expansion of the universe, (whether open or > closed) so the entropy ceiling slows down in being raised. This would > imply that eventually that dissipative process will eventually > assymptotically consume the available free energy. > > (Apparently, in a closed Friedman universe, it is possible to obtain > energy from the big crunch - Tipler's Omega point, so I probably > haven't got this quite right for closed universes. Something to do > with reversing the direction of the second law, I suppose.) > > But it now appears that the universe's expansion is accelerating due > to dark energy. This would entail that free energy will forever be > created faster than the dissipative processes can consume it. > > Again, consider this to all be revised again in our lifetimes. > > Cheers > > -- > > > > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Hi Liz: The physics that I learned holds that the energy in a universe is constant. Therefore entropy in such a universe can not exceed 100% of this energy being unable to do work. That seems a max limit to me. Is there a way in which new energy flows into a universe? It seems to me that this question has no current resolution. However in a practical sense we need to consider the realistic maximum energy ultimally available to a particular life system under the rules of its universe. Are there universes that have no such maximum? Perhaps but ours does not seem to be one of them. Speed of light and all of that. How do we deal with that? How do we deal with the practical observation that the local life system is apparently almost completely unaware? And does it matter if it was mostly aware? How do these questions affect the Everything concept? Yours Hal On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:37:59 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: > On 19 March 2014 12:52, Hal Ruhl >wrote: > >> >> To answer your question I think the narrowest characterization of the >> type of life I talk about is that it is one of the possible processes >> within a universe that if implemented increase the entropy of that >> universe. Further all such processes will be implemented in any universe >> in which they are possible. Since entropy has a fixed maximum in a closed >> system (a universe) then life must enable its own extinction. >> > > I'm told (mainly by PCW Davies iirc) that the maximum entropy in an > expanding universe increases indefinitely. This is how a big bang fireball > that was more or less at thermodynamic equilibrium could turn into a > universe full of dissipative systems. > > This may not however prevent life from enabling its own extinction (at > least in the very, very, very long run) - although I'd say at the present > epoch it is mainly stars that are enabling its extinction. (Along with its > existence, too, of course.) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Hi John: It is a distinct pleasure to hear from you. To answer your question I think the narrowest characterization of the type of life I talk about is that it is one of the possible processes within a universe that if implemented increase the entropy of that universe. Further all such processes will be implemented in any universe in which they are possible. Since entropy has a fixed maximum in a closed system (a universe) then life must enable its own extinction. Yours Hal On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:23:58 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: > Dear Hal Ruhl, > > it has been for long since we had our last exchangeI clicked the URL > and found mostly agreeable general ideas (with my peculiar thoughts in > frequent questioning). > > *May I ask WHAT kind of LIFE are you talking about?* > > I believe our Terresstrial 'bio' is only a segment. Then again evolution > etc. are not within my agnostic framework of worldview, so your explanation > would find fertile grounds. > > Good to hear from you again > > John Mikes oldtimer > > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Hal Ruhl > > > wrote: > >> Hi everyone >> >> Below is a URL from one of my posts on the subject of life being >> inherently self destructive which I believe it to be. It provides my >> curent argument on the subject. >> >> I think such discussion is relevant to the main history of this group's >> threads because if life is indeed always inherently self >> destructive wherever it appears in any allowed universe then why is there >> such a down select in the types of allowed universes. >> >> - >> >> *http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*<http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/> >> >> >> >> >> Hal Ruhl >> >> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are 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.
Re: New NASA study predicts high probability of collapse of industrial civilization
Hi everyone Below is a URL from one of my posts on the subject of life being inherently self destructive which I believe it to be. It provides my curent argument on the subject. I think such discussion is relevant to the main history of this group's threads because if life is indeed always inherently self destructive wherever it appears in any allowed universe then why is there such a down select in the types of allowed universes. - *http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*<http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/> ---- Hal Ruhl > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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: Vote to make ecocide illegal
Hi Bruno and Liz: I think it is not fruitful to look further at the words "natural" and "unnatural". They seem to carry too much baggage. I should not have used them. I suggest looking at my post I pointed to: *http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*<http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/> and go through it and discuss it one step at a time. It uses the term "inherent". After that we could explore how the collection of universes in the "Everything" permits the result of the discussion. For example if the result is that life appears always inherently self extinguishing how does this lack of choice influence the origin and structure [if this is a reasonably applicable term] of the Everything. Hal Ruhl On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote: > > On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl > > wrote: > >> Hi Liz: >> >> I am not sure I understand your comment. >> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that >> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches >> it accelerate. >> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating >> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an >> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.]. >> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself. "Unnatural" would be >> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable >> boundaries.] >> In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus >> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective >> absent an "unnatural" earlier one. >> >> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if > only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even > more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on > the planet apart from deep sea smokers. > > I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and > unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at > justifying ourselves. > > > > It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by > the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural! > It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to > avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm > the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey > the physical laws. > > "naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a > role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's God will". > I think this has a name: fatalism. > > Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a theological > error. > > Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable > "truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a > cul-de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.) > > We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial control, > and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true. > > > > > I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some > members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I > don't particularly want the same for our children. > > > OK. > > 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-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/groups/opt_out. > > > 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal
On Monday, February 10, 2014 9:57:56 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > >> >> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if > only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even > more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on > the planet apart from deep sea smokers. > > I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and > unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at > justifying ourselves. > > I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some > members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I > don't particularly want the same for our children. > > Hi Liz: The argument I present is based in the laws of physics as we know them in our universe and resulting information flows. The laws of physics make no kind of judgment as to the nature of the emotional consequences of actions that result from them other than are the resulting emotions a correct result of the physics in play. My position is that the emotions anti ecocide will never come even close to outweighing the emotions pro the process that leads to the ecocide. However I do make allowance for such a possibility. See the material I pointed to: http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/ Hal Ruhl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal
Hi Liz: I am not sure I understand your comment. As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches it accelerate. There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.]. By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself. "Unnatural" would be external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable boundaries.] In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective absent an "unnatural" earlier one. Hal Ruhl On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:33:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > It certainly isn't natural at the rate we've been doing it. We're coming > close to a cometary impact. > > > On 11 February 2014 14:02, Hal Ruhl > > wrote: > >> >> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> http://www.endecocide.eu/ >>> >>> Hi Liz >>> >> Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread "Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia >> Spectrum" wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and >> unavoidable aspect of life. >> A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at >> >> http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/ >> >> Hal Ruhl >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are 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/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:35:01 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > http://www.endecocide.eu/ > > Hi Liz > Back on 10/31/2012 I started a thread "Life: Origin, Purpose, and Qualia Spectrum" wherein I argue that ecocide [to adopt a term] is a natural and unavoidable aspect of life. A draft later version [4/18/2013] is at http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/ Hal Ruhl -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
RE: A humble suggestion to the group
Hi Russell and everyone Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I find something I like. My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something in there that could help a wiki construction. As I recall I once a very long time ago started a FAQ for the list but the project died. Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:38 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have the time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other people's efforts. We must make sure we have backups this time! PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the wiki back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :( https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx Cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
Re: A humble suggestion to the group
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > > > Hi Russell and everyone > > > > > > > > > > > My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be > something > > in there that could help a wiki construction. > > Backup of the wiki or an email archive? Email archives exist, of > course, particularly through googlegroups, but seem to be difficult to > search, for some reason. > > Hi Russell It is just email posts. It may not be of use but I can try searching it if someone has a search criteria. Hal Ruhl > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
Re: A humble suggestion to the group
Hi Russell and everyone Interesting that the first time I look at the list for a very long time I find something I like. My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be something in there that could help a wiki construction. As I recall I once a very long time ago started a FAQ for the list but the project died. Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: *everything-list@googlegroups.com* [ *mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com* ] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:38 PM To: Everything List Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group That is a pity, given I wrote quite a few of those pages. I don't have the time now to repeat the effort :(. But I'll chime on of other people's efforts. We must make sure we have backups this time! PS - checked the Wayback machine, and it did only one archive of the wiki back in 21st of July last year - alas it got an Error 403 :( *https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx*<https://web.archive.org/web/20130721124015/http:/everythingwiki.gcn.cx> Cheers -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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/groups/opt_out.
RE: Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger : Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world
Hi Roger : Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal Sorry if this posts more than once - some of my posts just disappear -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On Income Fairness in the USA and the world
Hi Roger: Try this and sort by wealth Gini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: clearing up the confusion on the fairness index
Hi Roger : Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States Then Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
This is an effort to clarify what I have said in earlier posts. I
think it strengths the idea that we have a very substantial problem on
our hands.
[Terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of Physics” definition]
1) Definition {1}: Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a
force.
2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed:
a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)]
b) Gravitational
c) Electromagnetic
d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces]
e) Dark Energy [proposed]
3) Definition {2}: Work (W) is the FLOW OF ENERGY amongst the various
types in (2) by means of a change in the spatial configuration,
dynamics and/or amount of mass in a physical system brought about by
an actual application of a force to a mass.
4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types
can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work
as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Less ability to
apply forces to masses] [See the Second Law of Thermodynamics]
5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will
take place immediately through an energy flow conduit.
6) If we look at the usual attempts to define "life", we find things
such as has a metabolism, grows larger [+ growth], procreates, etc.
These require a FLOW OF ENERGY (3) from an initial ability to do work
to a lower ability to do work (4) and through the life entity or its
associated instrumentality [Tools: such as a rock hammer, bow, car
engine or its piece of a vast food production and distribution system
etc.]. Think of the life entity as a pipe or "conduit" for this FLOW
OF ENERGY.]
7) Conclusion [1]: Therefore from (1) thru (6), wherever the
possibility of life exists [the proper ingredients are appropriately
present] life will appear as rapidly as possible. This is the
"origin" of life proposed herein.
8) All [more references needed] FLOWS OF ENERGY suffer from what are
known as "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding
coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial statics
[location] and dynamics, ignition temperature requirements,
electromagnetic repulsion, etc. ["Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" is
not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article
in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search
found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in "Cosmology The Science
of the Universe" by Edward Robert Harrison. If energy flow hang-up
barriers did not exist then by (5) the universe would have become
incapable of supporting life very soon after it began. [Big Bang?]
9) Conclusion [2] Therefore "life" is just an energy flow conduit
necessarily drilling holes in energy flow hang-up barriers as per the
current ability of the particular life entity so as to enable even
more energy flow i.e. + growth, procreation, etc.
10) Definition {3} Operable work depletion: The depletion of the
ability to actually apply a force to a mass and as a result accomplish
the energy flow required by (3) with the consequences in (4) in a
region of the universe occupied by a particular biosphere. There may
be a great many biospheres in the universe.
11) Conclusion [3]: (9) and (10) combine into the "proposed Function
#1" [pF1] of life. ["Function" seems better than "Purpose".] In other
words life's function is to hasten the operable work depletion in its
region of the host universe.
12) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no
upper bound, thus capable of producing ever more capable energy flow
hang-up busters.
-
i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity
of the current system energy configuration both internal and external
to the life entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its
"Actual Function" [AF] in its universe. In our universe it appears
that even single cells may have antenna to facilitate this detection.
See "ScienceNews", 11/03/12, page 16. I have proposed that life's AF
in this universe is the one I derived above. I see no reason how the
life’s Origin that I propose and pF1 conflict with such antenna on
individual cells.
ii) Freewill: pF1 precludes it because life must always follow its
function, so too for any Actual Function [AF] that differs from pF1.
iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an
extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pF1
would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a
species but we can't self exclude ourselves from the extinction
because of pF1. There have been a number of extinction events.
However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities
with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the
extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg
event.
iv) Current Economic Conditions: The news in this area has been
rather bad for some time. The most frequently offered solution h
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
I have tried to post this several times. It appears I am again having issues with my email software. I am sorry if it eventually posts multiple times. Hi John and Russell: As far as I know all the "Laws of Physics" are based on observation and are absent closed form proof. Given the data I have seen, resource consumption and real GDP follow similar size trajectories. Twenty or more years ago I played with ideas on how they [using quality of life experience for which real GDP would be a reasonable proxy] might be decoupled to the benefit of species survival . This included consideration of what I now call pAP1. Recently I had reason to resurrect these old unpublished writings. Review of these writings, conversations with associates and the vantage point of 20 more years of observation have caused me to believe that pAP1 has a global and unbreakable hold on human behavior. I believe even outliers such as survivalists if subjected to accurate energy flow analysis would be shown to be fully in its grasp. The consequences of this would be rather unpleasant as I indicated and Russell appears to support. Thus my recent posts looking for a falsification of pAP1. [I am currently rewriting the early post to improve clarity.] John: I think my response to Stephen re his "finite resolution." responds to your post also. Hal AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be proportional to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy without wrecking the planet. But yes, ultimately life will have to move on from H. Sapiens... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
I have tried to post this several times. It appears I am again having issues with my email software. I am sorry if it eventually posts multiple times. Hi John and Russell: As far as I know all the “Laws of Physics” are based on observation and are absent closed form proof. Given the data I have seen, resource consumption and real GDP follow similar size trajectories. Twenty or more years ago I played with ideas on how they [using quality of life experience for which real GDP would be a reasonable proxy] might be decoupled to the benefit of species survival . This included consideration of what I now call pAP1. Recently I had reason to resurrect these old unpublished writings. Review of these writings, conversations with associates and the vantage point of 20 more years of observation have caused me to believe that pAP1 has a global and unbreakable hold on human behavior. I believe even outliers such as survivalists if subjected to accurate energy flow analysis would be shown to be fully in its grasp. The consequences of this would be rather unpleasant as I indicated and Russell appears to support. Thus my recent posts looking for a falsification of pAP1. [I am currently rewriting the early post to improve clarity.] John: I think my response to Stephen re his “finite resolution…” responds to your post also. Hal AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be proportional to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy without wrecking the planet. But yes, ultimately life will have to move on from H. Sapiens... -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii: iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pAP1 [fixed typo]. There have been a number of extinction events. However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg event. Iiia) Current Economic Conditions: The news in this area has been rather bad for some time. The most frequently offered solution has been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow real GDP. In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially. Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned. However, the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1. Thus if pAP1 is correct then no other solution can be offered. In this case weep for the children. I hope someone can falsify pAP1. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stepen: Interesting post. I indicated in the initiating posts that life should rapidly appear where the conditions supporting it are found. I suspect that in most cases the sphere of influence for a particular instance of a biosphere is small when compared to the size of the universe. Therefore I propose to change "heat death" to "operative heat death" re your "finite resolving power" for observers. This should allow for the possibility of an "open" universe. I am also considering changing "purpose of life" to "function of life". Thanks Hal Dear Hal, What consequences would there be is the Universe (all that exists) is truly infinite and eternal (no absolute beginning or end) and what we observe as a finite (spatially and temporally) universe is just the result of our finite ability to compute the contents of our observations? It is helpful to remember that thermodynamic arguments, such as the heat engine concept, apply only to closed systems. It is better to assume open systems and finite resolving power (or equivalently finite computational abilities) for observers. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Roger: I try to practice reasonable bandwidth conservation. Your comment "You say life hastens death." which is in my response seemed sufficient for the discussion. If you need something from one of your prior posts and you do not have it just cut and paste it from the Google archive. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/everything-list Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:42 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum Hi Hal Ruhl Sorry, I can not respond as you clipped off my previous post containing said metaphors. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/9/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-08, 12:13:48 Subject: RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum Hi Roger: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:09 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum Hi Hal, Just look at the metaphors you use to see that your idea below is wrong. You say that life hastens death. Of course it does - all day every day in . Animals are parasitic on photosynthesis and frequently each other as well as the energy hang-up barriers they must bust. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Roger: Roger: "Talk to Dawkins. The purpose of the gene is to create more genes. So the purpose of life (at a minimum) is to create more life." Response from Hal: No. Life creates more life in compliance with pAP1. A reasonable result is one heck of a mass extinction. Repeat until there are no more operative energy hang-up barriers. Roger: "You may notice that earth was once lifeless but its surface become alive with plants, fishes..." SNIP Response from Hal: You help make my point. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Roger: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:09 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum Hi Hal, Just look at the metaphors you use to see that your idea below is wrong. You say that life hastens death. Of course it does - all day every day in . Animals are parasitic on photosynthesis and frequently each other as well as the energy hang-up barriers they must bust. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 6:56 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 11/7/2012 11:40 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote: > Hi Stephen: > > pAP1 is #8 of the discussion initiating posts > > 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as > many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the > particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its > energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. > In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. > > Hal Dear Hal, Is "heat death" truly real or a necessary concept? Well the term has been around for awhile but I have not seen a proposed end state or series of end states of the universe in which the ability to run a heat engine does not become zero or asymptotically approach it. Hal > > > -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com > [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:07 AM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum > > On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote: >> Hi Everyone: >> >> This may show up more than once as a few others did. In recent days >> I have had issues with my internet connection. It has been 16 hours >> since I sent this the second time. This time I tried sending it >> again and then again as plain text. Very sorry if my troubles cause >> some > clutter. >> At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii: >> >> iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an >> extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 >> would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a >> species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of >> pAP1 [fixed typo]. There have been a number of extinction events. >> However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life >> entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the >> extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg > event. >> iiia) Current Economic Conditions: The news in this area has been >> rather bad for some time. The most frequently offered solution has >> been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow >> real GDP. In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially. >> Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts >> under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned. However, >> the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1. Thus if pAP1 is >> correct then no other solution [new trick] can be offered. In this >> case weep for the children. I hope someone can falsify pAP1 and >> anything > near it. >> >> Hal >> > Dear Hal, > > Could you restate pAP1? > > > -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence
Hi Roger: You have to look at the net effect of the entire biosphere. I am not a biologist and can't speak to the total net effect of photosynthesis. But it does store some part of the energy flow it encompasses. Humans are rather substantial energy hang-up barrier busters. We also store internal energy as fat or external energy as say chemical energy in a battery or gravitational energy as water behind a dam. We are also dependent on the storage ability of photosynthesis to live. I am currently convinced that the net effect of the biosphere [life] is in compliance with pAP1. I suspect that each individual life entity upon sufficiently close inspection will be found to be as well. Further the environment necessary for life to arise as I propose and be sustainable is hardly random. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:51 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl Since life in the form of photosynthesis creates order in the form of cell structure out of a random (entropic) environment, life seems to reverse time's arrow, and hence slow down the heat death of the universe. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 14:27:03 Subject: RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Roger: pAP1 [proposed Actual Purpose #1] is the life purpose I introduced in the discussion initiating posts. See below. I recently posted giving acronyms. AP is the actual purpose of life acronym. 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:34 PM To: everything-list Subject: Re: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl What is pAP1 ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 12:18:21 Subject: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Roger: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM To: everything-list Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl Consciousness = life = intelligence. These are an inseparable, subjective, inextended properties of a living being. Hal: Consciousness is merely a qualia of life enabling life's compliance with pAP1. In addition, intelligence requires free will of some degree in order to make life-preserving choices for an associated, objective body, such as are required for self-animation, metabolism, self-defense, eating and mating. Hal: pAP1 precludes freewill because ALL of life's qualia [such as consciousness] merely enable compliance with pAP1. Hal Ruhl -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegrou
RE: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence
Hi Roger: pAP1 [proposed Actual Purpose #1] is the life purpose I introduced in the discussion initiating posts. See below. I recently posted giving acronyms. AP is the actual purpose of life acronym. 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 12:34 PM To: everything-list Subject: Re: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl What is pAP1 ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/7/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Hal Ruhl Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-07, 12:18:21 Subject: RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Roger: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM To: everything-list Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl Consciousness = life = intelligence. These are an inseparable, subjective, inextended properties of a living being. Hal: Consciousness is merely a qualia of life enabling life's compliance with pAP1. In addition, intelligence requires free will of some degree in order to make life-preserving choices for an associated, objective body, such as are required for self-animation, metabolism, self-defense, eating and mating. Hal: pAP1 precludes freewill because ALL of life's qualia [such as consciousness] merely enable compliance with pAP1. Hal Ruhl -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Consciousness = life = intelligence
Hi Roger: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM To: everything-list Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence Hi Hal Ruhl Consciousness = life = intelligence. These are an inseparable, subjective, inextended properties of a living being. Hal: Consciousness is merely a qualia of life enabling life's compliance with pAP1. In addition, intelligence requires free will of some degree in order to make life-preserving choices for an associated, objective body, such as are required for self-animation, metabolism, self-defense, eating and mating. Hal: pAP1 precludes freewill because ALL of life's qualia [such as consciousness] merely enable compliance with pAP1. Hal Ruhl -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: pAP1 is #8 of the discussion initiating posts 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:07 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 11/7/2012 9:38 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote: > Hi Everyone: > > This may show up more than once as a few others did. In recent days I > have had issues with my internet connection. It has been 16 hours > since I sent this the second time. This time I tried sending it again > and then again as plain text. Very sorry if my troubles cause some clutter. > > At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii: > > iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an > extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 > would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a > species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of > pAP1 [fixed typo]. There have been a number of extinction events. > However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities > with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the > extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg event. > > iiia) Current Economic Conditions: The news in this area has been > rather bad for some time. The most frequently offered solution has > been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow real > GDP. In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially. > Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts > under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned. However, > the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1. Thus if pAP1 is > correct then no other solution [new trick] can be offered. In this > case weep for the children. I hope someone can falsify pAP1 and anything near it. > > > Hal > Dear Hal, Could you restate pAP1? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: This may show up more than once as a few others did. In recent days I have had issues with my internet connection. It has been 16 hours since I sent this the second time. This time I tried sending it again and then again as plain text. Very sorry if my troubles cause some clutter. At this time I would like to go a bit further re item iii: iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pAP1 [fixed typo]. There have been a number of extinction events. However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg event. iiia) Current Economic Conditions: The news in this area has been rather bad for some time. The most frequently offered solution has been that national economies and thus the world economy must grow real GDP. In fact grow it exponentially or even super exponentially. Since the planet has only a finite supply of energy - see prior posts under #2 for energy types - a new trick has to be learned. However, the offered solution is in compliance with pAP1. Thus if pAP1 is correct then no other solution [new trick] can be offered. In this case weep for the children. I hope someone can falsify pAP1 and anything near it. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following three topics: i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity of the current system energy configuration both internal and external to the life entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its "Actual Purpose" [AP] in its universe. In our universe it appears that even single cells may have antenna to facilitate this detection. See "ScienceNews", 11/03/12, page 16. I have proposed that life's AP in this universe is the one I derived in earlier posts. Call this "proposed Actual Purpose 1" [pAP1]. I see no reason how the life's Origin that I propose and pAP1 conflict with such antenna on individual cells. ii) Freewill: pAP1 precludes it because life must always follow its purpose, so too for any AP that differs from pAP1. iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of an extinction event [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because pAP1 would be the only priority for life. We may not be extinguished as a species but we can't exclude ourselves from the extinction because of pPA1. There have been a number of extinction events. However, evolution has used some of these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves from the K-Pg event. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements
Hi John: See my 11/4/12 @ 4:43PM post on life re proposal "ii" - freewill precluded. Hal Ruhl From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:57 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Debunking people's belief in free will takes the intention out of their movements On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote: > The finding implies that free will is illusory. Free will is not illusionary. A illusion is a perfectly respectable subjective phenomena, but free will is not respectable, free will is just gibberish. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows: i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe that consciousness is distributed across life entities in accordance with their ability to act in accord with it. Even single celled entities would have a non zero degree of it to properly enable life's purpose. ii) Freewill: Life's purpose as given herein precludes it. iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of a mass extinction [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because implementation of the purpose as given herein is the only priority for life. We can't exclude ourselves from the extinction. [There have been a number of mass extinctions but evolution has sometimes used these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves. Edited first post 1) Definition (1): Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force. 2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed: a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)] b) Gravitational c) Electromagnetic d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces] e) Dark Energy 3) Definition (2): Work (W) is the flow of energy amongst the various types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass. 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics] 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place immediately. 6) Conclusion (1): Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible. This is the "origin" of life herein. [If we look at the usual attempts to define "life", we find things such as grow, procreate,[Thanks John] etc. These require a flow of energy from an initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through the life entity. Think of the life entity as a pipe or "conduit" for this flow.] 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. ["Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in "Cosmology The Science of the Universe" by Edward Robert Harrison. [Therefore "life" herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular entity to enable even more such energy flow.] 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows: i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe that consciousness is distributed across life entities in accordance with their ability to act in accord with it. Even single celled entities would have a non zero degree of it to properly enable life's purpose. ii) Freewill: Life's purpose as given herein precludes it. iii) Species survival: Life on this planet is in the midst of a mass extinction [not a new idea] that can't be stopped because implementation of the purpose as given herein is the only priority for life. We can't exclude ourselves from the extinction. [There have been a number of mass extinctions but evolution has sometimes used these to produce new life entities with greater energy hang-up barrier busting ability than the extinguished ones - new life entities such as ourselves. Edited first post 1) Definition (1): Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force. 2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed: a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)] b) Gravitational c) Electromagnetic d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces] e) Dark Energy 3) Definition (2): Work (W) is the flow of energy amongst the various types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass. 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics] 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place immediately. 6) Conclusion (1): Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible. This is the "origin" of life herein. [If we look at the usual attempts to define "life", we find things such as grow, procreate,[Thanks John] etc. These require a flow of energy from an initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through the life entity. Think of the life entity as a pipe or "conduit" for this flow.] 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. ["Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in "Cosmology The Science of the Universe" by Edward Robert Harrison. [Therefore "life" herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular entity to enable even more such energy flow.] 8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. This is the "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen and John: I believe I absorbed the "evolution is a random walk with a lower bound but no upper bound" from my readings of Stephen Gould. I have no memory of where and when and the memory may be false. In any event I do not see that it excludes selection. I think there was an illustration something like: A staggering drunk is walking down a city street on a sidewalk bounded on one side by a solid row of locked buildings and on the other by the street. Given a long enough walk the drunk will always end up in the gutter - the "gutter" in this case representing either a new player on the field or a pruning. This discussion is important to where I want to take my posts. Thanks Hal -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 11/4/2012 12:09 AM, John Mikes wrote: > snip > ## to 9 I have objections. I cannot imagine (maybe my mistake) > evolution without a goal, a final aim which would require an > intelligent design to approach it. (I may have one: the > re-distribution into the Plenitude). My way (as of yesterday) is the > ease-and-potential path of changes allowed by the available > configurations (relations) when a change occurs. > NO RANDOM, it would make a grits out of nature. Even authors with high > preference on random treatises withdrew into a "conditional random" > when I attacked the term. Conditionality kills random of course. > So in my terms: NO random mutations, (especially not FOR survival) I > call 'evolution' the HISTORY of our universe. The unsuccessful mutants > die, the successful go on - science detects them in its snapshots > taken and explains them religiously. (Survival of the fittest - the > Dinosaur was fit when it got extinct by the change in circumstances). > I accept ONE random (in mathematical puzzles): "take ANY number..." > > Your "lower, but not upper bound" is highly appreciable. Thanks. > > I apologize for my haphazard remarks upon prima vista reading. The > list-discussion is not a well-founded scientific discourse upon new > ideas. Most people tell what they formulated over years. A reply is > many times instantaneous. > snip > [HR] 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but > no upper bound. snip Dear John, I wanted to make a remark on just this part of your post as I need to ask a question. Why is the Selective aspect of evolution almost completely ignored? It is easy to talk about mutations and models of them, such as random walks - which I favor!, but what about the selection aspect? what about how the Tree of Life is almost constantly pruned by events that kill off or otherwise blunt growth in some directions as opposed to others? My question to you is specific. How do polymers mold themselves to local parameters that influence their molecules? What determines their shape? Is there a deterministic explanation of the shape of a polymer? Would this explanation work for, say, DNA or peptite molecules? -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi John: My responses are below within an edited original post. Thanks for your comments. 1) Definition (1): Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force. * Re the use of "ability" here: What I am trying to do here is establish a process such that at the instant an ability becomes a possibility that possibility is realized immediately since the necessary series of events unfold immediately . Take as an example a radioactive isotope deep in the earth's core. We can reasonably assume that it was fused together billions of years ago in some ancient stellar event. Since then it has had the "ability" to undergo fission [ a type of energy ] but has not because conditions in it have never been quite right. Then all of a sudden conditions are right - appropriate Bosons are exchanged and the fission unfolds. Energy is redistributed amongst the various types. Thus at the moment I will therefore leave the above wording as is. * * 2) There are several types of energy currently known or proposed : I agree with you about Dark Energy - I had intended the wording to be as it now appears above. ++ a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M<=>E/(c*c)] I do not think the above is a restriction in the sense I think you mean. For example a spring when compressed [as I understand it] is more massive when compressed then when relaxed. ++ b) Gravitional c) Electromagnetic d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces] e) Dark Energy 3) Definition (2) Work (W): Work is the flow of energy amongst the various types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass. 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics] 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place immediately. 6) Conclusion (1): Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible. The "origin" of life herein. \ If we look at the usual attempts to define "life", we find things such as grow [larger I suppose], reproduce, etc. These require a flow of energy from an initial ability to do work to a lower ability to do work and through the life entity. Think of the life entity as a pipe or "conduit" for this flow. Therefore "life" herein is just an energy flow conduit drilling holes in energy flow hang-up barriers as rapidly as possible for the particular entity to enable even more such energy flow - a simple but not necessarily uplifting origin-purpose. *** 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. ["Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific American and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the repulsion hangup in "Cosmology The Science of the Universe". 8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. The "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound. A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of particular life entities] should await a critique and possibly a revision of the above. Thanks again for your comments. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: -Original Message- > Hi Hal, > > Could it be that information is being created and "forcing" the > physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space > is not a conserved quantity! > > [HH] I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of > Dark Energy but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are > completely isolated from each other. > Of course they are, otherwise we would see them! Perhaps we have yet to look in the right place in the right way. Perhaps a component of Dark Energy is a first peak at a larger world. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: I think this got lost so I sending it again. -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 11/2/2012 4:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: > Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine: > http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html > > I took a quick look. I may need some help understanding it fully. I > occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially > uniform leak of information from "outside" combined with a maximum > information packing density in our universe. Hi Hal, Could it be that information is being created and "forcing" the physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space is not a conserved quantity! I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of Dark Energy but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are completely isolated from each other. Hal -- Onward! Stephen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 6:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 11/2/2012 4:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: > Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine: > http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html > > I took a quick look. I may need some help understanding it fully. I > occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially > uniform leak of information from "outside" combined with a maximum > information packing density in our universe. Hi Hal, Could it be that information is being created and "forcing" the physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space is not a conserved quantity! I think that what you mention is at least part of the source of Dark Energy but I wonder if the members of the multiverse are completely isolated. Hal -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Stephen: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:50 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum On 10/31/2012 9:48 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: > Hi Everyone: > > I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a > discussion regarding the aspects of what we call "life" in our > universe starting in a simple manner as follows: [terms not defined > herein have the usual "Laws of Physics" definition] > > 1) Definition (1): Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force. > > 2) There are several types of energy currently known: > > a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)] > b) Gravitational > c) Electromagnetic > d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces] > e) Dark Energy Hi Hal, Nice post! Thank you. Any way that the energy/force/work relation can be considered as a broken symmetry restoration concept? I had not thought of the "unfolding" of the scene I propose in terms of symmetry. But now that you mention it is seems that our universe may have started with full rotational symmetry [a point] and may end up with the same symmetry based on an infinite uniform and quite cold gas. > > 3) Definition (2) Work (W) Work is the flow of energy amongst the various types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass. > > 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types > can't be reestablished and the new configuration can't do as much work > as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of > Thermodynamics] Isn't the maximum entropy of a system a type of symmetry, where all equiprobable states "look the same"? See above response. > > 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place immediately. > > 6) Conclusion (1): Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible. The "origin" of life herein. Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine: http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html I took a quick look. I may need some help understanding it fully. I occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially uniform leak of information from "outside" combined with a maximum information packing density in our universe. > > 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as "Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. ["Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers" is not my terminology - I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in "Cosmology The Science of the Universe" by Edward Robert Harrison. > > 8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. The "purpose" of life herein. In other words life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. > > 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound. Do you see mutation as a one-to-many map and selection as a many -to-one map? Well the DNA strings we know of are finite [n characters] so a particular example is a "one" in some sense and this string's finite number of mutations 4 ^ n+ is a "many". However, I do not see that selection will always produce just "one" successor. My intent with #9 was to open the door a crack on what I would like to post next. Slightly larger crack: I too have been chewing on these concepts for many years. I have several unpublished works expressing versions of these ideas such as "A Path to Socioeconomic Sustainability", 1992, Library of Congress deposit # TXu 554 900 among others and a very few published tiny pieces. My goal here is to make sure the underling engine of what I will now try to publish is sound. As potential returns to the list some of the engine's consequences seem of interest here such as consciousness distribution in an ecosystem and the engine's impact on the concept of freewill. > > A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of particular life entities - like degrees of consciousness] sh
Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Everyone: I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of Physics” definition] 1) Definition (1): Energy (E) is the ability to subject a mass to a force. 2) There are several types of energy currently known: a) Mass itself via the conversion: [M <=> E/(c*c)] b) Gravitational c) Electromagnetic d) Nuclear [Strong and Weak forces] e) Dark Energy 3) Definition (2) Work (W) Work is the flow of energy amongst the various types by means of a change in the spatial configuration, dynamics and/or amount of mass in a system brought about by an actual application of a force to a mass. 4) The exact original distribution of energy amongst the various types can’t be reestablished and the new configuration can’t do as much work as the prior configuration was capable of doing. [Second Law of Thermodynamics] 5) Time is not a factor: Once a flow of energy is possible it will take place immediately. 6) Conclusion (1): Since life is an energy flow conduit, wherever the possibility of life exists life will appear as rapidly as possible. The “origin” of life herein. 7) Some energy flows are prevented by what are known [in my memory] as “Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers” such as nuclear bonding coefficient issues, spatial configuration, spin, other spatial dynamics, ignition temperature requirements, electromagnetic repulsion, etc. [“Energy Flow Hang-up Barriers” is not my terminology – I think there was a twenty year or so old article in Scientific American I am looking for and a quick Internet search found a discussion of the repulsion hang-up in “Cosmology The Science of the Universe” by Edward Robert Harrison. 8) Once life is present it will immediately punch as many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the particular life entity involved allows – this is how it realizes its energy flow conduit character. The “purpose” of life herein. In other words life’s purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe. 9) Now add in evolution which is a random walk with a lower but no upper bound. A discussion of the possible consequences [such as qualia levels of particular life entities - like degrees of consciousness] should await a critique and possibly a revision of the above. Comments are eagerly sought. Thank you -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: The limit of all computations
Hi Brent: I shall try to respond tomorrow. Hal Ruhl From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:41 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The limit of all computations On 5/23/2012 4:42 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Brent: I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be able to list ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete catalog of universes? But I wasn't asking for ALL the aspects, just a few very general ones which are questions in current research, meaning there's a chance we might be able to check the predictions. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: The limit of all computations
Hi Brent: I ask if it is reasonable to propose that a theory of everything must be able to list ALL the aspects of the local physics for each one of a complete catalog of universes? Suppose ours is just number 9,876,869,345 in the catalog. Would we ever complete such a project within the "observers present" lifetime of our universe? My current belief is that Comp is a broad brush description of a subset of universes within my own model. If Bruno thinks his approach is more precise than that I do not have a problem with that. My model appears to answer my questions about the basis of dynamics within the everything and a response as to what "observers" observe. Perhaps this sort of level is all we can expect, but it is, I believe, necessary to police the results so that most individuals can eventually "sign on" some day. For example we sure need in my opinion a substantially increased level of comprehension of economics which is actually a result of any local physics. I can't accomplish this re most of Bruno's work since I am definitely not "adequate" in the relevant logic disciplines. Hal Ruhl From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:41 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The limit of all computations On 5/23/2012 1:20 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: Hi Brent: What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a particular universe. It's the other extreme from 'predicting' everything happens. Since we only have the one physical universe against which to test the prediction, it's the only kind of prediction that means anything. Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: The limit of all computations
Hi Brent: What you appear to be asking for are predictions of the physics of a particular universe. My belief is that the best we can do is to predict the components of physics common to every evolving universe. My efforts have focused on understanding why there is a dynamic within the Everything [such as UDs] and what "observers" in a universe containing them are observing. In my model I have identified a dynamic driver [incompleteness] and what observers observe [TRANSITIONS between universe states]. Since I do not prohibit computations, I believe Comp [including any prediction of QM in many universes] is allowed within my model but is not the only descriptor of universe evolution. Many evolving universes may contain no such computational component. Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 3:52 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The limit of all computations On 5/23/2012 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 23 May 2012, at 19:08, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 5/23/2012 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Hmm... I agree with all your points in this post, except this one. The comp "model" >>> (theory) has much more predictive power than physics, given that it >>> predicts the whole of physics, >> >> It's easy to predict the whole of physics; just predict that >> everything happens. But that's not predictive power. > > I will take it that you are forgetting the whole argument. When I say > that it predicts the whole physics, I mean it literally. And not > everything happens only something like what is described by the > physical theories, except that physicists derive them from "direct" observation, and comp derives them by the logic of universal machine observable. > > Physics, with comp, and arguably already with QM, is not at all > "everything happens", but more "everything interfere" leading to non > trivial symmetries and symmetries breaking, etc. > > Bruno I don't see that comp has predicted anything except uncertainty. Can comp explain the reason QM is based on complex Hilbert space instead or real, or quaternion, or octonion? Can it explain where the mass gap comes from? Can it predict the dimensionality of spacetime? Can it tell whether spacetime is discrete at some level? Brent -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: The limit of all computations
Hi Everyone: Unfortunately I have been unable to support a post reading/creation activity on this list for a long time. I had started this post as a comment to one of Russell's responses [Hi Russell] to a post by Stephen [Hi Stephen]. I have a model (considerably revised here) that I have been developing for a long time and was going to use it to support my comments. However, the post evolved. Note: The next most recent version of the following model was posted to the list on Friday, December 26, 2008 @ 9:28 PM as far as I can reconstruct events. A brief model of - well - Everything SOME DEFINITIONS: i) Distinction: That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors. ii) Devisor: That which encloses a quantity [none to every] of distinctions. [Some divisors are thus collections of divisors.] MODEL: 1) Assumption # A1: There exists a set consisting of all possible divisors. Call this set "A" [for All]. "A" encompasses every distinction. "A" is thus itself a divisor by (i) and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times. 2) Definition (iii): Define "N"s as those divisors that enclose zero distinction. Call them Nothings. 3) Definition (iv): Define "S"s as divisors that enclose non zero distinction but not all distinction. Call them Somethings. 4) An issue that arises is whether or not an individual specific divisor is static or dynamic. That is: Is its quantity of distinction subject to change? It cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually enclose the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 5) At least one divisor type - the "N"s, by definition (iii), enclose no such distinction but must enclose this one. This is a type of incompleteness. That is the "N"s cannot answer this question which is nevertheless meaningful to them. [The incompleteness is taken to be rather similar functionally to the incompleteness of some mathematical Formal Axiomatic Systems - See Godel.] The "N" are thus unstable with respect to their initial condition. They each must at some point spontaneously enclose this static or dynamic distinction. They thereby transition into "S"s. 6) By (4) and (5) Transitions exist. 7) Some of these "S"s may themselves be incomplete in a similar manner but in a different distinction family. They must evolve - via similar incompleteness driven transitions - until "complete" in the sense of (5). 8) Assumption # A2: Each element of "A" is a universe state. 9) The result is a "flow" of "S"s that are encompassing more and more distinction with each transition. 10) This "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from element to element of the All. That is (by A2) a transition from a universe state to a successor universe state. Consequences: a) Our Universe's evolution would be one such path on which the "S" has constantly gotten larger. b) Since a particular incompleteness can have multiple resolutions, the path of an evolving "S" may split into multiple paths at any transition. c) A path may also originate on any incomplete "S" not just the "N"s. d) Observer constructs such as life entities and likely all other constructs imbedded in a universe bear witness to the transitions via morphing. e) Paths can be of any length. f) Since many elements of "A" are very large, large transitions could become infrequent on a long path where the particular "S" gets very large. (Few White Rabbits if both sides of the transition are sufficiently similar). --- So far I see no "computation" in my model. However, as I prepared the post and did more reading of recent posts and thinking I found that I could add one more requirement to the model and thus make it contain [but not be limited to] comp as far as I can tell: Add to the end of (5): Any transition must resolve at least one incompleteness in the relevant "S". Equate some fraction of the incompleteness of SOME relevant "S"s to a snapshot of a computation(s) that has(have) not halted. The transition path of such an "S" must include (but not limited to) transitions to a next state containing the next step of at least one such computation. Thus I see the model as containing, but not limited to, comp. Well, the model is still a work in progress. Hal Ruhl -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: my model revision
I had some trouble with this post the first time. It is in the archives but I got no bounce back so I am not sure it got distributed and this is an unfamiliar computer. The post is only about a page so I posted again. Sorry if it is a duplication of a distribution that worked before. Hal Ruhl Hi Everyone: I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model: Hal Ruhl DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10 1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut between red and other colors. 2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity of distinctions. Some divisors are collections of divisors. [A devisor may be "information" but I will not use that term here.] Since a distinction is a description, a devisor is a quantity of descriptions. [A description can be encoded in a number so a devisor may be simply a number encoding some multiplicity of distinctions. There is no restriction on the variety or encoding schemes so the number can include them all. I wish to not include other properties of numbers herein and mention them only in passing to establish a possible link.] 3) Incomplete: The inability of a divisor to answer a question that is meaningful to that divisor. [This has a mirror image in inconsistency wherein all possible answers to a meaningful question are in the devisor [yes and no, true and false, etc.] MODEL: 1) Assumption #1: There exists a complete ensemble [possibly a "set" but I wish to not use that term here] of all possible divisors - call it the "All", [The "All" may be the "Everything" but I wish not to use that term here]. 2) The All therefore encompasses every distinction. The All is thus itself a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times. 3) Define N(j) as divisors that encompass a zero quantity of distinction. Call them Nothings. By definition each copy of the All contains at least one N(j). 4) Define S(k) as divisors that encompass a non zero quantity of distinction but not all distinction. Call them Somethings. 5) An issue that arises is whether or not a particular divisor is static or dynamic in any way [the relevant possibilities are discussed below]. Devisors cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 6) From #3 one divisor type - the Nothings - encompass zero distinction but must encompass this static/dynamic distinction thus they are incomplete. 7) The N(j) are thus unstable with respect to their zero distinction condition [dynamic one]. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this static/dynamic distinction. That is they spontaneously become Somethings. 8) Somethings can also be incomplete and/or inconsistent. 9) The result is a "flow" of a "condition" from an incomplete and/or inconsistent Something to a successor Something that encompasses a new quantity of distinction. 10) The "condition" is whether or not a particular Something is the current terminus of a path or not. 11) Since a Something can have a multiplicity of successors the "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of Somethings until a complete something is arrived at which stops the individual path [i.e. a path stasis [dynamic three.]] 12) Some members of the All describe individual states of universes. 13) Our universe's path would be a succession of such members of an All. A particular succession of Somethings can vary from fully random to strictly driven by the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the current terminus Something. I suspect our universe's path has until now been close to the latter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: everything-list and the Singularity
I believe Stephen Gould indicated evolution was a random walk with a lower bound. It seems reasonable that the longest random walk would more or less double in length more or less periodically i.e. exponential growth. Hal Ruhl _ From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 10:46 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: everything-list and the Singularity Hello Skeletori, Welcome to the list. I enjoy your comments and rationalization regarding personal identity and of why we should consider I to be the universe / multiverse / or the everything. I have some comments regarding the technological singularity below. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Skeletori wrote: Hello! I have some tentative arguments on TS and wanted to put them somewhere where knowledgeable people could comment. This seemed like a good place. I also believe in an ultimate ensemble but that's a different story. Let's start with intelligence explosion. This part is essentially the same as Hawkins' argument against it (it can be found on the Wikipedia page on TS). When we're talking about self-improving intelligence, making improved copies of oneself, we're talking about a very, very complex optimization problem. So complex that our only tool is heuristic search, making guesses and trying to create better rules for taking stabs in the dark. The recursive optimization process improves by making better heuristics. However, an instinctual misassumption behind IE is that intelligence is somehow a simple concept and could be recursively leveraged not only descriptively but also algorithmically. If the things we want a machine to do have no simple description then it's unlikely they can be captured by simple heuristics. And if heuristics can't be simple then the metasearch space is vast. I think some people don't fully appreciate the huge complexity of self-improving search. The notion that an intelligent machine could accelerate its optimization exponentially is just as implausible as the notion that a genetic algorithm equipped with open-ended metaevolution rules would be able to do so. It just doesn't happen in practice, and we haven't even attempted to solve any problems that are anywhere near the magnitude of this one. So I think that the flaw in IE reasoning is that there should, at some higher level of intelligence, emerge a magic process that is able to achieve miraculous things. If you accept that, it precludes the possibility of TS happening (solely) through an IE. What then about Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns? Well, technological innovation is similarly a complex optimization problem, just in a different setting. We can regard the scientific community as the optimizing algorithm here and come to the same conclusions as with IE. That is, unless humans possess some kind of higher intelligence that can defeat heuristic search. I don't think there's any reason to believe that. Complex optimization problems exhibit the law of diminished returns and the law of fits and starts, where the optimization process gets stuck in a plateau for a long time, then breaks out of it and makes quick progress for a while. But I've never seen anything exhibiting a law of accelerating returns. This would imply that, e.g., Moore's law is just "an accident", a random product of exceedingly complex interactions. It would take more than some plots of a few data points to convince me to believe in a law of accelerating returns. If not the plots what would it take to convince you? I think one should accept the law of accelerating returns until someone can describe what accident caused the plot. Kurzweil's page describes a model and assumptions which re-create the real-world data plot: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 It is a rather long page, Ctrl+F for "The Model considers the following variables:" to find where he describes the reasoning behind the law of accelerated returns. It also depends on how one defines exponential growth, as one can always take X as exp(X) - I suppose we want the exponential growth of some variable that is needed for TS and whose linear growth corresponds to linear increase in "technological ability" (that's very vague, can anybody help here?). In conclusion, I haven't yet found a credible lawlike explanation of anything that could cause a "runaway" TS where things become very unpredictable. All comments are welcome. I think intelligence optimization is composed of several different, but interrelated components, and that it makes sense to clearly define these components of intelligence rather than talk about intelligence as a single entity. I think intelligence embodies. 1. knowledge - information that is useful for som
Latest revision of my model
Hi Everyone: I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model: Hal Ruhl DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10 1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut between red and other colors. 2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity of distinctions. Some divisors are collections of divisors. [A devisor may be "information" but I will not use that term here.] Since a distinction is a description, a devisor is a quantity of descriptions. [A description can be encoded in a number so a devisor may be simply a number encoding some multiplicity of distinctions. There is no restriction on the variety or encoding schemes so the number can include them all. I wish to not include other properties of numbers herein and mention them only in passing to establish a possible link.] 3) Incomplete: The inability of a divisor to answer a question that is meaningful to that divisor. [This has a mirror image in inconsistency wherein all possible answers to a meaningful question are in the devisor [yes and no, true and false, etc.] MODEL: 1) Assumption #1: There exists a complete ensemble [possibly a "set" but I wish to not use that term here] of all possible divisors - call it the "All", [The "All" may be the "Everything" but I wish not to use that term here]. 2) The All therefore encompasses every distinction. The All is thus itself a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times. 3) Define N(j) as divisors that encompass a zero quantity of distinction. Call them Nothings. By definition each copy of the All contains at least one N(j). 4) Define S(k) as divisors that encompass a non zero quantity of distinction but not all distinction. Call them Somethings. 5) An issue that arises is whether or not a particular divisor is static or dynamic in any way [the relevant possibilities are discussed below]. Devisors cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 6) From #3 one divisor type - the Nothings - encompass zero distinction but must encompass this static/dynamic distinction thus they are incomplete. 7) The N(j) are thus unstable with respect to their zero distinction condition [dynamic one]. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this static/dynamic distinction. That is they spontaneously become Somethings. 8) Somethings can also be incomplete and/or inconsistent. 9) The result is a "flow" of a "condition" from an incomplete and/or inconsistent Something to a successor Something that encompasses a new quantity of distinction. 10) The "condition" is whether or not a particular Something is the current terminus of a path or not. 11) Since a Something can have a multiplicity of successors the "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of Somethings until a complete something is arrived at which stops the individual path [i.e. a path stasis [dynamic three.]] 12) Some members of the All describe individual states of universes. 13) Our universe's path would be a succession of such members of an All. A particular succession of Somethings can vary from fully random to strictly driven by the incompleteness and/or inconsistency of the current terminus Something. I suspect our universe's path has until now been close to the latter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram and Bruno: My goal some time ago was to find an origin to a dynamic in the Everything. It seemed that many on the list were pointing to such a dynamic - the UD for example. I came up with the Nothing to Something incompleteness dynamic initiator maybe 10 or more years ago. Since then I have been trying to make the resulting model as simple as I could. I have looked at Abram's idea of adding inconsistency derived traces in the dynamic: I have in recent changes stopped using "information" to avoid the complications this term seemed to bring with it. This lead to a compact model with just two definitions, one assumption, and the stability trigger question resulting in the dynamic. To maintain this simplicity I note that when a Nothing in a particular All containing just one copy of the Nothing converts to a Something this also converts the particular All into a Something. The All is inconsistent by reason of its absolute completeness. The absence of its Nothing which was consistent but incomplete is not likely to make the Something the All became consistent Something. So this Something may be a source of inconsistency driven traces. As far as learning how to communicate this model in a more mathematical language [logic, set theory, etc.] to aid understanding by others, I have consumed what little time I had available over the years just getting to the current state of the model. It has been said that it takes 10,000 hours of practice in some endeavor to become an expert in it. Since I understand less than half the mathematical logic based comments in this tread regarding my model I am far from expert in such a language. My engineering career gives me some formal exposure and practical understanding of it, and I have studied small additional pieces of it in the course of developing this model. However, the current realities of life have made adding new time intensive endeavors such as becoming sufficiently fluent in such a communication method an "overcome by events" effort. I might find maybe an hour a week for my total participation on the list. This seems extremely insufficient. Thus I suspect that despite my real interest in developing an alternative means of communication for my ideas in this area, my primary reliance for communicating the model will unfortunately have to remain using as small a set of words as I can muster. Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:25 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? On 03 Jan 2009, at 02:04, Abram Demski wrote: > > Bruno, > > Interesting point, but if we are starting at nothing rather than PA, > we don't have provability logic so we can't do that! How can we tell > if an *arbitrary* set of axioms is incomplete? "nothing" is ambiguous and depends on the theory or its intended domain. Incompleteness means usually arithmetically incomplete. The theory with no axioms at all? Not even logical axioms? Well, you can obtain anything from that. The theory with nothing ontological? You will need a complex epistemology, using reflexion and comprehension axioms, that is a bit of set theory, to proceed. Nothing physical? You will need at least the numbers, or a physics: the quantum emptiness is known to be a very rich and complex entity. It needs quantum mechanics, and thus classical or intuitionistic logic, + Hilbert spaces or von Neumann algebra. I would say that "nothing" means nothing in absence of some logic, at least. No axioms, but a semantic. Right, the empty theory is satisfied by all structure (none can contradict absent axioms). But here you will have a metatheory which presupposes ... every mathematical structure. The metatheory will be naïve set theory, at least. I suspect since some time that Hal Ruhl is searching for a generative set theory, but unfortunately he seems unable to study at least one conventional language to make his work understandable by those who could be interested. > > >> This can be related with the so-called autonomous progressions >> studied >> in the literature, like: PA, PA+conPA, PA+conPA+con(PA +conPA), etc. >> The "etc" here bears on the constructive ordinals. "conPA" is for "PA >> does not derive P&~P. > > I have been wondering recently, if we follow the "..." to its end, do > we arrive at an infinite set of axioms that contains all of > arithmetical truth, or is it gappy? The "..." is (necessarily) ambiguous. If it is constructive, it will define a constructive ordinal. In that case the theory obtained is axiomatizable but still incomplete. If the "..." is not constructive, and go through a
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram: My sentence structure could have been better. The Nothing(s) encompass no distinction but need to respond to the stability question. So they have an unavoidable necessity to encompass this distinction. At some point they spontaneously change nature and become Somethings. The particular Something may also be incomplete for the same or some other set of unavoidable questions. This is what keeps the particular incompleteness trace going. In this regard also see my next lines in that post: "The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]." I have used this Nothing to Something transformation trigger for many years in other posts and did not notice that this time the wording was not as clear as it could have been. However, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this before. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 12:59 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, I do not understand why the Nothings are fundamentally incomplete. I interpreted this as inconsistency, partly due to the following line: "5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness." If they encompass no distinctions yet encompass one, they are apparently inconsistent. So what do you mean when you instead assert them to be incomplete? --Abram --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Abram: I have interlaced responses with - symbols. Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2008 3:10 PM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hal, Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but what do you mean by that? --- That is not what I actually said. I indicated that there were no restrictions on the copy process. There would be a pattern to some of the traces. The incompleteness of the Nothings causes them individually to eventually become a more distinction encompassing Something. This is a little like cold booting a computer that has a large [infinite] hard drive containing the All. [a Nothing -> a Something] -> The BIOS chip loads the startup program and some data into the dynamic memory and the computer boots. The program/data would be the first Something in a trace. From this point on there is no fixed nature to traces. The program could at one extreme generate the entire remaining trace [a series of Somethings] from just the data already present in the computer - without reading in more from the All - outputting each resulting computer state to the All on the hard drive. The All already contains these states many times over so this is just a copy process. At the other extreme the program could just generate random output which states are also in the All - another copy process. There would be all nature of traces between these two extremes. The incompleteness I cite is just the instability question. There may be others. [A trace would end if the output went into a continuous repeat of a particular state.] Other incompleteness issues of a particular Something seem like they should also prevent a trace from stopping. - It sounds to me like what you are describing is some version of an inconsistent set theory that is somehow trying to repair itself. - In other postings I have said that the All, being absolutely complete, is therefore inconsistent since it contains all answers to all questions [all possible distinctions and therefore no distinction]. (Except rather then sets, which are 2-fold distinctions because a thing can either be a member or not, you are admitting arbitrary N-fold distinctions, including 1-fold distinctions that fail to distinguish anything... conceptually interesting, I must admit.) I am not well versed in set theory or logic but I believe I understand what you are saying. I see this as the All contains an N-fold distinction - itself. --- So the question is, what is the process by which the system attempts to repair itself? --- The individual traces so far are attempts by a Nothing to repair its incompleteness. The terminus of some traces would be the All - an absolutely complete, and thus inconsistent divisor. You seem to be adding traces based on inconsistency which seems reasonable - see my responses below. --- Here is one option: The system starts with all its axioms (a possibly infinite set). It starts making inferences (possibly with infinitistic methods), splitting when it runs into an inconsistency; the (possibly infinite) split rejects facts that could have led to the inconsistency. So, the process makes increasingly consistent versions of the set theory. Some will end up consistent eventually, and so will stop splitting. These may be boring (having rejected most of the axioms) or interesting. Some of the interesting ones will be UDs. So far I have not tried to identify a second source of the dynamic. I see the Nothings as consistent because they can produce no answers but therefore incomplete since they need to answer at least one. Some traces starting here evolve towards completeness. The All contains at least one inconsistent divisor - itself. It is interesting to consider if traces could originate at inconsistent divisors and evolve towards consistency. The entire process may or may not amount to more than a UD, depending on whether we use infinities in the basic setup. You did in your post, and it seems likely, since set theory is not finitely axiomizable and your system is an extension of set theory. On the other hand, there would be some fairly satisfying axiomizations, in particular those based on naive set theory. This does have an infinite number of axioms, but in the form of an axiom schema, which can be characterized easily by finite deduction rules. So, your system could easily be crafted to be either a UD or more-than-UD, depending on personal preference. (That is, if my interpretation has not strayed too far from your intention.) --Abram - So far I think the inconsistency driven traces yo
RE: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi Bruno: Since I have not programmed computers beyond the use of simple spread sheet data organizing displays for many years, about the best I can offer these days is a kind of flow chart: Start with an input space that contains all possible collections of distinctions. I call these collections Divisors. [I wish to avoid the use of the word "information".] It is then noted that this collection contains itself. Next it is noted that at least one of these Divisors is incomplete in a way that must be resolved. This boot straps a dynamic within the input space. To avoid adding additional types of components to the input space such as labels on divisors it is simplest to describe the dynamic as creating a succession of additional copies of divisors and adding them to the input space. Since any divisor is already present an infinite number of times, this dynamic is not changing the nature of the content of the input space. So far the simulating program is self booting and makes copies of portions of its input space and outputs the copies to that space. Each of the identified incomplete divisors is a seed for an additional such program including any new copies of that divisor. A particular succession of copies is a trace of a simulation particular program. The copy process has no restrictions. Some traces would be computationally correct while others would be random and others a blend. Traces can split. The output process generates observer moments based on the outputted divisors. The output of new copies of the incomplete Divisor and splitting traces dovetails the dynamic. I think this contains a UD but the unrestricted nature of the traces seems to makes it more than that. Yours Hal -Original Message- From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:36 AM To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD? Hi Hal, To see if your system is a UD, the first thing to do should consist in writing a program capable of simulating it on a computer, and then to see for which value of some parameters (on which it is supposed to dovetail) it simulates a universal Turing machine. To simulate it on a computer would help you (and us) to interpret the words that you are using in the description of your system. Best, Bruno On 27 Dec 2008, at 03:27, Hal Ruhl wrote: --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Revisions to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hi everyone: I have revised my model somewhat and think it might now be a form of UD. DEFINITIONS: Distinction: That which enables separation [such as red from other colors]. Devisor: That which encloses a quantity of distinction. Some divisors are collections of divisors. A devisor may be "information" but I will not use that term here. MODEL: 1) Assumption: There is a complete set of all possible divisors [call it the All]. The All encompasses all distinction. The All is thus a divisor and therefore contains itself an unbounded number of times - the All(j). 2) Define N(k) as divisors that encompass zero distinction. Call them Nothing(s). 3) Define S(i) as divisors that encompass non zero distinction but not all distinction. Call them Something(s). 4) An issue that arises is whether or not divisors are static or dynamic. They cannot be both. This requires that all divisors individually encompass the self referential distinction of being static or dynamic. 5) At least one divisor type - the Nothings or N(k)- encompass no distinction but must encompass this one. This is a type of incompleteness. The N(k) are thus unstable with respect to their "empty" condition. They each must at some point spontaneously "seek" to encompass this stability distinction. They become evolving S(i) [call them eS(i)]. 6) The result is a "flow" of eS(i) that are encompassing more and more distinction. 7) The "flow" is a multiplicity of paths of successions of transitions from temporary copy to temporary copy [copies] of members of the All. Our universe's [our eS(i)'s] path would be one such where the temporary copies are universe states. As indicated the paths may split into multiple paths. I think this model could be characterized as a UD. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: everything wiki
Hi Jonni: How does this affect the site? I was hoping to use it this winter. Yours Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of jonni jemp Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: everything wiki hi just to let you know that the site is now getting spammed cf. http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/index.php?title=All_goldwow_sale best jonni jemp --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Simplest system?
I had to revise the index system to count all the components. 1) Assume a complete ensemble of divisors [information? But I want to avoid that term] and its own divisions - collections of divisors. Call it the [All]. The [All] contains itself since it is a collection of divisors. 2) Define N(j) as a division of the [All] that is empty of divisors or divisions of the [All]. Call it a Nothing. 3) Define S(j,i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the [All]. Call them Somethings [evolving universes]. [j identifies a particular S and i identifies its current state. 4) Define Q(j,i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the [All]. Call them questions. 5) Define cQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as compulsatory questions for S(j,i) or N(j) that must be resolved by the S(j,i) or N(j). 6) Define uQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as questions for S(j,i) or N(j) that are not resolvable by the contents of S(j,i) or N(j). This is incompleteness. Of course all Q(j,i) are uQ(j,i) for the N(j). 7) Define ucQ(j,i):S(j,i):N(j) as compulsatory questions for S(j,i) or N(j) that are not resolvable by the contents of S(j,i) or N(j). 8) Duration is a ucQ(j,i) for all N(j) and makes the N(j) unstable so they eventually spontaneously become S(j,i). This ucQ(j,i) bootstraps time. 9) Duration is also a ucQ(j,i) for S(j,i) because any internal notion of duration of the current state is just the history of past states and not an absolute answer for the current state. This makes S(j,i) unstable so it eventually spontaneously becomes S(j,i+1). 10) S(j,i+1) is always greater than S(j,i) regarding its content of [All]. The process continues until S(j,i+n) contains [All]. 11) The [All] content delta between S(j,i) and S(j,i+1) will contain divisors and collections of divisors that answer no current Q(j,i) and this requires a selection mechanism acting on this data during the S(j,i) to S(j,i+1) transition. 12) The selector mechanism can be the simplest possible or be an ensemble of components ranging from simple to very complex. Some could be complex enough to be SAS. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Simplest system?
I think the following is the simplest system that has all the necessary features. 1) Assume a complete ensemble of divisors [information? But I want to avoid that term] and its own divisions - collections of divisors. Call it the [All]. The [All] contains itself since it is a collection of divisors. 2) Define N(i) as a division of the [All] that is empty of divisors or divisions of the [All]. Call it a Nothing. 3) Define S(i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the [All]. Call them Somethings [evolving universes]. 4) Define Q(i) as a division of the [All] that contains a portion of the [All]. Call them questions. 5) Define cQ(i):S(i):N(i) as compulsatory questions for S(i) or N(i) that must be resolved by the S(i) or N(i). 6) Define uQ(i):S(i):N(i) as questions for S(i) or N(i) that are not resolvable by the contents of S(i) or N(i). This is incompleteness. Of course all Q(i) are uQ(i) for the N(i). 7) Define ucQ(i):S(i):N(i) as compulsatory questions for S(i) or N(i) that are not resolvable by the contents of S(i) or N(i). 8) Duration is a ucQ(i) for all N(i) and makes the N(i) unstable so they eventually spontaneously become S(i). This ucQ(i) bootstraps time. 9) Duration is also a ucQ(i) for S(i) because any internal notion of duration of the current state is just the history of past states and not an absolute answer for the current state. This makes S(i) unstable so it eventually spontaneously becomes S(i+1). 10) S(i+1) is always greater than S(i) regarding its content of [All]. The process continues until S(i) contains [All]. 11) The [All] content delta between S(i) and S(i+1) will contain divisors and collections of divisors that answer no current Q(i) and this requires a selection mechanism acting on this data during the S(i) to S(i+1) transition. 12) The selector mechanism can be the simplest possible or be an ensemble of components ranging from simple to very complex. Some could be complex enough to be SAS. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics
Hi Youness/Russell: I am very interested in this thread. Russell: In our last conversation you got me to look at my completeness resolution driven transitions in the evolution of my Somethings [universes] as information processing. >From that point, if I alter the transition slightly and make it an influx of information from the rest of the Everything that enables resolution of some of the incompleteness rather than directly resolving it then a selection process on this new information is required to complete the resolution process. While many selection processes may be possible an anthropic one seems to fit some of the circumstances of our universe. I now seem to have covered the basic outputted aspects of your approach [I think], but with just one [as far as I can tell] postulate: "There is an ALL [the complete ensemble of divisors [information] and its own divisions [collections of information]] that contains as two of its divisions the Everything and the Nothing." >From this using the inherent "incompleteness"- [the duration meaningful question] - and "no selection - [no net information in the ALL] properties of these structures I extract the components: time, variation, selection [anthropic included], heritability, prediction, communication, evolution, filters. My approach seems to get to a similar place by a simpler path. So I hope the derivation of quantum mechanics is also there, unfortunately I do not have the background to aid the construction of the derivation in much of a mathematical way. Youness: Regarding your comments on page 4 of your analysis: I appear to have been able to derive the necessity for a selection process within an evolving universe. By the global "no selection" rule for the ALL the type of process is not restricted. Therefore from this derivation consciousness is not a requirement in order to have a process but may be present. Also from this derivation, the process is an inseparable part of the system. Hal Ruhl -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 6:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On Russell's Derivation of Quantum Mechanics Hi Youness, Thanks for this, it is very impressive. You have gone into this in far more depth than the referees of the "Why Occams Razor" paper. I will respond to this soon, but rather than shoot from the hip, I'll take some time to respond thoughtfully. As for not proclaiming scientific revolutions, I sort of do that in http://www.hpcoders.com.au/docs/revolution.pdf , which I wrote for the centenary of Planck's revolutionary paper ushering in quantum mechanics. It is basically an op ed where I noticed the similarities between my approach, Bruno's and Roy Frieden's approaches, and concluded that a scientific revolution was indeed in the offing. Unfortunately, that article didn't get much airtime, which I suspect says more about inherent media biases than anything else. Nevertheless, if the argument I presented stands up, it is very important, so it requires rigorous scrutiny. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence, as the late AC Clarke would say. Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: [My current mail client does not work the way I like and I can not spend the time to insert ">"s in the right places so this indicator of who said what will be missing from my posts for awhile, I will use an "xxx" separator for my responses.] > > Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the > Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions > seem unavoidable. I'm not sure this follows. A single bit process can exist in zero dimensional space. However, perhaps single bit processes are too uninteresting. xx I have found the "no selection" tool rather useful, so I will stick with it in this case for the time being. xxx > > I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a > discrete point] space time. > > If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct > consequence of the space and time aspects. I suspect that something like this will explain matter eventually, so good luck with your theorizing. I'm personally intrigued by the Helon model, but don't really have the smarts to do anything with it. xxx I will look at this and dust off my old stuff, which I have not looked at for several years. x Why don't you see this transition as a form of information processing? The transistions may be rather accidental in your model, but this is from a bird view perspective. From the frog perspective, the transitions must appear to be information processing. I will accept that for now. Importantly it seem to move the two points of view closer together Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: You wrote: >The time postulate is a requirement of observerhood. I'm not sure this >means that time-like components are "in" the Everything, but I can >accept this is possible. >I don't know of any similar requirement for space, but I have tossed >around some ideas to do with embedding dimension of networks. It is >still very much an open question. >What does it mean to "have a material aspect"? I see my model as requiring a time like aspect induced by the evolution triggering "endurance" meaningful question. Selecting out space like aspects would inject net information into the Everything - the out selection - so given a time dimension space dimensions seem unavoidable. I have constructed models in which matter is itself just a distortion of [a discrete point] space time. If applicable, these types of matter models would make matter a direct consequence of the space and time aspects. >Sharing the same universe is I suppose equivalent to being able to >communicate. Rather than a conscious fly, it might be easier to >imagine an AI that works much faster than human intelligence, thus >having smaller OM durations, I take this as indicating that you hold that something [information processing?] is going on during an observer moment. This is as in your book as I understand it so far. I do not see this in my model. In my model an observer moment is a fixed state terminated by a transition to the next state. The selection of a next state is in part determined by the incompleteness of the current state which is solely a product of its history and the random sub set of the incompleteness that gets resolved by the state to state transition. Consciousness is inherent in the process of the transition wherein both states momentarily overlap [for lack of a better term], as some incompleteness is resolved [information added] and fresh incompleteness is generated by that resolution. Currently I see each such transition as being a state change for the entire universe supporting it. >but still able to communicate with humans >(eg via a teletype interface). It would be interesting to see how >different the perspective is. Indeed. Hal Ruhl -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: >> >> Hi Russell: >> >> In response to Jason you wrote: >> >>>An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded >>>in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve >>>state change, > >>In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] >>within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the >>multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable >>meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require >>resolution. I suppose this constitutes a "machine". > >>I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the >>property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time >>like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider "physical" >>matrix? > >Its not obvious to me. What is your reasoning? As I understand your Theory of Nothing book the "Everything" in it has or at least contains time like components [time postulate]. I agree but apparently for a different reason. In your reply to Jason you allowed that the OM "machine" [our "machines" also apparently differ] could have an extent in space as well. This seems to require the Everything to have space like aspects. Actually if it contains one dimension in a real sense to avoid selection it should contain more. If it has time and space aspects what prevents it from having material aspects? Until now I had felt that the Everything did not require space or material aspects but I am reconsidering the possibility. > >>>Of course this finite amount of time will be >>>observer dependent, > >>How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within >>a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular >>universe. >Sounds like you're having a bob each way here... As I understand your response to Jason you allow two different observers [a fly and a human] in the same universe to have different OM durations and I do not see this. Perhaps I do not understand your response. Did you intend to have them in the same universe? Yours Hal Ruhl -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Observer Moment or Observer Space?
Hi Russell: In response to Jason you wrote: >An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded >in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve >state change, In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require resolution. I suppose this constitutes a "machine". I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider "physical" matrix? >ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must >also be extended in time by some finite amount, rather than be of >infinitesimal direction. I agree. >Of course this finite amount of time will be >observer dependent, How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular universe. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Properties of observers
Hi John:
My intent is to eventually "back fill" the compacted description with
additional discussion once I think it is OK. Perhaps that will
help. In that regard I currently want information to be a divisor
and packets of divisors to be a division of the [A-Inf]. I am trying
to avoid the central use of the words "information" and
"meaning". I redid the compact form along these lines and I put it
below for easy reference. I am also attempting to avoid or at least
minimize appeal to math such as that associated with sets. I hope
there will not be much more to revise before I attempt a slightly
longer discussion.
I am an engineer but I will try to make the added discussion more
universal if that is the right word. However, I am looking for a
lattice upon which to build that discussion.
Interconnection is a main theme since the S(i) are intersected or
should be [incompleteness] by the Q(i).
Are "aspects" also types of "distinctions"? Information could be
called a distinguisher I suppose, but I currently prefer "divisor" as
in that which lies between, or outlines distinguishables.
Hal Ruhl
At 09:02 AM 2/11/2008, you wrote:
>Hal,
>
>I lost you 2) - 13): I cannot squeeze the philosophical content into a
>physicalist-logical formalism. The 'terms' are naturally vague to me,
>cannot follow them 'ordered. The words in your perfect schematic are
>(IMO) not adequate for the ideas they are supposed to express: our
>language is inadequate for the (my?) advanced thinking.
>I am for total interconnection, no separable divisions etc. Aspects,
>no distinctions.
>I am not ready to make a conventional scientific system out of the
>inconventional. I am not an 'engineer': I am a dreamer.
>
>Maybe if I learned your entire vocabulary?(I cannot - it
>interferes with mine).
>
>Thanks for your effort, it was counterproductive FOR ME.
>
>I appreciate your way as your way.
>
>John M
1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of divisors and
its own divisions.
2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{[A-Inf] contains itself.}{i ranges from 1 to infinity} {N(i) is the
ith Nothing and E(i) is the ith Everything.}
3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Somethings}
4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Questions}
5) cQ(p) intersect S(p).
{cQ(p) are compulsatory questions for S(p)}
6) ucQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r)
but can not.
{ucQ(r) are un-resolvable compulsatory questions}.
{incompleteness}
7) Duration is a ucQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
{This ucQ(t) bootstraps time.}
8) Duration can be a ucQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
{Progressive resolution of ucQ, evolution.}
9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of ucQ(v).
{prediction}
10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
{progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}
11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all ucQ(v) of S(v) and
can have new ucQ(v+1).
{randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that
is the unexpected, variation.}
12) S(z) can be divisible.
13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is
communication, and copying.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Properties of observers
Hi Stephen:
In response to your post I have revised my previous post.
I made division equal information and rewrote (1) and (2).
I replaced "meaningful" with "compulsatory" in various places at least for now.
The result is below.
As for associating randomness with creativity Russell argues this in
his book and I was showing that my model has randomness and thus was
not in conflict with his argument at least at this level.
As to degrees of incompleteness I do not see how this can be
routinely measured. Arithmetic may be known to be infinitely
incomplete but for other structures the resolution of an
incompleteness may lead to additional incompleteness.
1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of divisions.
{[A-Inf] contains itself.}
2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{i ranges from 1 to infinity}
3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Somethings}
4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Questions}
5) cQ(p) intersect S(p).
{cQ(p) are compulsatory questions for S(p)}
6) ucQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r)
but can not.
{ucQ(r) are un-resolvable compulsatory questions}.
7) Duration is a ucQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
{This ucQ(t) bootstraps time.}
8) Duration can be a ucQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
{Progressive resolution of ucQ, evolution.}
9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of ucQ(v).
{prediction}
10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
{progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}
11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all ucQ(v) of S(v) and
can have new ucQ(v+1).
{randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that
is the unexpected, variation.}
12) S(z) can be divisible.
13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is
communication, and copying.
Perhaps one could call [A-Inf] All Information [all divisions].
Well its a first try.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Properties of observers
Hi John and Tom:
Below is a first try at a more precise expression of my current model.
1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of A-Inf that
contains its own divisions.
2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below] and the N(i) are empty
of any [A-Inf] and the E(i) contain all of [A-Inf].
{Therefore [A-Inf] is a member of itself, and i ranges from 1 to infinity}
3) S(j) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Somethings}
4) Q(k) are divisions of [A-Inf] that are not empty of [A-Inf].
{Questions}
5) mQ(p) intersect S(p).
{mQ(p) are meaningful questions for S(p)}
6) umQ(r) should intersect S(r) but do not, or should intersect N(r)
but can not.
{umQ(r) are un-resolvable meaningful questions}.
7) Duration is a umQ(t) for N(t) and makes N(t) unstable so it
eventually spontaneously becomes S(t).
{This umQ(t) bootstraps time.}
8) Duration can be a umQ(v) for S(v) and if so makes S(v) unstable so
it eventually spontaneously becomes S(v+1)
{Progressive resolution of umQ, evolution.}
9) S(v) can have a simultaneous multiplicity of umQ(v).
{prediction}
10) S(v+1) is always greater than S(v) regarding its content of [A-Inf].
{progressive resolution of incompleteness} {Dark energy?} {evolution}
11) S(v+1) need not resolve [intersct with] all umQ(v) of S(v) and
can have new umQ(v+1).
{randomness, developing filters[also 8,9,10,11], creativity, that
is the unexpected, variation.}
12) S(z) can be divisible.
13) Some S(z) divisions can have observer properties [also S
itself??]: Aside from the above the the S(v) to S(v+1) transition can
include shifting intersections among S subdivisions that is
communication, and copying.
Perhaps one could call [A-Inf] All Information.
Well its a first try.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Properties of observers
Hi John and Tom: I am thinking about your posts. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Properties of observers
The following discusses observer properties under my model of the Everything. I take the list of observer properties I discuss below from what I have so far found in Russell's "Theory of Nothing". One property - Giving meaning to data [number 5 on the list] - does not seem to be supportable under a description of the Everything as containing all information. As indicated in earlier posts, within my model of the Everything is a dynamic which consists of incomplete Nothings and Somethings that progress towards completeness in a step by step fashion. At each step they grow more complete by encompassing more of the information in the Everything. The incompleteness is not just that of mathematical systems but is more general. It is the inability to resolve any question that is meaningful to the particular Nothing or Something. Some such questions may be of a sort that they must be resolved. The one I focus on in this regard is the duration of the current boundary of the particular Nothing or Something with the Everything. A Something will of course be divisible into subsets of the information it contains. Many of these subsets will participate in the incompleteness of the Something of which it is a subset. At each step wise increase in the information content of that Something many of its subsets will receive information relevant to the resolution of their "local" un-resolvable meaningful questions. Resultant observer properties: 1) Prediction of the future behavior of the Something of which they are a subset [of their particular universe]: The subsets share some of the incompleteness of their Something and participate in the progressive resolution of this incompleteness. The current "local" incompleteness [part of the current state of an observer] can serve as a predictor of the Something's evolution since it is a target of the progressive influx of information. 2) Communication between subsets: There is no requirement that the subsets be disjoint or have fixed intersections. There are no restrictions on the number of copies of a given packet of information contained within in a Something and no restrictions on the copy function. A Something containing any number of copies of part or all of itself is just as incomplete as if it contained just one copy. 3) Evolution: The progressive resolution of the incompleteness is an evolution. 4) Developing filters [re: white rabbit density]: The shifting incompleteness of a subset constitutes a shifting filter that is founded in the history of the dynamic for that Something. [I mentioned white rabbits in this regard in another post.] 5) Giving meaning to data [symbol strings][generation of information?]: The Everything is considered information.A symbol string seems to be just a link between the set of all possible meanings that particular string can have. It is just a boundary within the Everything enclosing the associated set of meanings. It is a definition, definitions are information [meaning] and thus part of the Everything. How can an evolving Something and its subsets give more meaning to a meaning? This property seems unsupportable in an Everything. 6) Necessity of "Time": As I mentioned in a earlier post the meaningful question I use bootstraps time and thus the dynamic. 7) Life: The characteristics of life [evolution, copy, variation] are just part of the ensemble of potential meaningful questions - some un-resolvable - that can apply to some subsets of a Something and seem covered by the other discussions herein. 8) Randomness: Each step in the progression towards completeness provides a resolution to a random set of the open meaningful questions. 9) Self awareness, consciousness: The Something subset boundary dynamics/allowances described above appear to cover these varieties of subset evolution. 10 Creativity: See #8 - randomness. Subsets of evolving Somethings in my model appear to have the properties of observers mentioned above that also seem supportable by an Everything - all but giving meaning to data. There is so far no subset based spontaneous influence on the progression of the dynamic. All aspects of the information dynamic appear to originate from the history of the dynamic for a particular Something and its resultant current incompleteness. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: dark energy
Hi George:
I discussed time origins in an earlier post on 1/9/2008.
I see no need for a "physical" grounding.
No entity is required to ask the question, it is asked by the mere
fact that Nothings are members of the "member of itself" nested Everything.
It is the question itself and the inability to respond that is the
key not any possible response.
I see no way for any sub set of the Everything including itself to
avoid this question and responding to it. An Everything is the only
member sure to have a response and a Nothing is the only member sure
to not have one. Somethings would be diverse on the issue.
Hal Ruhl
At 04:27 PM 1/21/2008, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal:
>
>">... I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
>of dynamics" <
>Indeed? does a gas engine 'work' without dynamics - what is supposed
>to be motivated by its activity?
>
>This question came in as an initiator to my reply, since 'dynamics' is
>bound to a process in time (maybe I misunderstand it). You also
>mention several times "duration" - a definitely time-related concept.
>Do you consider "time", - that hard-to-identify term, the coordinate
>"WE" use in THIS universe (together with space) to get a hold on
>occurrences which otherwise would overstep our mental (?)
>capabilities - as fundamental at the Nothing - Something - Everything
>discussion? If so, what is the origo? Is it in nothing or in
>everything? How does it proceed from zero to nonzero?
>*
>"... duration of a particular Nothing..."
>Does "nothing" carry qualia like 'duration'? Indirectly maybe, if you
>compare identified 'somethings' to be cocurrent with 'nothing' and
>then those 'somethings' WHEN you find no 'nothing connected.
>It still would not mark the duration of 'nothing', only the duration
>of its detection. I am weary of considering 'nothing' as a "physical"
>system. By ANY attribute it becomes a something. Sorry, I may be
>one-sided and ignorant, but I am stubborn.
>*
>Why "must {anything} be answered {as an} ["unavoidable
> > necessity"],..."?
>Our questions stem from our ignorance. With more mental power we
>probably would know all the answers and have no questions.
>I try to visualize (again the wrong view) "mental scales" and fear the
>comparisons between concepts on different scales of ideation. (Cf:
>quantized scale transition in chaos-thinking). We cannot overstep our
>restricted level of [human] mental power just as Abbott's Mr 2D could
>not think 3D.
>*
>I see your 'Something' point, not differentiated (all the way) to
>Everything, when it becomes impredicative and unspecifiable.
>I try to use the same concept locally in the R. Rosen type
>'complexity', applied (mostly) to 'our world' (this universe).
>Regards
>John
>
>
>
>On Jan 20, 2008 3:40 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John and George:
> >
> > In my post:
> >
> > "I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than
> > the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable
> > necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness."
> >
> >
> > I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator
> of dynamics.
> >
> > I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information.
> >
> > The initial "meaningful" question concerns the duration of a
> > particular Nothing.
> >
> > This question is inevitable and must be answered ["unavoidable
> > necessity"], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete
> > so it becomes a Something to gain information.
> >
> > A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is
> > defined by its current boundary with the Everything.
> >
> > The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of
> > the current boundary? If a Something can not answer this question it
> > must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything]. This is a
> > new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient
> > general answer to this question and so the process repeats
> > ["progressively resolve this incompleteness"].
> >
> > I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the
> > Everything or in/of any of its sub sets.
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> > At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote:
> >
> > >George and Hal:
> > >Why does a "question&qu
Re: dark energy
Hi John and George: In my post: "I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness." I used "motivator" in the sense that a gas engine is a motivator of dynamics. I use incompleteness in the sense of a lack of information. The initial "meaningful" question concerns the duration of a particular Nothing. This question is inevitable and must be answered ["unavoidable necessity"], but the Nothing can answer no questions so is incomplete so it becomes a Something to gain information. A Something is a sub set of the members of the Everything and is defined by its current boundary with the Everything. The same question will apply to Somethings: What is the duration of the current boundary? If a Something can not answer this question it must change its boundary [expand it into the Everything]. This is a new Something and the expansion may not have encompassed a sufficient general answer to this question and so the process repeats ["progressively resolve this incompleteness"]. I currently see no other dynamic motivator/process within the Everything or in/of any of its sub sets. Hal Ruhl At 07:48 AM 1/20/2008, you wrote: >George and Hal: >Why does a "question" emerge? Why does it 'imply' to be answered? (I >avoid 'why do we feel') Where did 'incompleteness' occur from? >All these are very 'human' concepts and we impersonate them into a >wider sense. >"WE" (as Bruno asked: who is that? and I replied 'humanly thinking >machines') still 'think' in our restricted human terms - cannot do >otherwise - using that incomplete primitive tool (brain function) >which in Self-reflection (consciousness? I hate that term) realizes >its own incompleteness and projects it towards the targets of its >thinking. >So the question itself does not 'emerge': it 'imerges in our thinking. >"Something" stands for the unidentified content - a challenge (human that is). >And - George - yes, the English language IS broken (as are all other >ones, maybe the English - as a mixed artifact - a bit more) because it >stands for unclear symbols and their communication with the pretension >of clarity. Words are restrictive tools of a restrictive >brainfunction. >Sorry for the holiday-breaking denigration > >John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: dark energy
Hi George: I see no "feeling" of anything in a Something. There is only an absence of the information needed to answer meaningful questions that are asked and must is be answered. Hal Ruhl At 11:13 PM 1/17/2008, you wrote: >Hal, >Allright. You are saying that incompleteness is the (only) motivator >of the members. In other words the members feel motivated by >incompleteness. They do have the feeling of being incomplete that >motivates their behavior. Is this correct? >George > >Hal Ruhl wrote: >> >>Hi George: >> >>I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than >>the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable >>necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness. >> >>Hal Ruhl >> >>At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Hal Ruhl wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces >>>>[meaningful questions] applied to it. >>>> >>> >>> >>>What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces? >>> >>>George >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: dark energy
Hi George: I see no motivator to any dynamics within the Everything other than the incompleteness of some of its members and the unavoidable necessity to progressively resolve this incompleteness. Hal Ruhl At 12:29 AM 1/17/2008, you wrote: >Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > > This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces > > [meaningful questions] applied to it. > > >What in the psyche of the mass makes it answer to the forces? > >George > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: dark energy
Hi George: At 09:59 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >Hal, > >I cannot follow you: one the one hand you say: > > >Something if incomplete will have to > >increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions This is an automatic process like a mass has to answer to the forces [meaningful questions] applied to it. >which implies volition and therefore spirit; >and on the other hand you say: >There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on > >the part of the Something. >which denies spirit, yes >and on the third hand: > >the quest is an ... system induced need for a > >ongoing influx of information >in which the term "need" goes back to supporting a spirit-based system. Again the "need" is as a mass responding to the forces applied. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: dark energy
Hi George: I use the term "quest" because a Something if incomplete will have to increase its completeness to answer meaningful questions that get asked but it can not answer. The motivator is partly external - an answer [mostly more than one is available] is "out there" in the unexplored Everything and partly internal - the particular question must be answered. There is no intent to imply some sort of choice on the part of the Something. To use your last thoughts below the quest is an [Everything, Something, Nothing] system induced need for a ongoing influx of information into the particular Something from the Everything [the boundary of the particular Something with the Everything alters to include more of the Everything. The Something encompasses an ever increasing portion of the Everything but it must do so. In this case I currently see no higher level of driver for any sub component of the Something including what one might call an observer. I may need to reconsider when I get to that point in Russell's book but my time restraints force me to take considerable time doing so. Hal Ruhl At 02:21 PM 1/16/2008, you wrote: >Hi Hal, >This topic interests me, but I find it difficult to go past the second >sentence in your post. The phrase "Something is on a quest" carries a >lot of baggage, in particular that "Something" has intention, purpose >and motivation. Either we have to assume that this intention is produced >by a fundamental "spirit" or "soul" that you have assigned to the >Something, or that the intention is emergent from a complex >consciousness simulation possibly involving Quantum Mechanics. If >you assume a spirit or soul you are making a quasi religious assumption. >Is this what you want? How do we explain spirit or soul? If you are >assuming a complex consciousness simulation, there is a whole layer that >needs to be explained which no one has yet fully explained yet. >Usually scientists use objective and impersonal criteria such as "energy >minimization" to explain how a reaction is driven in one particular >direction. In chemistry, for example, "Le Chatelier Principle" is used. > >George > >Hal Ruhl wrote: > > >I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current > >view of "Dark Energy" > > > >In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the > >Everything. > > > >Based on this, the following points can be made: > > > >1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something > >would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary > >with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume. > > > >2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has] > >the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the > quest can be. > > > >3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the > >quest progresses. > > > >4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite > >information packing density in its "space" then an accelerating > >increase in the size of that space should be "observed" since both > >the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything > >increases as the quest progresses. > > > > Hal Ruhl > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
dark energy
I have touched on this subject before but the following is my current view of "Dark Energy" In my approach a Something is on a quest for completeness within the Everything. Based on this, the following points can be made: 1) The number of current incompleteness sites for a given Something would be at least proportional to the surface area of its boundary with the rest of the Everything if not proportional to its volume. 2) Thus the larger [more information content] a Something is [has] the more such sites it has and the larger any given step in the quest can be. 3) This gives an increase in the average information influx as the quest progresses. 4) If the universe described by that Something has a maximum finite information packing density in its "space" then an accelerating increase in the size of that space should be "observed" since both the volume and surface area of a Something inside the Everything increases as the quest progresses. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's "Theory of Nothing" and time.
Hi John: At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote: >Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark >on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the >'meaning' of texts): >HR: >"...> What I indicated was all paths to completion." >JM: >does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an >unlimited totality? The idea of completeness in this case is not a matter of an objects size [amount of information within] but rather its ability to resolve any meaningful question about itself. Low information objects can be complete. The Nothing has too little information within to resolve any such question but such a question exists, so it is incomplete. Further the duration question is always eventually asked so the Nothing must become a something which answers this particular question. However, this initial Something may not be able to answer all meaningful questions about itself that in fact get asked. The Everything is complete but contains multiple answers to at least some meaningful questions so it is inconsistent. Our particular Nothing or origin is now gone but there is an unlimited supply in the Everything. >Furthermore: are 'copies' considerable substantial >items, or simply our figment of looking from different angles into >different angles - at the same item? >I try to 'cut' my human incompleteness (didn't claim success) when >using a totality-vocabulary (way above my head) and all that may be in >it. The question appears related to: does net information need a physical tablet upon which it is manifest in order to exist. The Everything has no net information so needs no such tablet. I suspect that it can not be established that sub components of the Everything containing net information would need one. >1. If there is -a- 'nothingness' does it multiply when we in our >human logic detect "it" again? This would require observers to have an effect on the amount of content of the Everything. I see no argument to support this. >2. Do we assign qualia to nothingness? of course not. >- I am inclined to sort nothingness with infinity: we can talk about >it but have no (human) reason-based meaning - understanding - about >its essence. Georg Cantor tried it for the "infinity" - what >I still consider a mathematical game of details - not the end. I define Nothing as an object [no physical structure required] that has too little information to answer any meaningful question about itself. I have such a question and it must be asked thus I conclude that it is incomplete and unstable. I have no idea how little information is required to answer the least demanding question but the smallest amount above none seems like it might answer some such question so I set the Nothing at no internal information to be a content opposite so to speak of the Everything. >Parlance: nothingness is different from nothing. Saying about a >construct "there is nothing in it about the storch" does not mean a >storch-restricted nothingness included as part of the construct. >So if there appears innumerable nothingness-occasions in the >everything - it may be our detection of the ONE - existing there >(=found?) many times over. >Would it jibe with your vocabulary? The Everything is an ensemble and is a member of itself [The definition of an object is information and equivalent to the object itself in this venue and the Everything contains all information so it contains itself]. As such it is divisible along the boundaries of its members and sets of its members. The Nothing and all its copies in the "member of itself Everything" are of course members of the ensemble but I see "nothingness" as a multiplicity [or set] of various other members since nothingness can have various sub texts. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
White Rabbits
Using my approach White Rabbits can be dealt with as follows [I think]: The dynamic starts with and continues a pattern - a path to completeness. The path is not deterministic because most states would be multiply incomplete so any two successive states will differ by some fractional reduction in this incompleteness and that fraction can not be selected prior to the transition [minimal selection]. However, this fraction is nevertheless composed of information that reduces an incompleteness that started in a logic observation - responses to meaningful questions - and should remain in this venue. There would be only one possible maximum size transitions and many possible small ones. In this approach large transitions that resemble White Rabbits would be uncommon and patternless White Rabbit events should not exist. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Russell's "Theory of Nothing" and time.
Hi John: At 12:12 PM 1/7/2008, you wrote: >Hal, > > I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it >though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology" >dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something >like: > >"...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add: >observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was >providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest >is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside >Differentiation and Integration). > >A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word >'bifurcation' - indicating that "only 2" chances in the impredicative >unlimited totality. I agree that there can be a multiplicity of simultaneous splits. This was a mistake I realized later. >As a second (even more minor) remark: "All possible states" sounds to >me as being restricted to the level "WE" find possible. Since >cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that >looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine >considers anything 'iompossible'? What I indicated was all paths to completion. I suspect that there may be sequences within the Everything that would not be on such paths. Yes I did mean an unlimited number of Nothings in the Everything. For the Everything to contain just one copy of the information in it would be a selection. Rather it needs to contain an unlimited number of copies. >Have a good 2008 Thanks, you too. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Russell's "Theory of Nothing" and time.
Hi Russell: I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your book. Thanks for the cite. My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire information and become a Something. Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something. Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of compatible states for a Something each containing more information than the last - that is the imposition of time. Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one. The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed over and over forever. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
I do see one mistake I made. >A "Nothing" is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but >there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration. So it is >unstable - it eventually "decays" [Big Bang] into a something that >follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub >division of its list - that is, it evolves by becoming one object after another - a progression of objects - an evolving universe. I said the post was surely informal. To clarify a few issues: by "question" I mean "meaningful question" and by "path to completion" I mean the incorporation of one or another resolution of a meaningful question the current system has insufficient content to otherwise resolve. So the process is "mathematical" but not mathematical system specific. By "duration" re the Nothing I do not intend a time factor but something more like a resource. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
Hi Marc: The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are static elements of the power set. My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change - they can be the current state of a something on its path to completion. Hal At 12:13 AM 9/18/2007, you wrote: >On Sep 18, 1:24 pm, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Youness: > > > > Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the > > underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that > > I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I > > am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume. > >My advise: Listen to Bruno. Your ideas are riddled with very basic >errors. Example below: > > >Basic Error: > > > > There is no reason to create a multi-layered system distinguishing > > between a sub list and the object it identifies. > >Yes there is. Objects not only have identities, they also have states >and behaviours. This is object-oriented-programming 101. A set of >properties only defines an identity condition. > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
Hi Youness: Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume. This notwithstanding I present below the current state of my model [surely an informal one] which is a combination of previous posts. - "List of all properties: The list of all possible properties objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property - emptiness. The list is most likely at least countably infinite and is assumed herein to be so. Any list can be divided into two sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional pair. The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and therefore uncountably infinite. Therefore there are uncountably infinite objects." One sub list would identify the "Nothing" having the property "empty". There is no reason to create a multi-layered system distinguishing between a sub list and the object it identifies. The list itself, being a particular sub list, is therefore an object with properties - so the list is a member of itself. This nesting yields an infinite number of "Nothings". A "Nothing" is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration. So it is unstable - it eventually "decays" [Big Bang] into a something that follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub division of its list - that is, it becomes an evolving object - an evolving universe. Since there is an infinite number of "Nothings" we have a multiverse. Some such paths to completion will have SAS, "Inflation" and "Dark energy" which are expressions of the information flow dynamics resulting from the particular completion dynamics. The completion path is naturally random but always grows in information. Very large completion steps should be less common than smaller ones so SAS - if present - would therefore mostly "observe" small changes. Hal Ruhl At 02:22 AM 9/17/2007, you wrote: >Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar >ideas: > >"List of all properties: The list of all possible properties >objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least >one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property - >emptiness. The list is most likely at least countably infinite and >is assumed herein to be so. Any list can be divided into two >sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional >pair. The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and >therefore uncountably infinite. Therefore there are uncountably >infinite objects." > >But your theories are much more complex than that if my first >impression is correct. Sooner or later, I'll give attention to them in >more detail. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
Hi Youness:
I have been posting models based on a list of properties as the
fundamental for a few years.
Hal Ruhl
At 06:36 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Youness Ayaita wrote:
>
>This leads to the
>2nd idea:
>We don't say that imaginable things are fundamental, but that the
>properties themselves are. This idea was also expressed by 1Z in his
>last reply ("We define imaginable things through hypothetical
>combinations of properties", Z1) and I think it's a very good
>candidate for a solution. Then, we start from S being the set of all
>properties (perhaps with the cardinality of the natural numbers). As
>above, we define {0,1}^S as the ensemble of descriptions. This would
>have the cardinality of the real numbers and could mathematically be
>captured by the infinite strings {0,1}^IN (the formal definition of
>the Schmidhuber ensemble to give an answer for Bruno).
>
>
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: As to my grasp of the UDA I think I understood it at one time well enough for my purpose but that will become clearer as I progress through my model. There are not too many more steps. Examining the complete list of possible properties of objects we should find "Empty of all information". This would on a sub list. It would from at least part of the sub list that could be assigned the name "The Nothing" or just "Nothing". The Nothing would also be incomplete if there was a meaningful question it must answer. The question would be "Can The Nothing sustain its of property of being empty of information?" It can not answer this question so it is incomplete. However, it must answer this question so its incompleteness is unstable. It must eventually eat its way into the rest of the list so to speak - eventually having an countably infinite number of properties. This is the source of my model's dynamic. The list itself has properties and these are on a sub list. We actually do not need the list if we allow for simplicity that the objects it and its sub lists define are themselves the sufficient elements of the model. The list is then an object and contains itself. It is infinitely nested. Each nesting has its unstably incomplete Nothing. An infinite nesting of dynamic potential. If the list is complete which seems certain then it should be [I believe] inconsistent [will answer all questions all ways] which we have touched on before. The inconsistency is inherited by the dynamic so the dynamic has a random content. All levels of randomness of trips to completeness are allowed. A UD trace if I understand it correctly would be equivalent to a Nothing on a reasonably monotonic trip to completeness. Yours Hal Ruhl At 12:10 PM 2/20/2007, you wrote: >Hi Hal, > >You say my theory is a subset of yours. I don't understand. I have no >theory, just a deductive argument that IF we are (digital) machine then >"the physical world" is in our head. Then I show how a Universal Turing >Machine can discover it in its own "head". This makes comp, or >variants, testable. > >I have no theory (beside theory of number and machine), I'm just >listening to the machine. That's all. Then I compare the comp-physics >with empirical physics. > >Do you grasp the Universal Dovetailer Argument? Ask if not. > >Regards, > >Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: At 05:43 AM 2/19/2007, you wrote: >Le 18-févr.-07, à 03:33, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > > Hi Bruno: > > > > In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach. > > > > The first has to do with the process of making a list. > > > > The assumption is: > > > > Making a list of items [which could be some of > > the elements of a set for example] is always a > > process of making a one to one mapping of the > > items to some of the counting numbers such as: > > > > 1 - an item > > 2 - an item not previously on the list > > 3 - an item not previously on the list > > . > > . > > . > > n - last item and it was not previously on the list > > >I don' t see clearly an assumption here. I guess you are assuming >existence of things capable of being put in a list. What I am trying to do is establish what making a list is in my model and does it have any mathematical credence. I make it an assumption because some may believe that "make a list" means something different. >Effectively? then >why not use the Wi (cf Cutland's book or older explanations I have >provided on the list. Help yourself with Podniek's page perhaps, or try >to be just informal. > See below > > > > My second assumption is: > > > > Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties. > > >You talk like if it was an axiomatic. A good test to see if it is an >axiomatic consists to change the primitive words you are using by >arbitrary words. You are saying "glass of bears have trees and garden". Did you mean class not "glass"? >You can add that you mean that the term "glass of bear" is *intended >for states of universes, I am not a mathematician so I do not quite understand the above. > but recall the goal is to provide an >explanation for the appearance of the "states of universes". If I understand you, that comes later in the walk through of my model > In general >properties are modelized by sets. It is ok to presuppose some naive set >theory, but then you "axiomatic" has to be clean. > See below > > > > My third assumption is: > > > > All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed. > > >I guess you assume church thesis, and you are talking about effective >properties. > To me at this point the Church Thesis is an ingredient in some of the possible state succession sequences allowed in my model. I mean all properties I do not know if that is the same as your "effective" properties. > > > > My fourth assumption is: > > > > The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite. > > >? (lists are supposed to be countably infinite (or finite)). > This is my point above - "to list" inherently a countably infinite [as max length] process. I would add that my third assumption becomes more important later as one of the keys to my model's dynamic. > > > > Conclusions so far: > > [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full > > list.] > > [The number of objects is uncountably infinite] > >What is the full list? The list of all possible properties of objects. > > > > I will stop there for now and await comments. > > > > As to the remainder of the post: > > > > In the above I have not reached the point of > > deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not > > focusing on computations when I say that any > > succession of states is allowed. Logically > > related successions are allowed. Successions > > displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed. > > >I have already mentionned that comp entails some strong form of (first >person) randomness. Indeed, a priori to much. > Yes we have discussed this before, and it is one of the reasons I continue to believe that your approach is a sub set of mine. I know it has taken a long time for me to reach a level in my model where I could even begin to use an axiom based description and I appreciate your patience. > > > > I would like to finish the walk through of my > > model before discussing white rabbits and observation. > > >I am really sorry Hall. It looks you want to be both informal and >formal. It does not help me to understand what you are trying to say. I have read that it takes 10 years of focused practice to become an expert in a given sub discipline. At this point in my practice of engineering I am on my way to becoming an expert in a fifth sub discipline. I hope you can understand why I must continue to find a path to
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: This is what brought me to the idea that while all objects have "simultaneous" existence they also can have degrees of hyper existence. Hyper existence is like a tag that indicates states that "are", those that are "becoming", and those that have recently "been" [so to speak]. Hal Ruhl At 04:26 PM 2/15/2007, you wrote: >Hal: >you seem to have mastered the problem I got >stuck with in the 'timelessness' speculation >(Any succession of states is allowed. ) > I could not handle successions in reverse, if > time (as an indicator of succession) is cut out. >I did not want to resort to an atemporal system >where ALL steps of processes (what is a process???) live side by side together. > >John M >- Original Message - >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl >To: <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:37 PM >Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds > > >Hi Bruno: > >I was using some of the main components of my >model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of >all degree. Any succession of states is >allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain >successions requires a certain family of white >rabbit distributions then these distributions are present. > >Hal Ruhl > >At 04:23 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote: > > > >Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > > Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a > > > countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite > > > number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my > > > model. As I said above "Our World" can be as precisely as random as > > > it needs to be. > > > > > >I don't understand. > > > >Bruno > > > > > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.36/681 >- Release Date: 2/11/2007 6:50 PM > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: In response I will start with some assumptions central to my approach. The first has to do with the process of making a list. The assumption is: Making a list of items [which could be some of the elements of a set for example] is always a process of making a one to one mapping of the items to some of the counting numbers such as: 1 - an item 2 - an item not previously on the list 3 - an item not previously on the list . . . n - last item and it was not previously on the list My second assumption is: Objects [such as states of universes for example] have properties. My third assumption is: All of the properties it is possible for objects to have can be listed. My fourth assumption is: The list of possible properties of objects is countably infinite. Conclusions so far: [All possible objects are defined by all the sub lists of the full list.] [The number of objects is uncountably infinite] I will stop there for now and await comments. As to the remainder of the post: In the above I have not reached the point of deriving the dynamic of my model but I am not focusing on computations when I say that any succession of states is allowed. Logically related successions are allowed. Successions displaying any degree of randomness are also allowed. I would like to finish the walk through of my model before discussing white rabbits and observation. Yours Hal Ruhl At 09:49 AM 2/12/2007, you wrote: >Hi Hal, > > >Le 12-févr.-07, à 03:37, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > > Hi Bruno: > > > > I was using some of the main components of my > > model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of > > all degree. Any succession of states is > > allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain > > successions requires a certain family of white > > rabbit distributions then these distributions are present. > > >Well, thanks for the white rabbit, but the current goal consists in >explaining why we don't see them. When you say any succession of states >is allowed, are you talking about computations? In computations the >states are logically related, and not all succession of states can be >allowed, or you talk about something else, but then what exactly? >What are your assumption, and what are your conclusion? I know you have >made an effort in clarity, but in your last definitions you adopt the >axiomatic way of talking, but not the axiomatic way of reasoning. This >makes your talk neither informally convincing (granted some sharable >intuition) nor formally clear. I have always been willing to attribute >to you some intuition, I continue doing so, and I have suggested to you >some books capable of providing helps toward much clarity, which is >what is needed to communicate to others, especially when working on >extremely hard subject like what we are discussing. >I hope that Jason, who kindly proposes some act of systematization, >will be able to help you to develop your probably interesting ideas, > >Regards, > >Bruno > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: I was using some of the main components of my model to indicate that it allows white rabbits of all degree. Any succession of states is allowed. If the presence of SAS in certain successions requires a certain family of white rabbit distributions then these distributions are present. Hal Ruhl At 04:23 AM 2/9/2007, you wrote: >Le 07-févr.-07, à 02:45, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a > > countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite > > number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my > > model. As I said above "Our World" can be as precisely as random as > > it needs to be. > > >I don't understand. > >Bruno > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Jason + Stathis
Hi Jason: I want to thank you for you work re a centralized place to keep the various essences of the list and their variations. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: I think the idea before was to provide an acronym list and also give each person or like minded group a limit of a few pages in the FAQ document in which to present a summary of their point of view. Hal Ruhl At 11:59 AM 2/7/2007, you wrote: >Hal: >you really believe that anybody could provide >responses acceptable for all others? (I did not say understandable") >Everybody sits in his own mindset and speaks his >own scientific religion (=scientific belief >system) - [said so, whether I aggraveted now (again) Russell or not.] >We are in a pretty liquid exchange-state (liquid OM). >Otherwise the idea is excellent, with multiple choice. >John >- Original Message - >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl >To: <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:49 PM >Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds > >Hi John: > >Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ >for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. > >Hal Ruhl > > > > >At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: >>Hal and list: >>I do not think anybody "fully understands" what >>other listers write, even if one thinks so. >>Or is it only my handicap? >>John M >>- Original Message - >>From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl >>To: >><mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com >>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM >>Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds >> >>Hi Bruno: >>I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. >>Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its >>evolving universes - meaning I take it that all >>successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. >>I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. >>Lets us say that you are correct about this >>result re your model, this just seems to >>reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order >>to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. >>Yours >>Hal Ruhl >> >>At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >> >> >Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : >> > >> > > As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as >> > > a subset. >> > >> > >> >This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all (1-person) >> >white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does >> >not reintroduce new one. >> > >> >Bruno >> > >> > >> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> > >> > >> > >> > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 >- Release Date: 2/6/2007 5:52 PM > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Just to clarify - in the metaphor a UD trace that assigns a Hyper Existence of say 0.2 does so to all states it "lands" on because the UD is that type of UD. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for the list. Perhaps we should give it another try. Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: >Hal and list: >I do not think anybody "fully understands" what >other listers write, even if one thinks so. >Or is it only my handicap? >John M >- Original Message - >From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl >To: <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 10:24 PM >Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds > > >Hi Bruno: > >I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. > >Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its >evolving universes - meaning I take it that all >successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. > >I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. > >Lets us say that you are correct about this >result re your model, this just seems to >reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order >to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. > >Yours > >Hal Ruhl > > >At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: > > > >Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > > > As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as > > > a subset. > > > > > >This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all (1-person) > >white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does > >not reintroduce new one. > > > >Bruno > > > > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote: >Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > >>Hal Ruhl writes: >> >> > Hi Bruno: >> > >> > I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. >> > >> > Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its >> > evolving universes - meaning I take it that all >> > successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. >> >>You mean "physical consequences" or something >>similar, don't you? I don't see anything >>logically inconsistent about a talking white >>rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard >>reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon. > My model taps the inconsistency of a complete collection of information to give the dynamic of its universe state to state succession at least some random content. There is no conflict in my approach with talking white rabbits or uncommonly evolving keyboards. What I indicated is that all I needed to encompass our world in a UD metaphor of a sub set of my model was a compatible ongoing intersection of a set [an infinite set most likely] of UD traces. The picture is a set of say twenty traces all arriving at twenty "Our World" compatible successive states simultaneously. If the traces assign a compatible degree of hyper existence to their respective states then the result is twenty immediately successive states with a rising then falling degree of Hyper existence. The intersecting traces are not even necessarily logically related just compatibly coincident for one of "Our World's" "ticks" so to speak. At the next "tick" of our world a completely different set of twenty traces can be involved. "Our World" can be precisely as random as it needs to be. >I agree with Stathis. Much more, I can prove to >you that the sound lobian machine agrees with Stathis! >It is a key point: there is nothing inconsistent >with my seeing and measuring white rabbits (cf >"dreams, videa, ...). Both with QM and/or comp, >we can only hope such "events" are relatively rare. >Now, a naive reading of the UD can give the >feeling that with comp white rabbits are not >rare at all, and that is why I insist at some >point that we have to take more fully into >account the "objective constraints" of >theoretical computer science and mathematical >logic (some of which are counter-intuitive and even necessarily so). > > >Hal Ruhl continued: > > >>I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. >> >>Lets us say that you are correct about this >>result re your model, this just seems to >>reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order >>to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. > > > >It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics >a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. >It is by taking the full set of (relative >histories) that the quantum phase randomization >can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths). >It works with the QM because of the existence of >destructive interferences, and somehow what the >computationalist has to justify is the (first >person plural) appearance of such destructive effects. > >Bruno Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my model. As I said above "Our World" can be as precisely as random as it needs to be. Hal Ruhl --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi Bruno: I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its evolving universes - meaning I take it that all successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. Lets us say that you are correct about this result re your model, this just seems to reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. Yours Hal Ruhl At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote: >Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit : > > > As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as > > a subset. > > >This means that even if "my theory" makes disappear all (1-person) >white rabbits, you will still have to justify that your overset does >not reintroduce new one. > >Bruno > > >http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Hi John: Sorry I did not respond earlier. Lately I do not have time to read the list posts and respond during the week. At 04:02 PM 1/29/2007, you wrote: >Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up >your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry. >* >You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even >postulate one variable needed. > Observer moments and states of universes I take as being identical. To say that they do not interact is a selection. Selections create information and I prefer the point of view that the top level system should have zero net information. The All [has many other names suppose] has zero net information because it contains all information. I separate out of the information zero "All" for examination a list of all properties that an object can have. That is I select a boundary in the All from among its infinite number of boundaries. My list being a list can be countably infinite and the set of all its sub sets would then be uncountably infinite. There are then an uncountably infinite number of objects which can be taken to be states of universes. >How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec? States of universes have permanent uniform existence. The question is how "long" can they have a non zero hyper existence. The answer is all values [to avoid more selection]. >Even if it is a portion of the latter, it makes the existence quite >discontinuous - with all the difficulties in it. If it is >continuous, then how can we talk about 'moments'? Should we assign >an equal rate change to all existence (meaning: ONE selection for >the OM length)? If it can be ANY, varying from the infinitely short >to the other extreme, it would 'wash away' any sense of the meaning >of an Observer MOMENT concept. My flow of hyper existence with its possible non binary pulse shapes could make consciousness "continuous" for some sequences of states. SAS might find a universe state sequence in which the pulse rises from zero to 1 and then back to zero in a many step stair case fashion user friendly. >I think the OM is the figment of us, human observers, who want to >use an 'understandable' model. [Like: numbers (in the human logic sense).] > >Then, in view of the resulting 'unfathomable', we 'complicate' these >models - originally created FOR comprehension - into >incomprehensibility. [The way as e.g. to bridge Bohm's Explicate to >the Implicate (by Nic de Cusa's 2nd principle, left out by Bohm: >the "Complicate" - what I like to assign as math).] >* >That 'one' variable property you mention as needed for state- >interaction is IMO not necessarily o n e within our (present) comprehension. I identify my list's sub sets as states of universes. The interaction variable I call hyper existence could be compared with a UD trace. When the trace lands on a state it gets a non zero hyper existence. You could have UDs that assign a 0.1 hyper existence, UDs that assign a 0.2 value, UDs that assign a 0.8 value, UDs that assign a 1.0 value etc. etc. Now all my model would ask for next is for a sting of universe states that look like ours is in lasting [infinite] compatible set of UD trace intersections. Since all UDs are infinitely nested, an infinite set of such trace intersection sets would be obtained. My model has a dynamic originated in the incompleteness of some of the list sub sets and this dynamic has a random content due to the internal and external inconsistency of some of the list's sub sets. As far as I can tell from this, my model may include Bruno's model as a subset. Yours Hal Ruhl - Original Message - From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Hal Ruhl To: <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:02 PM Subject: RE: ASSA and Many-Worlds One thing that I do not agree with is what seems to me to be a common holding regarding observer moments [by this I mean discrete states of universes [which are a sub set of possible "objects"]] is that they are each so far assumed to have a set of properties that are to some extent the same as other observer moments and to some extent different from all other observer moments [to distinguish individual moments] but nevertheless the properties of an individual observer moment are fixed for that observer moment. This to me is not logical since it is a selection and why that selection? Why not have some blend of variable properties and fixed properties as a possibility? This seems more in accord with a zero information ensemble. Further, if it is also held that observer moments can not interact - that is also a selectio
