On 11 Jan 2014, at 13:54, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
The WM experiment is easy to grasp. For me the difficulty lies, as
Liz guessed, with the infinity of possibilities. For continuation Cn
does p(n) stabilize as the number of computations approaches infinity?
If not, comp is false.
On 11 Jan 2014, at 14:05, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to
follow you here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of
these days but unfortunately I barely have enough time these days to
read this list.
OK. Good boo
On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:38, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD,
UD*, which from the first person perspec
On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb wrote:
> The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret,
> they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct
> which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes
> observed phenomena. The justific
On 12 January 2014 18:33, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear LizR,
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear LizR,
>>>
>>> That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
>>> particular set of propertie
On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
By the way, what about if you find a mathematical theory that show
that:
computer programs and matematical proofs are no longer something out
of math,
This is non sense. Computer programs have born in math.
but mathematical structure
On 11 Jan 2014, at 23:11, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 11:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what is the measure of "relative persistence"?
It is the measure almost defined by the material hypostases (in
S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*). It defines the comp physical laws.
How do those different logics
On 12 Jan 2014, at 02:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the proofs where not studied before as mathematical structures.
Godel and any mathematician did profs, but proofs where
meta-mathematical, in the sense that they were not mathematical
objects,
No, that is not true at all, and meaningless.
On 11 Jan 2014, at 16:06, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Dear Friends,
I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His latest post
speaks to the Becoming interpretation of mathematics that I advocate:
http://kauffman201
Phisical computation was discovered by nature 4000 Million years BT
(Before Turing) . And even before.
2014/1/12, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> By the way, what about if you find a mathematical theory that show
>> that:
>>
>> computer programs and mate
Physical computation was discovered by nature 4000 Million years BT
(Before Turing) . And even before.
2014/1/12, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> By the way, what about if you find a mathematical theory that show
>> that:
>>
>> computer programs and mate
On 11 Jan 2014, at 15:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
"AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as
primitive. Both emerge from the additive-multiplicative structure of
arithmetic (AR), and that structure provides the n
2014/1/12, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 02:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> But the proofs where not studied before as mathematical structures.
>> Godel and any mathematician did profs, but proofs where
>> meta-mathematical, in the sense that they were not mathematical
>> objects,
>
> No
On 11 Jan 2014, at 18:57, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD,
UD*, which from the first person perspective is "entirely
On 11 Jan 2014, at 18:42, John Mikes wrote:
Reply to Bruno;
Wed, Jan 8, 2014 Bruno M wrote:
Note also that Popper's principle has been refuted in the Machine
Learning theory (by John Case & Al.). Allowing an inductive
inference machine to bet on some non refutable principle enlarges
the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:05, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 23:32, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
nor does it do anything - it's simply there, in a timeless realm.
UD* does not do anything, but we can say that relatively to the
addition and multiplication laws, the
On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s
grapplings with consciousness, the bl
On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:33, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King > wrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of
On 12 Jan 2014, at 08:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I am writing about concepts that are more fundamental than
physics, but some of the same ideas transfer from the fundamental to
the phenomenal. Physics is phenomena that we can observe and
measure...
Neutrality is the a
On 12 Jan 2014, at 11:28, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Phisical computation was discovered by nature 4000 Million years BT
(Before Turing) . And even before.
Show me the publication.
Come one, with argument like that I could answer that mathematical
computation has been discovered already out
On 12 Jan 2014, at 11:36, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2014/1/12, Bruno Marchal :
On 12 Jan 2014, at 02:41, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
But the proofs where not studied before as mathematical structures.
Godel and any mathematician did profs, but proofs where
meta-mathematical, in the sense that t
2014/1/12, Alberto G. Corona :
> 2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal :
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>> 2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal :
On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> 2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona :
>> 2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal :
>>>
>>>
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
> conscious, so I don't see why another lump of dumb matter arranged in
> a special way might not also be conscious. What is it about that idea
> that you see as
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>
> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
> Consciousness as a State of Matter
> Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
>
> Hi Folk,
> Grrr!
> I confess th
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
like a straight line?
Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code. Any
rendering of that code into a visual experience of lines and curves is a
question of graphic formatting and human optical in
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can
differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to any
mereological Systems argument.
If any of you have use passwords which are based on a pattern of keystrokes
rather than the letters on the keys, you know tha
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 11 Jan 2014, at 16:06, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Paul King <
> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends,
>>
>> I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His la
Bruno: *Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of all of
them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...*
Richard: We are in close agreement if the digital machines are each a
Calabi-Yau CY Compact Manifold that can be enumerated.
Bruno: *So, you can fix one universal language, like a base, an
On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales
wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grr
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference
seems like a straight line?
Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code.
Any rendering of that code into a visual experience of lines and
curves is
On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation
can differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to
any mereological Systems argument.
If any of you have use passwords which are based on a pattern of
keystrok
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer wrot
> > In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge of
> the microstate.
>
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know better.
> > And in quantum physics, there is nothing in principle preventing
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
> quantum level.
>
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a
quantum event can easily be magnified to a macro-event as large as desired,
you coul
I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable for
quantum computation, because of the temperature being "to high" for qc to
occur. Does he concede there is a difference between qc and quantum effects
which can duplicate what super cold qc can (based on recent papers
On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of all
of them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...
Richard: We are in close agreement if the digital machines are each
a Calabi-Yau CY Compact Manifold that can be enumerated.
Bruno:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 06:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales
>> wrote:
>>
>>> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
>>>
>>> Consciousness as a State of Matter
>>>
>>> Max Tegmark, Januar
On 12 Jan 2014, at 16:53, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer
wrot
> In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your
knowledge of the microstate.
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know
better.
> And in quantum ph
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno: *Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of all of
> them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...*
>
> Richard: We are in close agreement if the digital machines are each a
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:06 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> I'm not sure what "time is symmetrical" means to you.
>
The term is self evident.
> It's the equations of dynamical evolution that are t-symmetric in physics
>
Yes, time symmetrical laws of physics would usually mean that time was
symmetrical
On 12 Jan 2014, at 17:26, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as
unsuitable for quantum computation,
Good remark. His "consciousness" paper seems to contradict his paper
on the brain being classical.
because of the temperature being "t
Yes photosynthesis uses, I read, quantum processing in the tropics.
Birds are alleged to navigate that way, I seem to remember reading.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
> I wonder, if as a side issue, Tegmark still see's Bio matter as unsuitable
> for quantum computation, because of the
On 12 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Bruno: Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of
all of them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...
Richard: We are in clo
Why are we not more interested in the "special arrangements"?
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, January 12, 2014 12:21:48 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a lump of dumb matter arranged in a special way and I am
>> conscious, so I don't see why anot
Tegmark has painted himself into a corner on the subject of high
temperature quantum coherence. The problem is the neglect of the role that
structure ("special arrangement") can play. For example check out
metamaterials whose properties mostly come from the "special arrangement".
Tegmark treats the
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
>>
>> Consciousness as a State of Matter
>>
>> Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Folk,
>>
>> Grrr!
>>
>> I
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:45:13 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
> like a straight line?
>
> Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code. A
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:51:37 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation
> > can differ from natural understanding which is not susceptible to
> > any mereological Syste
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer wrot
>
>
>> > In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge
>> of the microstate.
>>
>
> Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought that, today we know
> better.
>
On Sunday, January 12, 2014 10:43:41 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 14:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:41:15 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 05:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
>
> RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6
On 1/12/2014 12:55 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 January 2014 19:53, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they
mainly
make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the
addition
of cert
Dear Brent and LizR,
Could it be that we are really discussing the Word Problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_problem_for_groups
Note the relation to computations, via the use of recursively enumerable
sets!
A pair of words, as defined in the Wiki article, could represent the
content of a
On 1/12/2014 1:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You might study the book by Szabo, on the category approach on the algebra of
proofs.
But proofs and computations are not equivalent concept at all. There is a Church's
thesis for computability, not for provability and definability which are machines o
On 1/12/2014 8:20 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
quantum level.
Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device a quantum
event
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> The entropy is defined not in terms of some vague notion of the "number of
> ways the system could have gotten into" its present microstate, but rather
> as the number of possible microstates the system might be in at this moment
> given tha
On Wednesday, January 8, 2014 5:49:38 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> Maximus writes:
>
>
> The Higgs Boson was predicted with the same tool as the planet Neptune and
> the radio wave: with mathematics. Why does our universe seem so
> mathematical, and what does it mean? In my new book, Our Mathem
On 1/12/2014 9:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I'm sorry I repeat this answer so many times, but this claim is also
made so many times. The main problem I see with this idea is that no
progress has been made so far in explaining how a lump of matter
becomes conscious, as opposed to just being a zombi
On 13 January 2014 02:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> How large does a digital circle have to be before the circumference seems
> like a straight line?
>
That depends on who is viewing it and where from, surely?
> Digital information has no scale or sense of relation. Code is code. Any
> rendering o
>
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno: *Those machines are enumerable. There is an enumeration of all of
> them: m_0, m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4, ...*
>
> Richard: We are in close agreement if the digital machines are each a
> Calabi-Yau CY Compact Manifold that can be enumerated.
On 13 January 2014 05:20, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> > "Retro-causality" (time symmetry is a better term) only exists at the
>> quantum level.
>>
>
> Why? Where is the dividing line? And with a Schrodinger's Cat type device
> a quantum event can easily b
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, 12 January 2014 5:54 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness
On 1/11/2014 8:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quan
Liz,
CY Compact manifolds are particles of 6d space that precipitate out of 3D
space.
Each particle is about 1000 Planck lengths in diameter.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 6:18 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2014, at 15:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Bruno: *Those machines are enumerable. There is an
On 13 January 2014 17:44, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Liz,
>
> CY Compact manifolds are particles of 6d space that precipitate out of 3D
> space.
> Each particle is about 1000 Planck lengths in diameter.
>
> OK. That sounds like the extra dimensions of string theory...?
Do you think they can be iden
63 matches
Mail list logo
