On 21 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
Rhetorical trick, and you don't answer to the question that I asked
you. I gave everyone the proof, and I told you that the UD
On 22 Jan 2014, at 02:00, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stephen,
A lot of good stuff in your post. I'll come back to some of it later
after I think more on it but first wanted to clarify a couple of
your points.
You say the UDA serves a good purpose to show that there is some
ontological merit
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 12:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Jan 2014, at 22:31, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/19/2014 9:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But why should that imply
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
Is it possible for a Computation to be a Model also? What is the
obstruction?
?
Is it possible for an apple to be an orange?
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 02:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/20/2014 5:00 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 06:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/20/2014 1:11 AM, LizR wrote:
On 20 January 2014 18:51,
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid. It works, if Brent meant a
mathematical ultrafinitism. But this change comp, like it changes
elementary arithmetic (which suppose at least that 0 ≠ s(x), and x
≠ y implies
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why would you want to do that? It seems like an unnecessary
extra axiom that doesn't have
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that
seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste from a pdf. Can you
open it in the Chrome browser?
In this ontology, all
On 22 Jan 2014, at 00:16, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Oh! You did not answer:
((COLD WET) - ICE) - ((COLD - ICE) V (WET - ICE))
So what? Afraid of the logician's trick? Or of the logician's
madness? Try this one if you are afraid to be
On 22 January 2014 15:40, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
OK, Let us stipulate the Pigeonholes and Flashlight. What moves the
flashlight around and what perceives what it illuminates? The present
moment contains what is illuminated, sure, but what is doing the
On 22 January 2014 16:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:
It seems to me that differentiation is local, and spreads slowly, and
that there is always going to be some remerging (but only in proportion to
the chances of entropy reversing). The an atom
The thing about the ratio of baryonic to dark matter is that
nucleosynthesis in the big bang would have gone differently if there was
much more baryonic matter around than the amount currently estimated - for
example if there was enough to make the universe come out flat, as it
apparently is to
On 22 January 2014 18:26, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 02:42:43PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Phew, I got there in the end :)
I can only assume that having an (apparent) body etc is more probable
than
being a disembodied p-ghost, but explaining this in
Addendum
Sorry a wee typo. I meant *Yet* presumably brain cells, when lumped
together into a brain...
On 22 January 2014 17:08, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an open-ended creativity. Well, certainly in the
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, it is all good, Liz!
What about:
(p V q) - p
Using the same formula this is equivalent to(~(p V q) V p), which
for (0,1) is 0, hence not a law.
and
p - (p q)
And this is (~p V
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions. Could you list a few that
seem obvious to you? It is not easy to cut and paste
Dear LizR,
There is also some kind of continuity relation between the content of
the pigeon holes...
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:45 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:40, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
OK, Let us stipulate the
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:10:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Addendum
Sorry a wee typo. I meant *Yet* presumably brain cells, when lumped
together into a brain...
It bugs me that you can't edit after posting on here. I guess every forum
has its irritating features.
On 22 January
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical
in the mathematical multiverse hypothesis, there hasn't to be time at
all. A mathematical equation has not something called time. Time is
the line followed by the Self Aware Structures and their evolution in
them, if there are any life.
No life, no time. If there is life, the lines of life-time
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think Bruno gave a good definition of 'free will' as unpredictability
(even by oneself).
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will
Alberto,
This is total nonsense. It assumes the universe did not evolve for 13.4
billion years until life came along.
It's even crazier than block time and MWI
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:58 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
in the mathematical multiverse hypothesis,
On 22 January 2014 09:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I said the fl;ashlight wasn't needed, so it isn't there, and so
nothing moves it around. The pigeonholes stand for states of consciousness,
so they perceive what it would illuminate, which is their own contents. But
they can
Dear Alberto,
I disagree, but like the direction of your thinking.
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital computer.
So
Dear LizR,
On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:04:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
A process which transforms information?
Any! Define information as the distinction between a pair of things that
makes a difference to a third. The third is the witness, it gives us a
notion of 3p...
Ultimately,
Dear yanniru,
It is deterministic in the mathematical sense if determinism is some form
of bijective map between a domain and a range. But we cannot access the
content of the domain nor of the range. Laplace's Demon can't read it off.
Resent debate on the topic of the Black Hole Firewall
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or aproximated) by a digital computer.
OK. That's a
Dear Alberto,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:44:18 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
Liz, Richard:
I´m not talking about global reduction of entropy neither of the
universe neither a star, planet of black hole, but a local decrease of
entropy at the cost of a (bigger) increase of entropy
Hi Liz,
May be I am to quick.
On 22 Jan 2014, at 12:58, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 04:23, LizR wrote:
On 21 January 2014 22:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
No, it is all good, Liz!
What about:
(p V q) - p
Using the same formula this is equivalent to(~(p V q) V
Dear David,
I have sorely missed your wisdom in this debate!
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:06 PM, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 09:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I said the fl;ashlight wasn't needed, so it isn't there, and so
nothing moves it around.
It assumes the mathematical multiverse hypothesis as was defined by
Max Tegmark, where any mathematical structure defines an universe.
2014/1/22, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Alberto,
This is total nonsense. It assumes the universe did not evolve for 13.4
billion years until life came
On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is understood as whatever made by a digital computer or
something that can be emulated (or
Dear Bruno,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 20:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:51:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Jan 2014, at 21:17, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Computation is
Dear Bruno,
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:11:16 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 15:45, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It is a phisical definition of computation in the physical world, to
distinguish what physical phenomena are computations and what are not.
I don´t care
Dear Craig,
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:54 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic
bodies.
Dear Craig,
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig!
I watched the video... very cool!
Hi Dan, glad you liked it.
Questions:
1) Who is the user of the interface?
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Craig,
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Hey Craig!
I watched the video... very cool!
Hi
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too monotonous to
find meaningful any longer. That is the function of computation,
automation, and mechanism in all cases: To remove or displace the necessity
for
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:17:25 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Craig,
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:54 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:10:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Addendum
Sorry a wee typo. I meant *Yet* presumably brain cells, when lumped
together into a brain...
It bugs me that you can't edit after posting on here.
On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, there are many ontological assumptions.
Dear Craig,
I was cheering and AMENing throughout the talk.
I especially liked the Category theoretic equation of interaction at
http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI 22:04. Notice that the horizontal arrow point
in opposite directions
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Craig Weinberg
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:02 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 02:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 17:35, Stephen Paul King
On 1/22/2014 1:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 21:33, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 2:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Only to make the UDA non valid. It works, if Brent meant a mathematical ultrafinitism.
But this change comp, like it changes elementary arithmetic (which suppose at
No matter how I try to slice it, the 'opinions' about computation seem to
be restricted to a reductionist view of mathematical base - maybe including
some physical terms (entropy? information as 'bit' etc.) as well.
No wonder, the List-members are hooked in these domains.
I started out with the
Dear John,
Thank you for trying to parse my gobbletygok! Watch the Donald Hoffman
talk, then think about what your saying.
http://youtu.be/dqDP34a-epI
Are you following my argument that we need a dual pair of Categories, not
just one?
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:37 PM, John Mikes
On 1/22/2014 1:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/21/2014 3:30 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/21/2014 8:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Why would
On 1/22/2014 2:00 AM, LizR wrote:
On 22 January 2014 16:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/21/2014 4:50 PM, LizR wrote:
It seems to me that differentiation is local, and spreads slowly, and
that there
is always going to be some
On 1/22/2014 2:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Jan 2014, at 01:41, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:53:33PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
With some competence, I guess you mean.
Without competence, and giving time to the creature, any universal
machine do have an
Excellent jessem, thanks. This line from the abstract of the first paper
you cite pretty much summarises the changed understanding of MWI I was
getting at:
Measurement-type interactions lead, not to many worlds but, rather, to many
local copies of experimental systems and the observers who
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a pure
quantum state then it has zero entropy, which means that all the complexity
and information we see is a local phenomena due to our being
quasi-classical, i.e.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:58:32AM -0500, John Clark wrote:
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will that are not
gibberish, and they are almost never used:
1) Free Will is the inability to predict
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:12:50AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A set (of natural numbers) is creative if
1) it is RE (and thus is some w_k)
2) its complement (N - w_k) is productive, and this means that for
all w_y included in, we can recursively (mechanically) find an
element in it, not
On 1/22/2014 6:25 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 12:53, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
By having interacted in the (distant) past. If the universe is a pure
quantum state
then it has zero entropy, which means that all the complexity and
On 23 January 2014 08:48, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide to take
the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of using
the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and share
about.
On 23 January 2014 05:58, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will that are not
gibberish, and they are almost never used:
1) Free Will is the inability to predict
On 23 January 2014 12:25, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
And the logical process, at least, re-presents the physical process. We
get a closed loop if we have full algebraic closure and a bijection between
the two sides of the proverbial coin.
I don't know what this
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just saw a cat created
the cat?)
Kinda! in a way, Yes. (I am not considering all othe other observers of the
Cat. Think of the loop as involving a delay, that the transformation is not
instantaneous. it takes time for the system to
On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just saw a cat created
the cat?)
Kinda! in a way, Yes. (I am not considering all othe other observers of
the Cat. Think of the loop as involving a delay,
On 23 January 2014 18:09, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Yeah, but decoherence just makes things look classical at a coarse-grained
level (when we trace over the environment). Microscopically it's spreading
the superposition.
Yes, I guess that makes sense. All those quantum entities
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think of as
entities - adding raindrops isn't 1+1, nature is really adding something
like 10^25 atoms to another 10^25. But it _does_ add bosons in a BEC. Even
when the constituents are indistinguishable, nature can perform simple
On 23 January 2014 02:24, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
There is also some kind of continuity relation between the content of
the pigeon holes...
There sure is (except for the guy in Memento perhaps). That comes down to
the laws of physics, which glue
On 23 January 2014 07:06, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 22 January 2014 09:45, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I said the fl;ashlight wasn't needed, so it isn't there, and so
nothing moves it around. The pigeonholes stand for states of consciousness,
so they perceive what
On 23 January 2014 08:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
We need the Becoming that is implicit in the moving flashlight, at
least to give us a window of finite duration in time (and bits/space) to
have a memory of what I used to be that can be compared to what I
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 18:42, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
(Isn't that a bit like saying that me typing I just
On 23 January 2014 06:38, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Alberto,
This is total nonsense. It assumes the universe did not evolve for 13.4
billion years until life came along.
More like 10 billion years, but same point.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think of as entities -
adding raindrops isn't 1+1, nature is really adding something like 10^25 atoms to
another 10^25. But it _does_ add bosons in a BEC. Even when the constituents are
On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
OK. (Shame because the imaginary timeless realm version looks quite good,
ontologically speaking.)
So what alternative have you in
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think of as
entities - adding raindrops isn't 1+1, nature is really adding something
like 10^25 atoms to another 10^25. But it
On 1/22/2014 10:33 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:22, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
We need the Becoming that is implicit in the moving flashlight, at least
to give
us a window of finite duration in time (and bits/space)
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:15:58 PM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
On 23 January 2014 18:09, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net javascript:wrote:
Yeah, but decoherence just makes things look classical at a
coarse-grained level (when we trace over the environment). Microscopically
it's spreading
On 1/22/2014 10:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:35, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/22/2014 10:21 PM, LizR wrote:
The real world doesn't add raindrops, or most other things we think of
as
entities - adding raindrops isn't
Dear LizR,
I want to explore the idea that Realities Evolve.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:36 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 19:34, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
Yes, we are but one that does not live in an imaginary timeless realm.
I think after looking at your next post that I have messed up []p - p and
therefore, no doubt, everything else. I need to do the truth table business
... later!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Dear LizR,
With quantum field theory we are still using the idea of a single
space-time manifold to glue it all together but this itself could be one
of the problems that we have in physics.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:23 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 02:24, Stephen
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:42:30 PM UTC+11, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Gibbsa,
No, you misunderstand what I'm saying.
Of course the hubble rate can keep on going, passing the speed of light
barrier, and forever
On 23 January 2014 08:18, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
OK. A last little exercise in the same vein, for the night. (coming from a
book by Jeffrey):
Alicia was singing this:
Everybody loves my baby. My baby loves nobody but me.
Can we deduce from this that everybody loves
One always finds out what Edgar doesn't mean...
On 23 January 2014 20:09, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 6:42:30 PM UTC+11, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:11:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Gibbsa,
No, you misunderstand what I'm
80 matches
Mail list logo
