Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 5:06:50 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10,

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:27:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Nov 2018, at 18:50, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:32:53 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Nov 2018, at 17:27, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Turing

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

> On 28 Nov 2018, at 16:03, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > From: Brent Meeker > >> >> You're dodging my point. The "issue" of how we have subjective experience >> only seems to be an issue because in comparison to the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 28 Nov 2018, at 00:44, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >>My commitment is with the scientific method, so when you make outlandish > >>claims (matter is not needed to make calculations Robison arithmetic alone >

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 7:38:26 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2018, at 16:03, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >> >> From: Brent Meeker >> >> >> You're dodging my point. The "issue" of how we have subjective

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

My original question was about copying memories between identical carbon atoms. How does that work with DNA molecules? Are they composed of carbon atoms? On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:37 AM John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:08 PM Martin Abramson > wrote: > > > *How do they replicate

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 10:44:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Nov 2018, at 20:21, Brent Meeker > > wrote: > > > What is this "primary matter" of which you speak? > > > > X is Primary means basically that we have to assume X (or something judged > enough equivalent). >

Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

What can be inferred always depends on what you take as premises. If you start from the Hilbert space formulation of QM or an equivalent formulation/*and you premise that there is a probability interpretation of  a state*/, then Gleason's theorem tells you that the Born rule provides the

Re: The most accurate clock ever

On 11/29/2018 6:28 AM, John Clark wrote: In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

What does this mean in terms of (the possibility of) making a Star Trek transporter? :) [ https://www.thoughtco.com/star-trek-instantaneous-matter-transport-3072118 ] - pt On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 8:34:23 PM UTC-6, Monterey wrote: > > My original question was about copying

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

> On 28 Nov 2018, at 18:40, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:03:42 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: > From: Brent Meeker > >> >> You're dodging my point. The "issue" of how we have subjective

Re: Where Max Tegmark is really wrong

On 11/29/2018 11:08 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Nov 2018, at 18:40, Philip Thrift > wrote: On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 9:03:42 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Friday, November 9, 2018 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: From:

The most accurate clock ever

In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if set at the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:08 PM Martin Abramson wrote: > *How do they replicate themselves with the exact same memory engrams as > before? Thanks for the response. m.a.* > The exact mechanism depends on the specific example, computers have many different ways to duplicate information. In

Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG I can do that. Actually the “universal dovetailer argument (UDA)” is a version of my thesis accessible to kids, at least up to the seventh step (the 8th one

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 27 Nov 2018, at 18:50, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 4:32:53 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Nov 2018, at 17:27, John Clark > >> wrote: > > > >> Turing explained how matter can behave intelligently, > > No. He showed how a person can be

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 27 Nov 2018, at 20:21, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2018 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 25 Nov 2018, at 15:41, John Clark >> > wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:40 AM Philip Thrift >> > wrote: >>> >>>

Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG > > > > I can do that. > I don't believe it can be done. For example, even if there exists

Re: If Quantum Mechanics can be derived using arithmetic only, how would that derivation begin?

On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:56:51 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 29, 2018 at 4:22:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 28 Nov 2018, at 21:10, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Bruno, can you do it without resort to your idiosyncratic jargon? AG >>