Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 15:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Chris,

Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality  
called 'happening' drives it...


Thanks to the Church's thesis, computing is a simple conceptual  
notion, like being prime or even.

reality is the mystery, not computing.

Reality itself compute can make sense if you define reality by the  
arithmetical reality, but the happenings are only due to the  
internal first person points of view.


Bruno






Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:


From: everyth...@googlegroups.com  
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR

Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from  
computational reality



On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.


What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the  
computations?


What is doing the imagining?

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:10, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of LizR

Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from  
computational reality


On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the  
computations?


What is doing the imagining?


The universal numbers.

Relatively to a finite number of universal numbers, above their  
substitution level, from the local approximate (yet Turing complete)  
physical laws, to the boss, the colleagues, the member of the family,  
the laptop, and the jumping spider, hidden in the kitchen.


Relatively to all universal numbers and all their computations, below  
their substitution level.


To undersatnd this, all you need is to conceive that you might survive  
witha digital brain, and that statement like 17 is prime are true  
independently of you.


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-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.

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by  
quantum events more clearly and succinctly.


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am  
computational, and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence  
of many non computational things, so everything cannot be a  
computational things. You seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use  
implicitly some body/mind identify thesis which are not consistent  
with computationalism.


Bruno




In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing  
dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.


Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the  
computations in a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM,  
eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the source of  
quantum randomness in the world.


There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort  
to understand, and one must first set aside some common sense  
notions about reality.


 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of  
particle properties in any particle interaction in comp space.


The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the  
amounts of all particle properties of incoming particles and  
redistributes them among the outgoing particles in every particle  
interaction.


The results of such computational events is that the particle  
properties of all outgoing particles of every event are  
interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This is  
called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are  
always entangled on the particle properties conserved in that event.


Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional  
particle properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction  
events. In other words, all dimensional particle properties between  
the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to  
be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They  
must be to satisfy the conservation laws.


Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a  
spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.


Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles.  
The result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional  
interrelationships which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold  
of dimensional interrelations.


Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is  
continuously involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g.  
millions of photons impinging on its retina). The effect will be  
that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast  
network of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the  
human observer as a classical spacetime.


He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually  
exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with  
dimensional relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges,  
due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in  
aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the  
structure of our familiar spacetime.


But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is  
actually a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't  
actually exist. It must be continually maintained by myriads of  
continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes back into the  
computational reality from which it emerged.



Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model  
conceptually unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is  
that every mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events  
is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate  
space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through  
some common quantum event. When that occurs, and only then, all  
alignments of both networks are resolved into a single spacetime  
common to all its elements.


E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are  
created their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other,  
but only in their own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have  
to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation  
is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame  
of the laboratory.


However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links  
and aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of  
the laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both  
particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter the  
spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal  
and opposite to that of the first.


There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is  
no 'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin  
orientations of the particles exist in 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
There are an awful lot of hidden assumptions implied by that first explicit
assumption imagine a world in which everything is computational.

I've asked for clarification from Edgar, but I won't hold my breath while I
wait.


On 16 January 2014 22:44, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 00:12, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 All,

 I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
 events more clearly and succinctly.

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



 That does not exist. If everything is computational, I am computational,
 and thus comp is true, but comp entails the existence of many non
 computational things, so everything cannot be a computational things. You
 seem to ignore the FPI, and you seem to use implicitly some body/mind
 identify thesis which are not consistent with computationalism.

 Bruno




 In particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
 spacetime background does NOT exist.

 Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in
 a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum
 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.

 There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to
 understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about
 reality.

  Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle
 properties in any particle interaction in comp space.

 The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of
 all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among
 the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

 The results of such computational events is that the particle properties
 of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be
 to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing
 particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties
 conserved in that event.

 Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle
 properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In
 other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing
 particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be
 conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the
 conservation laws.

 Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates
 a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

 Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The
 result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships
 which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional
 interrelations.

 Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously
 involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons
 impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous
 particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional
 interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical
 spacetime.

 He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually
 exist. All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional
 relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of
 the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and
 manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar
 spacetime.

 But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually
 a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist.
 It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events
 or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it
 emerged.


 Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually
 unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every
 mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely
 independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked
 and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When
 that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved
 into a single spacetime common to all its elements.

 E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created
 their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their
 own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the
 conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human
 observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.

 However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and
 aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the
 laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned
 with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the
 other particle will 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 01:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the  
computations?


Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.


THe UD will emulate all mind states. This we can say (assuming comp).  
But he will never emulate the physical reality/world, a priori, unless  
the physical world is little, finite, essentially material or  
substantial, constitutes my only brain, ... which prevents me from  
saying yes to any doctor.


I don't know what is a world, to be honest.

Bruno




Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 13:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.


  What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
 computations?

 Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.


I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory
doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is
false. He even started a thread called Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
!

OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible
answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me
it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking.
But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking
questions, and I  live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar,
and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified
sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense
to him, as the case may be.

So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which
everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or
something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational
machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, what
*does*it have?

All this (and probably a lot more) needs to be explained before one can
start to imagine a world in which everything is computational.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Chris,

Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called 
'happening' drives it...

Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

  

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *LizR
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational 
 reality

  

 On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: 
 wrote:

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

  

 What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the 
 computations?

 What is doing the imagining?

 -- 
 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 javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar,

  How about this twist on your claim: Reality is isomorphic to the
computations and its dynamics (thermodynamics) drives it.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Chris,

 Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
 'happening' drives it...

 Edgar

 On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:10:16 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:





 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On
 Behalf Of *LizR

 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com

 *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
 reality



 On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



 What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
 computations?

 What is doing the imagining?

 --
 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 a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
On 17 January 2014 03:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Chris,

 Reality itself is doing the computing... The aspect of reality called
 'happening' drives it...

 That isn't an answer to *anything* I've asked. Naming something doesn't
explain what it is.
I thought you'd have enough pride in your own ideas, if nothing else, to at
least try to give a proper answer to the questions I asked,  but you have
simply chosen to ignore them.

Let me repeat them, in case you missed them, and see if you have the
intellectual honesty to at least attempt to explain yourself, for once.


*I would like to know what Edgar's answer is. Obviously Edgar's theory
doesn't use the UD, because he has clearly stated that he thinks comp is
false. He even started a thread called Bruno's fundamental mistake (IMHO)
! *

*OK, I admit that going on past behaviour I shouldn't expect a sensible
answer from Edgar. I know I'm most likely to some snide comment telling me
it's too obvious to explain, or insinuating that I'm a moron for asking.
But even so, I think the polite and courteous thing to do is to keep asking
questions, and I  live in hope that I will get proper answers from Edgar,
and that eventually, if every step of his argument is clarified
sufficiently, it will either start making sense to me, or stop making sense
to him, as the case may be.*

*So, my original questions were, what is the nature of a world in which
everything is computational? For example, is it physical or abstract or
something else? (And if so, what?) Does it have physical computational
machinery of some sort (like CY compact manifolds), or if not, whatdoes it
have?*

*From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *LizR

*Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
*To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com

*Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality



On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
Actually I can't be bothered asking Edgar the same questions again and
getting no answer again (or a non-answer like the one he just gave Chris,
while carefully ignoring me). If he wants to ignore my questions, I
shouldnt waste time asking. So I have deleted my post restating the
questions I asked before, and have zero expectation that the person Brent
said was courteous, but everyone else seems to think is a troll, will have
the intellectual honesty or pride in his own ideas to answer a few simple
questions about those ideas.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Edgar L. Owen
All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
events more clearly and succinctly.

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional 
spacetime background does NOT exist.

Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in 
a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 
'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.

There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to 
understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about 
reality.

 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle 
properties in any particle interaction in comp space. 

The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of 
all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among 
the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of 
all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to 
be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles 
of every event are always entangled on the particle properties conserved in 
that event.

Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle 
properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In 
other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing 
particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be 
conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the 
conservation laws.

Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates 
a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The 
result will be an ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships 
which in effect creates a mini spacetime manifold of dimensional 
interrelations.

Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously 
involved in myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons 
impinging on its retina). The effect will be that all those continuous 
particle events will result in a vast network of dimensional 
interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical 
spacetime.

He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. 
All that he can actually observe is actual events with dimensional 
relationships to him. Now the structure that emerges, due to the math of 
the particle property conservation laws in aggregate, is consistent and 
manifests at the classical level as the structure of our familiar 
spacetime. 

But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a 
computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It 
must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or 
it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it 
emerged.


Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually 
unifies GR and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every 
mini-spacetime network that emerges from quantum events is absolutely 
independent of all others (a completely separate space) UNTIL it is linked 
and aligned with other networks through some common quantum event. When 
that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved 
into a single spacetime common to all its elements.

E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created 
their spins are exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their 
own frame in their own mini spacetime. They have to be to obey the 
conservation laws. That is why their orientation is unknowable to a human 
observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.

However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and 
aligns the mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the 
laboratory and that makes the spin orientations of both particles aligned 
with that of the laboratory and thereafter the spin orientation of the 
other particle will always be found equal and opposite to that of the first.

There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 
'paradox'. It all depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of 
the particles exist in a completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment 
from that of the laboratory until they are linked and aligned via a 
measurement event.

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 All,

 I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
 events more clearly and succinctly.

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
 particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional 
 spacetime 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.


What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar,

  There is another way to get particle property conservation: Particles
that happen to have the same properties have a symmetry that is unique to
QM: the exchange symmetryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_interaction.
Study it carefully. :-)

  This symmetry does not require a singular collection of properties to be
dimensional or inherently existing. It just says that if a pair of
particles are indistinguishable (for some observer!) there will exist a
variation in the wavefunction of the system made of the combined pair. If
that variation is of a positive character, the particles will be Bosons
(relative to each other). If the variation is of a negative character, the
particles will be Fermions (relative to each other).

   There are other possible variances that I will not get into, but the
upshot of this symmetry is that it acts to group particles that have the
same properties into groups and it can be argued that charge, spin and mass
properties flow from that grouping. There is no need for an external
computational space or system to do the job.

  I do agree a little bit with this that your wrote:

But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually
a computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist.
It must be continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events
or it instantly vanishes back into the computational reality from which it
emerged.

  But for other reasons. Any illusion that there exists a classical
'physics' world out there that we are somehow floating in is a figment of
our imaginations. The universe is KNOWN to not be classical. Can we bury
that corpse already?

  OTOH, I do agree that space-time is a construction that could be
considered as you describe: continually maintained by myriads of
continuing quantum events If the quantum interaction process ends, the
particular events vanish. What we observe as space-time is merely the
photons that carry the information about the events and so we have an
illusion of persistence of events that could lead one to imagine that there
exists a global present moment.

  What is interesting is that the evolution of the phase of a QM system IS
a computation in the sense that it is a transformation of information! WE
do get something like a computational system that is generating space-time
and all events in it, but if we treat it as a single computer time
vanishes. This is known from study of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation: H=0.

  We can obtain a universe where any observer will have the experience of
time IF and only IF we do not use a single wave function for the universe
and thus do not require a single computer to perform the computation. We
can associate separate QM wave functions to each and every point of the
space-time manifold and use the evolution of the phase of these as the
local clock of those points on the manifold.
   We end up with an infinite number of computers generating space-time,
not one.



On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 All,

 I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum
 events more clearly and succinctly.

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In
 particular where the usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional
 spacetime background does NOT exist.

 Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in
 a way that conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum
 'paradoxes', and explains the source of quantum randomness in the world.

 There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to
 understand, and one must first set aside some common sense notions about
 reality.

  Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle
 properties in any particle interaction in comp space.

 The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of
 all particle properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among
 the outgoing particles in every particle interaction.

 The results of such computational events is that the particle properties
 of all outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be
 to be conserved in toto. This is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing
 particles of every event are always entangled on the particle properties
 conserved in that event.

 Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle
 properties. These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In
 other words, all dimensional particle properties between the outgoing
 particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be for them to be
 conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to satisfy the
 conservation laws.

 Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates
 a spacetime point, defined as a dimensional interrelationship.

 Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The
 result will 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum events more 
clearly and succinctly.


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In particular where the 
usually imagined single pre-existing dimensional spacetime background does NOT exist.


Now consider how we can get a spacetime to emerge from the computations in a way that 
conceptually unifies GR and QM, eliminates all quantum 'paradoxes', and explains the 
source of quantum randomness in the world.


There is an easy straightforward way though it takes a little effort to understand, and 
one must first set aside some common sense notions about reality.


 Assume a basic computation that occurs is the conservation of particle properties in 
any particle interaction in comp space.


The conservation of particle properties essentially takes the amounts of all particle 
properties of incoming particles and redistributes them among the outgoing particles in 
every particle interaction.


The results of such computational events is that the particle properties of all outgoing 
particles of every event are interrelated. They have to be to be conserved in toto. This 
is called 'entanglement'. The outgoing particles of every event are always entangled on 
the particle properties conserved in that event.


Now some particle properties (spin, mass, energy) are dimensional particle properties. 
These are entangled too by particle interaction events. In other words, all dimensional 
particle properties between the outgoing particles of every event are interrelated. They 
have to be for them to be conserved. These relationships are exact. They must be to 
satisfy the conservation laws.


Now assume every such dimensional entanglement effectively creates a spacetime point, 
defined as a dimensional interrelationship.


Now assume those particles keep interacting with other particles. The result will be an 
ever expanding network of dimensional interrelationships which in effect creates a mini 
spacetime manifold of dimensional interrelations.


Now assume a human observer at the classical level which is continuously involved in 
myriads of particle interaction (e.g. millions of photons impinging on its retina). The 
effect will be that all those continuous particle events will result in a vast network 
of dimensional interrelationships that is perceived by the human observer as a classical 
spacetime.


He cannot observe any actual empty space because it doesn't actually exist. All that he 
can actually observe is actual events with dimensional relationships to him. Now the 
structure that emerges, due to the math of the particle property conservation laws in 
aggregate, is consistent and manifests at the classical level as the structure of our 
familiar spacetime.


But this, like all aspects of the classical 'physical' world, is actually a 
computational illusion. This classical spacetime doesn't actually exist. It must be 
continually maintained by myriads of continuing quantum events or it instantly vanishes 
back into the computational reality from which it emerged.



Now an absolutely critical point in understand how this model conceptually unifies GR 
and QM and eliminates quantum paradox is that every mini-spacetime network that emerges 
from quantum events is absolutely independent of all others (a completely separate 
space) UNTIL it is linked and aligned with other networks through some common quantum 
event. When that occurs, and only then, all alignments of both networks are resolved 
into a single spacetime common to all its elements.


E.g. in the spin entanglement 'paradox'. When the particles are created their spins are 
exactly equal and opposite to each other, but only in their own frame in their own mini 
spacetime. They have to be to obey the conservation laws. That is why their orientation 
is unknowable to a human observer in his UNconnected spacetime frame of the laboratory.


However when the spin of one particle is measured that event links and aligns the 
mini-spacetime of the particles with the spacetime of the laboratory and that makes the 
spin orientations of both particles aligned with that of the laboratory and thereafter 
the spin orientation of the other particle will always be found equal and opposite to 
that of the first.


There is no FTL communication, there is no 'non-locality', there is no 'paradox'. It all 
depends on the recognition that the spin orientations of the particles exist in a 
completely separate unaligned spacetime fragment from that of the laboratory until they 
are linked and aligned via a measurement event.


Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:16:28 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

I want to try to state my model of how spacetime is created by quantum 
events more
clearly and succinctly.

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational. In 
particular where
the 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 3:20 PM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net 
wrote:


Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.


What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the computations?


Whatever it is, Bruno's UD will eventually do it.

Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
I would like to know what Edgar means by a computational world before I
worry about deriving the properties of particles.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread Chris de Morsella
 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.

 

What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
computations?

What is doing the imagining?

-- 
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.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 17:10, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
 everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:21 PM

 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
 reality



 On 16 January 2014 12:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Begin by Imagining a world in which everything is computational.



 What is this world? What does it consist of? What is doing the
 computations?

 What is doing the imagining?

I assume we get onto that question higher up the chain of reasoning.

Let's start at the very beginning...

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 19:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:







That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no  
computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?


The only time needed for the notion of computation is the  
successor relation on the non negative integers. It is not a  
physical time, as it is only the standard ordering of the natural  
numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.


So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is  
given by the standard structure, known to be very complex,  
mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of  
course) structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a  
universal numbers).


That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't  
attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some  
(1p alas) point against this).


Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics  
appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable)  
ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) ,  
infer (Bp  Dt) , know (Bp  p), observe (Bp  Dt  p), feel (Bp   
Dt  p) themselves relatively to their most probable computations.


You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in  
a confusion between two of those number's points of view.
I would even say that the *theological* errors comes from confusion  
between those points of view, and their star extension, when  
translated in G*.


Incompleteness not only forces the division between truth and  
provable, captured by the star extensions, but it forbids to the  
correct or sound machine/numbers to confuse the hypostases.


Subjective time appears in Bp  p, and in Bp  p  Dt, (and in  
B^n p  p  D^m t. If n  m, then we get a corresponding  
quantization, so the arithmetical quantizations are graded, and I  
hope to find some arithmetical Temperley Algebra there ..., that  
would be a path in the explanation of some physical space)


Physical time? Open problem.

The 3p is a block reality, which does not even refer to any notion  
of time or space, or consciousness, or whatever.


But from the average 1p discourses of machines relatively  
implemented (in the computer science sense) in that arithmetical  
reality, taking into account the FPI (by the  Dt, actually) and  
the first person (and its umbilical link with truth, by the  p)  
you can see or understand that from inside things are quite  
dynamical, and full of sense. The consciousness of the sense might  
be a semantical fixed point. Universal numbers are windows through  
which the Arithmetical Reality can explore Itself. The price is that  
it can lost itself and get tricked in infinitely many ways.


To sum up the 3p reality is certainly a sort of block reality, but  
the many 1p realities, naturally associated to the 3p  
arithmetization of meta-arithmetic (Gödel) and its Theaetetus  
variants (the points of view), are dynamical, and full of qualia  
(accepting standard properties of them).


Strangely salvia suggests that the 3p reality contains an universal  
1p-reality itself., which makes not much sense to me though, but if  
that was the case, the whole truth would plausibly be the initial  
consciousness capable of differentiating through the infinitely many  
universal numbers windows. I am not sure of that. It would make a  
brain really more a filter of consciousness than a realizer of  
consciousness. I am still struggling on this. I made allusion to  
this with the notion of Galois connection, which exists between  
theories and models, name and things, equation/surface, 3p-body/1p- 
person, etc.


Bruno: Here is where my string cosmology model has an advantage.


It seems to assume a physical reality. But this won't work for the  
comp mind-body problem. We have to extract physics from computer  
science, that is Arithmetic.





As you know I think the particles of space that precipitate out of  
4D-spacetime,
are like monads in that they reflect or perceive or are conscious of  
all other monads
(in string theory either because they are a BEC or use r-1/r  
duality-mapping, or both).


My hypothesis is that they are also all distinct and perhaps even  
enumerable,
and hypothetically capable of computing the Arithmetic Reality  
including consciousness,
which of course would include a 3p reality [that] contains an  
universal 1p-reality itself,

corresponding to your Arithmetic Person.


How do you define a string without assuming arithmetic? It is a bit  
trivial to extract the simple (addition and multiplication) from the  
complex (string theory). Assulming comp I am supposed to have shown  
that we must to the contrary: extract strings, or the right physics,  
from comp and arithmetic.

You might need to formalize your approach to see that clearly.





It would make a brain really more a filter of consciousness than a  
realizer of consciousness.
which is also an aspect of my string cosmology 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it  
off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse.


That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and  
also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that  
exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue.



So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to  
switch it off?


Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to  
think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless  
we are in a state of legitimate defense.





And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for  
violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight  
for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally  
different than with humans.


Bruno





Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 21:07, LizR wrote:


On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it  
off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or  
worse to switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what  
will be the punishment for violating them by switching it  
off?...switching it back on?


Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have  
reservations about the MWI?)



Note that with comp, arithmetic is a multidream. Does it define a  
multiverse? Perhaps. perhaps a multi-multiverse. We simply don't know  
yet.


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-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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Jan 2014, at 02:44, Chris de Morsella wrote:





Exactly – the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it  
can say whatever it wants – after all who is checking lol -- and so  
can be customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally  
tuned comforting warm blanket of – essentially unquestioned --  
spiritual foundationalism. People seek easy pat “answers” to the  
hard questions… and really who can blame them.
Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their  
pre-made answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by  
self-awareness, and the ensuing awareness of one’s own inevitable  
demise…. And the attendant psychological paralysis that opening this  
recursion of questions leading to deeper questions poses for the  
individual who may at any moment become lion food on the Savanna.  
Best to get an easy pat “answer” that addresses the dilemma and  
provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then  
focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day.



Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side  
steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the  
blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired  
story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least  
in much of human history).


OK.

I would not say that it is ok;


OK!




it is the way things seem to play out, but I for one do not think  
this is Ok…  and I realize you were not assigning any value to the  
word J


I am just OK with your description/conclusion. It does not mean I am  
OK with them at all, 'course.


Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread meekerdb

On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a 
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse.


That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality, and also, you don't 
know in which branch of the multiverse (if that exists), or the multi-dream, it will 
continue.


But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in many worlds.





So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?


Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline to think that some 
machine think: switching it off is not allowed, unless we are in a state of legitimate 
defense.


But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or suspended animation, or 
concussion.  The analog of death would be erasing the memory.







And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by 
switching it off?...switching it back on?


Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight for, we better should 
listen to them. the case is not fundamentally different than with humans.


I'm not sure they have to ask.  Animals don't ask, and yet we extend some 
rights to them.

Brent
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they 
suffer?
   ---Jeremy Bentham

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 23:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will  
you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it  
off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or  
worse to switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what  
will be the punishment for violating them by switching it  
off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking  
you out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced  
coma for some unspecified time period.


Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?


If such an action is gratuitous, it should be. But killing mouse can  
be justified if it can save humans, usually. This leads to the complex  
question of the right of plants and animals. It is a bit out of the  
topics. The idea is that machines' right might lead to similar complex  
question, in some not so near future. We will need the intimate  
conviction of the members of the jury.


Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Jan 2014, at 09:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/4/2014 12:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 03 Jan 2014, at 20:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will  
you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it  
off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the  
multiverse.


That will not consolate the normal friends in the normal reality,  
and also, you don't know in which branch of the multiverse (if that  
exists), or the multi-dream, it will continue.


But, at least in your theory, it will necessarily continue and in  
many worlds.


It is a theorem, in a weak form of the oldest theory on the matter.








So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to  
switch it off?


Well, I am personally against death penalty. So if we are incline  
to think that some machine think: switching it off is not allowed,  
unless we are in a state of legitimate defense.


But being switched off is not like death, it's like anesthetic, or  
suspended animation, or concussion.  The analog of death would be  
erasing the memory.


OK. I interpreted switching of as done irreversibly. My fault. Then  
there is no problem at all. It is a delay of reconstitution, and in  
this case, by construction, it is done at the right (normal)  
substitution level (which conserves the normality). So no problem at  
all, unless you prevent the machine to find a job or something by  
switching it off momentarily ...











And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment  
for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


Machine's right is a complex question, but once they ask and fight  
for, we better should listen to them. the case is not fundamentally  
different than with humans.


I'm not sure they have to ask.  Animals don't ask, and yet we extend  
some rights to them.


Human empathy.




Brent
“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but  
Can they suffer?”

   ---Jeremy Bentham


Nice quote.

Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:




If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if  
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to  
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the  
contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should  
help to avoid the monopoly.


One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In  
fact, while I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as  
String Theory for example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical  
philosophy than as a branch of science, until it can be formulated  
in a manner that is falsifiable.



I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very  
difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable.







This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity.  
Maturity here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we  
don't know. This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake  
having the answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the  
kids or the member of the party ...


The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable  
of the emperor’s new clothes is working hard within our minds. No  
one likes to admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly  
self-assured in their assertion of knowing… so yeah I agree the  
temptation is very strong to “pretend” – or perhaps to stop looking  
and mentally bow down in faith based acceptance of some set of  
doctrinal truth as being foundational and True (with a capital ‘T’)
Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of  
nicely packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions  
upon those who delve into it – are quite a bit harder to sell.


Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to  
Aristotle, who came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from  
too much big metaphysical surprises.

Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems.



Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side  
steps all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the  
blood sweat and tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired  
story/book, which one questions at peril of life and limb (at least  
in much of human history).


OK.

Best,

Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Jan 2014, at 22:14, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:




   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as  
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the  
other which will give us a 3p.



That's for woman and engineers. The doer.

Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am  
actually interested in the possibility of artificial intelligence  
as a reality, so these questions are not just an intellectual  
exercise.


IF AI is a reality, that would be an incentive for comp. But comp is  
stronger that strong AI. machine can think does not imply that only  
machine can think, so they might think, and we could still be non- 
machine. Logically. Psychologically, if strong AI is true, it is  
doubtful we are not machines, as we have no evidences for that at all.








It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find  
any two different right brains ever agreeing.


So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth.


That makes truth dependent on us. But truth, especially the  
transcendental, *is* supposed to be independent of us, beyond us, etc.


All you need for comp is the belief in 17 is prime, or the machine  
i stop after k step on input j, etc.




As I see things, we can derive the Platonic notion of trust by  
defining Absolute Truth as that which is incontrovertible for all  
possible entities.
 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite  
resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.


They exists in the arithmetical Platonia. That's a fact. You can't  
ignore it.








Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the  
1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.



Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the  
theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you  
switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?






But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational  
beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the  
knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!.


Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science  
and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional  
variants.


Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation  
other than your canonical? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.


He is an expert in knot theory. G and G* are just advanced form of his  
Eigenforms. It is math, we can change the canonical, because the  
canonical is given by theorems, notably on those eigenforms.









With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only  
build on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree  
it is ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the  
physical selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic  
ontology.  Computer science gives them on a plateau.


I worry that science here has become scientism.


Why? That's seems to me to be a quite unfair gratuitous remark.

Nobody asks anyone to believe in comp, nor even in 17 is  
prime (although you are asked this for the sake of the argument).
It is proved that if comp is correct, then the 1p and knowers are  
recovered by the most common definition of knowledge.


It is not scientism, it is reasoning in an hypothetical context. To  
confuse reasoning and scientism is bad philosophy, imo.


Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
I think Aldous Huxley said something similar, I'm not sure what drugs he
took offhand - mescaline? - but I think he mentioned the outside time
experience.

Yes, good old Google tells me that it was indeed mescaline - and also
this...

In this state, Huxley explains he didn't have an I, but instead a
 not-I. Meaning and existence, pattern and colour become more significant
 than spatial relationships and time. Duration is replaced by a perpetual
 present


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_doors_of_perception#Synopsis

(Maybe this is perceiving the reality of the Wheeler-deWitt equation!)

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...



 Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.





 Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
 obvious.





 The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying
 to understand.


 Right, that is good.


  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.


 Isn't that how explanations work?


 Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?


 It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.
  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the
 ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world
 as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. 
 One
 woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup 
 of
 tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when
 pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as
 some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
 processing done by our brain.


 All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the
 change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one
 without the other.


 Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person
 view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered
 sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a
 conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some
 computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts
 on it.


 Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but
 once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I
 made concerning some salvia experiences.

 Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from
 the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.

 I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from
 the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of
 view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.

 Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors.
 Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color.
 Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course,
 as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot
 do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience
 as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself,
 from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to
 conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.

 That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the
 experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an
 experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some
 amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and
 completely impossible to described.

 Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be
 lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal:
 hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame
 to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase,
 the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness,
 links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).

 So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience
 which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and
 eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state
 of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles
 me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth
 might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be
 even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can
 suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication
 which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,
 like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root
 for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia
 quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further
 explorations ...


Bruno,
From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently
dynamic and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.
That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no
computations happening. It's a static block universe.
Is that possible?
Richard


 Bruno



 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:





On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:



snip

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first  
person view is the view of a computation, then the computation has  
an ordered sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to  
have had a conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the  
result of some computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in  
hearing his own thoughts on it.


Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal  
experience, but once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude  
here to a statement I made concerning some salvia experiences.


Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even  
from the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and  
that's all.


I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that  
from the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine  
change of view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.


Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No  
colors. Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do  
perceive color. Then when they come back they try to explain the  
experience, and of course, as the experience is short elusive and  
does not allow testing, they cannot do so. Yet in that case we can  
understand that dismissing such experience as an hallucination is in  
direct opposition with the experience itself, from the 1p view. They  
do have lived something that they were unable to conceive before the  
experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.


That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning  
the experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that  
such an experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination,  
yet, with some amount of salvia, the experience does make some  
sense, but remains 1p and completely impossible to described.


Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still  
be lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is  
infinitesimal: hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't  
really need a time frame to be experienced? That contradict  
apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase, the arithmetical 1p) which,  
like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness, links deeply  
consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).


So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an  
experience which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0  
seconds, and eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ...  
in the mundane state of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as  
an hallucination. It boggles me in the infinite. It does give a sort  
of feeling that arithmetical truth might be a sort of conscious  
'person' after all, and that comp might be even more closer to  
religion than what the simple machine's theology can suggest.  
Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication which  
cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,  
like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is  
a root for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people  
find salvia quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I  
need further explorations ...



Bruno,
From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently  
dynamic


From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware  
arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian  
one).





and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.


This is unclear. What do you mean?

Ah, you explain below.




That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no  
computations happening. It's a static block universe.

Is that possible?


The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor  
relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as  
it is only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3,  
etc.


So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is  
given by the standard structure, known to be very complex,  
mathematically, of the additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course)  
structure of the numbers (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).


That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't  
attribute consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some  
(1p alas) point against this).


Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics  
appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable)  
ways a machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer  
(Bp  Dt) , know (Bp  p), observe (Bp  Dt  p), feel (Bp  Dt  p)  
themselves relatively to their most probable computations.


You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* consists in a  

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Richard Ruquist
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 03 Jan 2014, at 12:45, Richard Ruquist wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 02 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote:


 snip

 Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person
 view is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered
 sequence of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a
 conscious experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some
 computation stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts
 on it.


 Hmm Normally we are not supposed to refer to personal experience, but
 once in a while ... Why not. Of course you allude here to a statement I
 made concerning some salvia experiences.

 Note that some people dismisses non validly such experience, *even from
 the 1p view*, because they think it is an hallucination ... and that's all.

 I have recently succeeded, by using a metaphor, in explaining, that from
 the 1p point of of view, an experience can lead to a genuine change of
 view, and invalidate the dismissive tenet for the 1p view.

 Imagine a world where everyone see on the black and white. No colors.
 Imagine that in that world, some people using some drugs do perceive color.
 Then when they come back they try to explain the experience, and of course,
 as the experience is short elusive and does not allow testing, they cannot
 do so. Yet in that case we can understand that dismissing such experience
 as an hallucination is in direct opposition with the experience itself,
 from the 1p view. They do have lived something that they were unable to
 conceive before the experience. There is a genuine learning or discovery.

 That is like I feel after some salvia experience, notably concerning the
 experience of timeless consciousness. I would have swore that such an
 experience cannot make any sense,  even in an hallucination, yet, with some
 amount of salvia, the experience does make some sense, but remains 1p and
 completely impossible to described.

 Can it be a computational loop? Not really because this will still be
 lived as dynamical by the 1p, unless perhaps the loop is infinitesimal:
 hard to say. Or is it that consciousness doesn't really need a time frame
 to be experienced? That contradict apparently the S4Grz (third hypostase,
 the arithmetical 1p) which, like in Brouwer's theory of consciousness,
 links deeply consciousness and subjective time (knowledge evolution).

 So: I don't know. I don't even know how to refer to such an experience
 which is out of time. Its duration seems to last both 0 seconds, and
 eternity, after. It just looks totally impossible ... in the mundane state
 of consciousness. It seems impossible, even as an hallucination. It boggles
 me in the infinite. It does give a sort of feeling that arithmetical truth
 might be a sort of conscious 'person' after all, and that comp might be
 even more closer to religion than what the simple machine's theology can
 suggest. Maybe that is why some people says that salvia is a medication
 which cures ... atheism. It does not make you believe in something, but,
 like comp+ logic, it seems to generalize the dream argument, that is a root
 for doubting even more (and that is probably why most people find salvia
 quite disturbing and decide to never do it again). I need further
 explorations ...


 Bruno,
 From your salvia experience, it sounds to me that comp is inherently
 dynamic


 From inside. From the first person points of view of the self-aware
 arithmetical creatures (the relative universal numbers, or the Löbian one).



 and that zero time is equivalent to zero comp.


 This is unclear. What do you mean?

 Ah, you explain below.




 That is, if time is not increasing or changing, then there are no
 computations happening. It's a static block universe.
 Is that possible?


 The only time needed for the notion of computation is the successor
 relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is
 only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.

 So, the 3p outer structure is very simple, conceptually, as it is given
 by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the
 additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers
 (or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).

 That is indeed a quite static structure (and usually we don't attribute
 consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point
 against this).

 Now, both consciousness (at least the mundane one) and the dynamics
 appears in the logical arithmetical (but not necessarily computable) ways a
 machine, or a relative universal number, can prove (Bp) , infer (Bp  Dt) ,
 know (Bp  p), observe (Bp  Dt  p), feel (Bp  Dt  p) themselves
 relatively to their most probable computations.

 You can perhaps consider that all errors in *philosophy* 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical basis for a 
claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse. So how are 
you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?  And if we give it 
political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by switching it 
off?...switching it back on?


Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
 theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
 it on? I am serious!


  Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


 If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
 multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
 switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
 punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

Jason

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
On 4 January 2014 08:34, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
 theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
 it on? I am serious!


  Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


 If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
 multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
 switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
 punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


Assuming there is a multiverse. (I seem to recall you have reservations
about the MWI?)

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
 theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
 it on? I am serious!


  Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


 If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
 multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
 switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
 punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


 To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
 with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
 unspecified time period.

  Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
to knocking someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical 
basis for
a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the 
multiverse. So how
are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it off?  And 
if we
give it political rights, what will be the punishment for violating them by
switching it off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out with 
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some unspecified time 
period.


Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?

Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
I'm going to sue the people who removed my gall bladder for every cent!

(...or maybe not, since they may have saved my life :)


On 4 January 2014 11:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 11:38 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
 theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
 it on? I am serious!


  Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


  If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
 multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
 switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
 punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


  To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you
 out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for
 some unspecified time period.


 Is there a penalty now for doing that to a dog?  A mouse?

 Brent

  --
 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.


-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical 
basis
for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am 
serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the 
multiverse. So
how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it 
off?  And
if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for 
violating them
by switching it off?...switching it back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out 
with
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some 
unspecified
time period.

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it afterwards (so it 
might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking someone out).


Otherwise it's murder.


Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about $10,000 to the 
guy who did it.


Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread LizR
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...


On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

   On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the
 theoretical basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch
 it on? I am serious!


  Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?


  If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
 multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to
 switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
 punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?


  To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you
 out with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for
 some unspecified time period.

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
 afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
 to knocking someone out).

  Otherwise it's murder.


 Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay
 about $10,000 to the guy who did it.

 Brent

 --
 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.


-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread meekerdb

That's the truth!  But to be fair, most of it was paid by my insurance.

Brent

On 1/3/2014 3:36 PM, LizR wrote:
Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a decent health 
care system...



On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the 
theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it 
on? I am
serious!


Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it 
off?


If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the
multiverse. So how are you going to decide whether it's better or 
worse to
switch it off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the
punishment for violating them by switching it off?...switching it 
back on?


To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you 
out with
chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it 
afterwards (so
it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent to knocking 
someone out).

Otherwise it's murder.


Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about 
$10,000
to the guy who did it.

Brent



--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Chris de Morsella
And we won't get one.. As long as the lobby system runs Washington DC. Too
much money is being made on the current dysfunctional health system we are
stuck with. 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 3:36 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

Mine was free (i.e. paid for by my taxes). Sounds like you guys need a
decent health care system...

 

On 4 January 2014 12:04, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/3/2014 12:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 4 January 2014 08:38, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 1/3/2014 1:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!

 

Why not? The real question is do we have the right to switch it off?

 

If you switch it off, it just continues in another branch of the multiverse.
So how are you going to decide whether it's better or worse to switch it
off?  And if we give it political rights, what will be the punishment for
violating them by switching it off?...switching it back on?

 

To be fair, it should be whatever punishment is fair for knocking you out
with chloroform and then placing you in a medically induced coma for some
unspecified time period.

 

 Assuming you saved its state when you turned it off and restored it
afterwards (so it might lose short term memory which is exactly equivalent
to knocking someone out).

 

Otherwise it's murder.

 

Last time that happened to me the punishement was that I had to pay about
$10,000 to the guy who did it.

Brent

-- 
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%2bunsubscr...@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.

 

-- 
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.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-03 Thread Chris de Morsella
 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 1:00 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

 

On 02 Jan 2014, at 21:21, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 

 

If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate
the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and
progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the
monopoly.

 

One reason to prefer those hypothesis that are falsifiable J In fact, while
I appreciate the beauty and elegance of theories such as String Theory for
example, I see it more as a branch of mathematical philosophy than as a
branch of science, until it can be formulated in a manner that is
falsifiable.

 

 

I think that String Theory is falsifiable. It is just technically very
difficult. But that's another topic. Comp seems more easily refutable.

 

Perhaps some clever experiments can be devised that indirectly test
predictions made by String Theory. along the lines of the ESA experiment
with the distant origin gamma rays, where they exploited the vast distances
of billions of light year, carefully measuring aspects of the photons (i.e.
their spin I believe) and deducing from this how spacetime must be smooth
down to extraordinarily small distances in the order of trillions of times
smaller than the Plank scale (itself far smaller than anything we can
directly probe using the atom smasher tools at our disposal) I believe
String Theory makes certain predictions about super symmetry for example
that may be testable. Up until now however - it is my understanding - and I
could be wrong (so if anyone knows better please do correct me) - that so
far the predictions it makes have not been able to be subjected to any
unambiguous test. For some years I felt it could never be done - the scales
are just too fine grained for the kinds of tools we have to explore the
small-scale, but when beautifully thought out experiments cleverly make use
of levers such as the huge scale of distance traversed by some gamma ray to
be able to make inferences about phenomena that cannot be directly measured
(even by an atom smasher bigger than our solar system) I begin thinking that
maybe its only a matter of time until some clever experimental
physicist/cosmologist devises some lever to be able to infer things about
Plank scale phenomena such as strings.

 

 

This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity
here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This
has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer,
especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the
party ...

 

The same basic psychology that is operating in the allegorical fable of the
emperor's new clothes is working hard within our minds. No one likes to
admit ignorance, especially when others seem so smugly self-assured in their
assertion of knowing. so yeah I agree the temptation is very strong to
pretend - or perhaps to stop looking and mentally bow down in faith based
acceptance of some set of doctrinal truth as being foundational and True
(with a capital 'T')

Philosophical edifices that do not provide a comfortable set of nicely
packaged answers, but that instead force yet more questions upon those who
delve into it - are quite a bit harder to sell. 

 

Yes. That's explain why Plato was not successful compared to Aristotle, who
came back to our animal intuition, and protect us from too much big
metaphysical surprises.

Humans want spiritual comfort, not big troubling open problems.

 

Exactly - the comforting fairy tale wins out every time, because it can say
whatever it wants - after all who is checking lol -- and so can be
customized and tweaked until it provides that culturally tuned comforting
warm blanket of - essentially unquestioned -- spiritual foundationalism.
People seek easy pat answers to the hard questions. and really who can
blame them. 

Getting the comfortable framework in place supplies them with their pre-made
answers and so solves the evolutionary problem posed by self-awareness, and
the ensuing awareness of one's own inevitable demise.. And the attendant
psychological paralysis that opening this recursion of questions leading to
deeper questions poses for the individual who may at any moment become lion
food on the Savanna. Best to get an easy pat answer that addresses the
dilemma and provides a comforting happy tale for the individual who can then
focus on the day to day business of actually surviving another day.

 

 

Much easier instead to market the self-contained doctrine that side steps
all the mess of actually trying to work it out replacing the blood sweat and
tears of actual enquiry with some divinely inspired story/book, which one

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:




From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from  
computational reality



On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?


Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in  
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,  
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about  
them and proof about them.


Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is  
impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not  
understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little  
children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.


We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large  
sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always  
wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong  
when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is  
only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the  
religion field, where it used the most).


Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants  
refusing to grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want  
steal the responsibility and the maturity, and which have no  
interest at all in spiritual research. The goal is to steal more  
easily the money and power.


Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means;  
it harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and  
systemizes these, providing channelized modalities of expression  
that provides the worshipper with internal validation and preset  
answers, while corralling them into a protean mass whose collective  
energy and “will” can be directed towards achieving whatever  
political goals is profitable for the individuals controlling the  
belief establishment.
Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo- 
religions seek to establish a monopoly on belief….



I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be  
genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to  
communicate what is strictly incommunicable.


Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe  
literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will  
make them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science  
and that we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of  
cautious hope in meta-self-correctness).





on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is  
the currency of religion;



Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.



it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a  
stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within  
the populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or  
communities) where these organized belief systems prevail.


If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if  
theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to  
interrogate the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the  
contradiction and progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should  
help to avoid the monopoly.


This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity  
here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know.  
This has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the  
answer, especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the  
member of the party ...


Bruno



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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,

 Hear Hear!


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:10 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:



 *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [
 mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com everything-list@googlegroups.com
 ] *On Behalf Of *Bruno Marchal
 *Sent:* Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Subject:* Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
 reality


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


 My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?


 Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in
 numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,
 discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and
 proof about them.

 Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is
 impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not
 understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children
 believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
 of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when
 we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them
 for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative
 argument (always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used
 the most).

 Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
 grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
 responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
 spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power.

 Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
 harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
 these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
 worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
 them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
 towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the
 individuals controlling the belief establishment.
 Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
 seek to establish a monopoly on belief….



 I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be
 genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to
 communicate what is strictly incommunicable.

 Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe
 literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make
 them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that
 we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope
 in meta-self-correctness).




 on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the
 currency of religion;



 Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.



 it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a
 stranglehold on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the
 populations of individuals that are born into the regions (or communities)
 where these organized belief systems prevail.


 If you can control the beliefs, you can control the people. But if
 theology is conceived as a science, then you get the means to interrogate
 the beliefs, criticize the theories, single out the contradiction and
 progress toward possible truth (Dt). That should help to avoid the
 monopoly.

 This asks for some amount of courage or spiritual maturity. Maturity
 here is the ability/courage to realize and admit that we don't know. This
 has no sex-appeal, as we are programmed to fake having the answer,
 especially on the fundamentals, to reassure the kids or the member of the
 party ...

 Bruno



 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified

RE: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Chris de Morsella
 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 12:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

 

On 01 Jan 2014, at 22:45, Chris de Morsella wrote:





 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:






My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?

 

 

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers
and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap
between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

 

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible,
and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and
parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they
parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we
project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for
direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument
(always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

 

Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals
controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. 

 

 

I tend to think that only pseudo-religions do that. Some people can be
genuinely half-enlightened, though, and be sincere in the attempt to
communicate what is strictly incommunicable.

 

Yes, certainly. Terms and the usage of terms can be as slippery as an eel
(though I have not handled any eels so I cannot verify that they are indeed
slippery). Religion – at least this is my understanding of the term –
derives from the Latin religo a verb tense meaning more or less to rebind –
as in book binding where many pages are bound together into a larger
cohesive whole bound book. Now there are several ways one can interpret that
– the re-binding could have been intended to mean the re-bonding of the
individual soul with the larger cosmic story – as told by that faith
tradition; or it could mean the binding of many disparate individuals into a
single church.

I tend to use religion to refer to the organizational and intellectual
structures that are erected by faiths and are the manifestation of organized
faith practice; while using spirituality (or spiritual experience) to
indicate the exquisitely personal deep inner-experiences of those who seek
and have faith – and that could be having faith in some religion. If they
actively engage in seeking spiritual enlightenment etc. I  see that as a
personal spiritual pursuit – even if they are doing so within the
intellectual, doctrinal confines of some religion (i.e. organized faith
based system).

 

Computationalism will not be an exception. Some people will believe
literally that G* minus G applies normatively to them, and this will make
them inconsistent. That is why I insist it is only modest science and that
we must make the hypotheses explicit (comp + some amount of cautious hope in
meta-self-correctness). 

 

You can bet on that J Any idea or edifice of ideas seeking to explain
everything is a prime candidate for takeover by that most deadly combination
of wolves and the many sheep who follow them.

 

 

on what can be believed and what cannot be believed. If belief is the
currency of religion; 

 

 

Belief is the currency of science, if not of everything.

 

I believe I thought; therefore I believe I am J

 

 





it stands to reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold
on the entire psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of
individuals that are born into the regions (or communities) where these
organized belief systems prevail.

 

If you can control the beliefs, you can control

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Dear Stephen,

 On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:



I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
 and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
 us a 3p.



 That's for woman and engineers. The doer.


Imagine that! I will not take that statement as an insult. I am actually
interested in the possibility of artificial intelligence as a reality, so
these questions are not just an intellectual exercise.





 It is only the right brain, and in a manner were you will not find any two
 different right brains ever agreeing.


So? I am OK with a consensus definition of truth. As I see things, we can
derive the Platonic notion of trust by defining Absolute Truth as that
which is incontrovertible for all possible entities.
 Finite worlds that have finite signal propagation speeds and finite
resource accessibility don't care about Platonia.






 Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the 1p,
 just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.



Let's say that I built a computer system and showed you the theoretical
basis for a claim that it will be self-aware. Will you switch it on? I am
serious!




 But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational beliefs
 by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the knower, given
 by Theaetetus reappears!.

 Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science and
 the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.


Honestly, Bruno. Could you try some other equivalent explanation other
than your canonical? I like Louis Kauffman's Eigenforms.





 With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build on
 that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is
 ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical selection,
 but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.  Computer science
 gives them on a plateau.


 I worry that science here has become scientism. 





 Bruno











 On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Bruno,

   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?



 OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

 But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
 explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

 Bruno






 If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


 This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
 computations.





  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
 is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.


 Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you
 an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
 substitution?

 Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present.


 It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
 search, using this or that theories.





  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
 moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
 reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
 block time, no MW, etc.


 In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
 be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-02 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King 
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   Could be... convalescing from the flu I will try to reply...



Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.



 On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 Stephen,

 Did my message below slip past you?  I noticed you hadn't replied to it
 yet.

 Jason


 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,


  On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Jason,

   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved
 in the discussion here.


 I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
 fundamental rather than emergent.


 How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires
 some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
 emergent.


 The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.



 This looks like an evasion. When the its an illusion answer doesn't
 work, try its emergent or some combination of the two. Come on.



Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so
I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of
change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not
fundamentally real) can be emergent.







 Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
 obvious.





 The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying
 to understand.


 Right, that is good.


  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.


 Isn't that how explanations work?


 Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?


 It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.
  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the
 ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world
 as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One
 woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of
 tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when
 pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as
 some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
 processing done by our brain.


 All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the
 change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one
 without the other.


Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view
is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence
of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious
experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation
stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.








 Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.


 You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge
 though.


  Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?


 From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the
 idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible,
 the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought
 experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily
 unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.



 All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't
 they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye
 point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot
 of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global
 truths, no absolute space, etc.


I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person
ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing
wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single
body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego.











   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
 appearance of change.


 It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to
 look for explanations of it.


 Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never
 learned to read Greek, sorry) is that change is an illusion. Nevermind
 the persistence of that illusion! I have explained several times that it
 is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness
 from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed
 point, etc.
   The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and
 misdirection...


 Do you think a computer can be conscious?



 Trick question?


No.


 Are you a computer?


I believe my 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?



OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the  
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.


Bruno







If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard  
sense of computations.






The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are  
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as  
explained in the other post.


Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose  
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level  
of substitution?


Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is  
real and actually exists means it must be present.


It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what  
we search, using this or that theories.






That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present  
moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared  
locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of  
reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it  
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

Dear Stephen,


On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:




I really do appreciate the details!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net  
wrote:

Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is  
the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results  
of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing  
machine computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in  
the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of  
course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it  
will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements  
(AxP(x)).




The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?


Define 'self-obedience'.








so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even  
sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of  
computational histories.


OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?



?
It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p - Bp, for p  
sigma_1, is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).


(Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can  
seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).









How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational  
model. There is no action involved!



Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it  
does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and  
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to  
universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow.  
There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in  
the 0, 1, 2, 3,  number sequence.










And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of  
emergings?



There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the  
theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural  
numbers and said add  multiply, you can define the prime numbers  
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in  
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all  
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that the  
FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.






Does it have to be global?


Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the  
whole of the Sigma_1 truth).




I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer  
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.


He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication), selected  
among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.





I reject that God's eye view.


The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth.  
It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler  
than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.



Bruno



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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:


My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?



Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in  
numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward,  
discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them  
and proof about them.


Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is  
impossible, and so they will use image and parables, which are not  
understood, and parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little  
children believe they parroting parents, teachers, etc.


We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large  
sense of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always  
wrong when we project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong  
when invoking them for direct terrestrial purposes, where God is  
only an authoritative argument (always invalid, especially in the  
religion field, where it used the most).


Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to  
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the  
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in  
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and  
power.


Bruno




Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last  
Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles  
on this - avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're  
right in the face of all the evidence, having answers to all  
possible criticisms because of The Book, being able to take the  
moral highground and patronise all the deluded fools who haven't  
seen the light, and so on.


No relevance to the present topic, 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/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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:39, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we  
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or  
know, it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know  
(although not as such).


Here I use comp + Theaetetus.


But then to know that we know requires only that we know that we  
have a belief and that it's true:


B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp- 
B(Bp).


We do have Bp - BBp (as BP itself is sigma_1, and Löban machine  
proves p - Bp for all sigm_1 proposition).






In this system isn't it the case that

 ((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs)


(p+q) - s
thus by necessitation
B((p+q) - s)
B((p+q) - s) - (B(p+q) - Bs)   instance of the axiom K : B(a- b) - 
 (Ba - Bb)

B(p+q) - Bp + Bq(normal modal logic)
B((p+q) - s) - ((Bp+Bq) - Bs) substitution preceding line
((Bp+Bq) - Bs)  (modus ponens)

So it looks we can derive your:((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs)

But alas we have just use the deduction rule, which is not valid in  
the modal context when we use the necessitation rule. If not we could  
derive p - Bp from the necessitation rule, and this is incorrect.
p - Bp is usually wrong. This is easy to show by using Kripke  
semantics. Just take a world alpha with p true, accessing a world beta  
with p false. In alpha, p - Bp is false.




Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.


It does not. You confuse the necessitation rule (we can derive Bp from  
p), and the so called trivial formula: p-Bp.


In G we have neither Bp - p, nor p - Bp.
We do have have p - Bp in G1 (the G we obtained when we limit the  
arithmetical interpretation of the variable atomic sentence (p,  
q, ...) on the sigma_1 sentence.


Bruno




Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,

   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as fundamental
and then work from there to solve the problem of the other which will give
us a 3p.


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Bruno,

   Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?



 OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

 But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the scientific
 explanation of the 1p, or on anything.

 Bruno






 If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


 This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
 computations.





  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious,
 is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.


 Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an
 artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
 substitution?

 Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present.


 It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
 search, using this or that theories.





  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
 moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
 reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
 block time, no MW, etc.


 In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should
 be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 stephe...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

 --
 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.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Dear Stephen,


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:



 I really do appreciate the details!


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

  Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
 universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
 computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

   So an external time dimension is required.

  So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less
 computations...I'll try.


 This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine
 computing everything...including space and time.


  Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the
 view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


 But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


 OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of
 course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will
 never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).



 The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?


 Define 'self-obedience'.


 The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of course*
it obeys itself *to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will never
emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).

You defined it: it obeys itself. That is self-obedience, no?










 so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


 Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0)
 sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational
 histories.


 OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?



 ?
 It follows from the sigma_1 completeness of RA.  (p - Bp, for p sigma_1,
 is true for RA. It is not provable as RA is not Löbian).

 (Lowenheim-Skolem is invoked to explain why arithmetic from inside can
 seem infinitely bigger than from outside, but this is not used here).



OK










 How does it emerge?


 The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.


 I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model.
 There is no action involved!



 Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But it
 does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and changes are
 defined and measure internally by machines *relatively* to universal
 numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity, somehow. There is no
 absolute time, except, if we want see it in that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3,
  number sequence.


This puzzles me. How is the recognition of action and definitions and
measures of action equivalent to action itself? The map is the territory?

We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)












 And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


 Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a
 global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


 Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
 emergings?



 There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the
 theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural numbers
 and said add  multiply, you can define the prime numbers and they emerge
 from all arithmetical relations definable in arithmetic. Then there is the
 FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece of the
 UD work. You can say that the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first
 sense, yes.


In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to achieve
exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not know.







 Does it have to be global?


 Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to the
 whole of the Sigma_1 truth).


This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.






 I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer that
 has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.


 He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication), selected
 among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.


Yes, that one can obtain with an infinite number of constraints imposed
on the collection of computations. A pigeon hole principle. This is why I
promote the interaction/participation picture of Wheeler.






 I reject that God's eye view.


 The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical truth. It
 is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far simpler than the
 Noùs or than the Universal Soul.


 I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and will
give us what we have.





 Bruno



 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

Dear Stephen,

On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:




   I think that we should start with 1p - the solipsist - as  
fundamental and then work from there to solve the problem of the  
other which will give us a 3p.



That's for woman and engineers. The doer. It is only the right brain,  
and in a manner were you will not find any two different right brains  
ever agreeing.


Once you say yes to the doctor, you don't even need to define the  
1p, just believe it is conserved for 3p transform of the body.


But then in the ideal case of correct machine, defining rational  
beliefs by provability, the definition of knowledge, and thus of the  
knower, given by Theaetetus reappears!.


Computationalism provides 3p accounts on the 1p, by computer science  
and the self-referential logics G and G* and their intensional variants.



With comp we accept the others and the 3p, and science can only build  
on that. The 1p is personal, private, non definable. I agree it is  
ultrafundamental,  and comp illustrates its role in the physical  
selection, but it is not a primitive concept in the basic ontology.   
Computer science gives them on a plateau.


Bruno












On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Dec 2013, at 19:59, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive?



OF course: no. Only the one we assume at the start.

But an ontological primitive is arguably necessarily 3p in the  
scientific explanation of the 1p, or on anything.


Bruno







If we follow Wheeler's reasoning there is no such thing!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.

This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard  
sense of computations.






The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are  
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as  
explained in the other post.


Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose  
you an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level  
of substitution?


Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is  
real and actually exists means it must be present.


It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what  
we search, using this or that theories.






That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common  
present moment we all experience our existence within, which is the  
shared locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus  
of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it  
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,  
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,  
notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



--
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- 
l...@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 a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Jan 2014, at 16:46, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Dear Stephen,


On 31 Dec 2013, at 20:19, Stephen Paul King wrote:













How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.

I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational  
model. There is no action involved!



Then RA would only describe the computations, not emulate them. But  
it does. Action is recognized by the machine inside. Actions and  
changes are defined and measure internally by machines *relatively*  
to universal numbers. Here comp generalized Special relativity,  
somehow. There is no absolute time, except, if we want see it in  
that way, in the 0, 1, 2, 3,  number sequence.


This puzzles me. How is the recognition of action and definitions  
and measures of action equivalent to action itself?



They are not. Some actions can happen because some diophantine  
relations emulates some 'history'. The recognition of action will  
appear when the diophantine relation emulates some history involving  
self-aware universal numbers. They do the recognition relatively to  
that history.










The map is the territory?



The map is in the territory. There is a fixed point.








We agree that there is no absolute time. :-)



OK.


















And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of  
emergings?



There are two notions of emergence used here. The emergence by the  
theoremhood, like when saying that once God created the natural  
numbers and said add  multiply, you can define the prime numbers  
and they emerge from all arithmetical relations definable in  
arithmetic. Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all  
finite union of the finite piece of the UD work. You can say that  
the FPI bears on all what emerge in the first sense, yes.


In my thinking FPI is the result of a failure of computations to  
achieve exact bisimulation. How this failure occurs exactly I do not  
know.








Does it have to be global?


Yes. like in step 7, we are confronted to the whole of UD* (or to  
the whole of the Sigma_1 truth).


This bothers me, as it requires an eternity.


Yes, but the 1p don't see it, and the eternity is not in the ontology,  
only in what the 1p misses.









I worry about this because it seems to assume a privileged observer  
that has the ability to simultaneously perceive all of the emergings.


He perceives only one outcome (like in the WM-duplication),  
selected among the infinities of possible computations emulated in RA.


Yes, that one can obtain with an infinite number of constraints  
imposed on the collection of computations.


Or not, but no matter what, that happens in infinitely many  
diophantine relations.





A pigeon hole principle. This is why I promote the interaction/ 
participation picture of Wheeler.



I only give a problem. Solve it by any way you can, but try to  
translate it in term of the G/G*/S4Grz/XYZ to get the quanta/qualia  
distinction relevant in the comp mind body problem.












I reject that God's eye view.


The outer 3p God's view is given, in comp, by the arithmetical  
truth. It is a little and simple God, like in Plotinus. It is far  
simpler than the Noùs or than the Universal Soul.


I say that such is not necessary! Truth can be completely local and  
will give us what we have.


It depends from what you search.

Bruno








Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread meekerdb

On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union of the finite piece 
of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the number of UD states 
corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?  Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


Brent


--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread meekerdb

On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers and 
induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap between G and 
G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.  People invented gods 
long before Peano and Godel and even before the idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were 
just anthropomorphized physics; things did what they did because it was their nature.


Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Chris de Morsella
 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2014 3:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational
reality

 

 

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:16, LizR wrote:





My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?

 

 

Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing in numbers
and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look inward, discover the gap
between G and G*, or the gap between truth about them and proof about them.

 

Then some machine try to communicate that experience---which is impossible,
and so they will use image and parables, which are not understood, and
parrots repeat, politician exploits, and little children believe they
parroting parents, teachers, etc.

 

We all believe, consciously or unconsciously,  in God, in that large sense
of a transcendental reason of our existence, but we are always wrong when we
project attributes to It/Her/Him, and much more wrong when invoking them for
direct terrestrial purposes, where God is only an authoritative argument
(always invalid, especially in the religion field, where it used the most).

 

Adults believing literally in fairy tales are just infants refusing to
grow spiritually. They are  governed by people who want steal the
responsibility and the maturity, and which have no interest at all in
spiritual research. The goal is to steal more easily the money and power. 

 

Religion – IMO -- can be distilled down to politics by other means; it
harnesses the deepest urges and powerful impulses within us and systemizes
these, providing channelized modalities of expression that provides the
worshipper with internal validation and preset answers, while corralling
them into a protean mass whose collective energy and “will” can be directed
towards achieving whatever political goals is profitable for the individuals
controlling the belief establishment.

Something I find fascinating is how so many religions and pseudo-religions
seek to establish a monopoly on belief…. on what can be believed and what
cannot be believed. If belief is the currency of religion; it stands to
reason that established faiths seek to maintain a stranglehold on the entire
psychological apparatus of belief within the populations of individuals that
are born into the regions (or communities) where these organized belief
systems prevail.

Chris

 

Bruno

 





 

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last Supper
by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this -
avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face of
all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of The
Book, being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the deluded
fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

 

No relevance to the present topic, 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/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.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:11, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 2:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then there is the FPI emergence, which is made of all finite union  
of the finite piece of the UD work.


Don't you say that persons and matter are not computable because the  
number of UD states corresponding to a piece of matter is not finite?


Yes. Our states are computable. But then they are distributed in the  
unavoidable infinity of computations going through that state (in the  
first person sense), making the experience undetermined on those  
computations.




Isn't this the basis of no-cloning in comp?


Yes, indeed.


Bruno




Brent



--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2014-01-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:30, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/1/2014 3:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Because all correct machine, cognitively rich enough (= believing  
in numbers and induction, or being Löbian, ...) when they look  
inward, discover the gap between G and G*, or the gap between truth  
about them and proof about them.


As an analysis of human pyschology that seems very fanicful to me.   
People invented gods long before Peano and Godel and even before the  
idea of mathematical proof.  Gods were just anthropomorphized  
physics; things did what they did because it was their nature.


I agree. The religious feeling appears when we are ignorant. Since  
always, some machine can introspect and discover the root of the  
intrinsic ignorance, and since Gödel  Al. we know that PA and ZF can  
do that, at least in some sense. Now, thunder can be very impressive,  
and it is normal that humans mix their feeling about that intrinsic  
ignorance and the one which today appears to us as more mundane and  
easily explainable from our current knowledge. But introspection still  
leads us to what we can't ever understand, and to that root of  
intrinsic ignorance about something transcendentally bigger than us.  
Institutionalized religion tries to hide that self-discovery for  
question of manipulation and control.


Bruno





Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is  
the universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results  
of the computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine  
computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in  
the view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of  
course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it  
will never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements  
(AxP(x)).





so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even  
sigma_0) sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of  
computational histories.





How does it emerge?


The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.




And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a  
global relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Bruno





Brent

The universal machine does not compute everything---only the  
sigma_1 truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical  
truth, not just all computations.  It is also the truth about those  
computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any  
machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It  
may be be proved by this or that machine, but that is independent  
of its truth or falsity.


To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have  
the faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks  
you just to believe in addition and multiplication.


Bruno





Brent

--
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.


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- 
l...@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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Dear LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because  
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there  
appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain  
anything. I have read just about every book and paper that attempts  
to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason  
for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. If we  
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still  
need to explain how that particular sequence is the one that just  
happened. No, it could not Happen.


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a  
movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read  
are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to  
explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I  
suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by  
using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But  
anyway...)


You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the  
laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is  
what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how things  
change over time. They describe a block universe.


Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there  
has to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or  
evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this  
question is answered by saying that the block universe is the only  
possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be  
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum  
theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing  
all  events allowed by the probabalistic laws of  
physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or  
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with  
the laws of physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse  
in which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial  
conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of  
theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions  
requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark  
suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical  
structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies  
all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in  
the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required,  
but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)  
reasonable?


Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing.


You need to say what you mean by thing to explain what is meant by  
nothing. The same with everything. For example, to define the  
quantum vacuum, you need to assume Hilbert Space or von Neumann  
Algebra, which are a lot of thing by itself.


Bruno




It is a neutral monism that I can buy, but I assume that Becoming is  
fundamental: change exists at all levels - this can happen when we  
reject a global timing scheme! The neat thing is that a change is  
not a thing, at best it is a transition between a pair of things...


  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 22:33, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
 wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because  
instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there  
appear to be smooth change between them. does not explain  
anything. I have read just about every book and paper that  
attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer  
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first  
place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,  
whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is  
the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a  
movie stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read  
are not attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to  
explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I  
suspect that you are betraying a personal  
bias  against the idea by using that  
phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)


You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is  
the laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this  
is what the laws of physics are - equations which describe how  
things change over time. They describe a block universe.


Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming  
there has to be an external time in which one sequence is  
selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In classical  
relativity this question is answered by saying that the block  
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics,  
assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type  
answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader  
answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of  
physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or  
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with  
the laws of physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a  
multiverse in which all possible (logically non-contradictory)  
initial conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of  
theory of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions  
requires less information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark  
suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical  
structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies  
all possible starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in  
the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug may be required,  
but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)  
reasonable?


But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one  
we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying  
that somethings happen at random and they led to here.


Ok, but that does not apply to computationalism. Tegmark is missing  
the comp mind-body problem, the FPI, etc. Even if it makes sense to  
say that we are in a mathematical structure, that mathematical  
structure must be extracted from the FPI on the sigma_1 sentences.


Bruno




Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 23:32, Stephen Paul King wrote:





On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one  
we happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying  
that somethings happen at random and they led to here.


Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions  
about the nature of reality.


How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking  
for an explanation of *this*.  Not just an explanation of why there  
is *some world* with people.


Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action.  
Don't separate observers from their observations. Simple rule  
linking observers to observations. X can only experience worlds  
(collections of observations) whose existence is consistent with the  
observer's existence.


Let me drill down a bit more into this.

  We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also  
observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem  
kinda thing.


To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we  
observe, we don't observe that we observe, but when we feel or know,  
it is the case that we feel feeling and we know that we know (although  
not as such).


Here I use comp + Theaetetus.

Bruno




Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness  
without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the  
possibility of observing a world from the outside.


Is this helping?



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the 
 computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any 
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
   


 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. 
 It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds 
 that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 



-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch



On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Jason,

Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully  
sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.


Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com  
wrote:



Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within  
the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block- 
time universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/ 
what would cause the states of the evolving computer program to take  
a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present  
universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge,  
then you must agree the states reached by the computer program are  
the same, and since they are the same the conscious program could  
not behave any differently.  This includes any realization that it  
is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



Edgar,

I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above  
reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe  
at some level holds that  the right computations can produce  
consciousness.


Thanks,

Jason




Edgar,

Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that  
consciousness is the result of a computation.


If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single  
moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as  
the same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that  
executed it?


If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a  
moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation  
will still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?


I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind  
can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our  
feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator  
for what the reality of the matter is.


Jason



--
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.


--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and 
actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 
 wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the 
 computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any 
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
   


 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. 
 It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds 
 that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a moving 
 present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will still 
 feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can 
 escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling 
 of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the 
 reality of the matter is.

 Jason  


  -- 
 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 javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar,

  I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
 FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
 to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and
 actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning.
 It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
 that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can
 escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling
 of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the
 reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Stephen,

No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize why...

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Edgar,

   I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you 
 understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
 FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
 to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real 
 and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within 
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
 any 
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
   


 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above 
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some 
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a 
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will 
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind 
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our 
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for 
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason  


  -- 
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 -- 

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 step...@provensecure.com javascript:

  http://www.provensecure.us/

  
 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of 
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain 
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and 
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as 
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Edgar,

  Wheeler shows how it is possible to obtain an emergent world from
interactions between observers. It seems that I might have the exactly
title of the paper wrong!

Please read this! You will see the relevance immediately!

http://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/informationquantumphysics.pdf

Here is a nice commentary on the paper:
http://suif.stanford.edu/~jeffop/WWW/wheeler.txt


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Stephen,

 No, haven't read it... If you think it's relevant you could summarize
 why...

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:57:46 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Edgar,

   I am curious. Have you every read A. Wheeler's It from Bit? Did you
 understand the concept of the Surprise 20 Questions game?


 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
 The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
 due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
 any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 step...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The
 FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due
 to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real and
 actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
follow.  Could you elaborate?


Jason




 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning.
 It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
 that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind can
 escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our feeling
 of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for what the
 reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 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.


-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in 
the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations. The 
 FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is due 
 to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real 
 and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality 
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our 
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present 
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


 If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the 
 course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time, 
 then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether 
 presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't 
 follow.  Could you elaborate?


 Jason
  



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully 
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own. 

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within 
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time 
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would 
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different 
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see 
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states 
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same 
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
 any 
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
   


 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above 
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some 
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason 



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that 
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single 
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the 
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a 
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will 
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind 
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our 
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for 
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason  


  -- 
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jason,

Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense  
of computations.





The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are  
conscious, is due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as  
explained in the other post.


Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you  
an artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of  
substitution?


Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is  
real and actually exists means it must be present.


It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we  
search, using this or that theories.





That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present  
moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared  
locus of reality, and that present moment is the only locus of  
reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it  
should be better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.


Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Edgar,

  You are making a claim without support. Can you explain a mechanism that
generates the occurrence of the content of the computations. Bruno and
Wheeler do. I am much more Happy with Wheeler's explanation involving
interactions, but he does not explain observers. Bruno does give us a
definition of observers but it is as objects that exist a priori.
   I advocate Kitoshi Hitada's definition of observers as separable QM
systems, but that definition does not explain where the observables obtain,
they just exist a priori as potentia.

  What is your ontological theory?


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
 the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
 The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
 due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


 If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
 course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
 then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
 presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
 follow.  Could you elaborate?


 Jason




 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
 any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 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-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 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,

  Is a 3p view necessarily an ontological primitive? If we follow Wheeler's
reasoning there is no such thing!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.


 This is ambiguous, and I am not sure you are using the standard sense of
 computations.





  The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
 due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.


 Does it help you to answer yes or no to the doctor who propose you an
 artificial brain simulating your brain or body at some level of
 substitution?

 Is the functioning of a brain Turing emulable, in your theory?






 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present.


 It means *a* reality is present. *the* reality is the problem, what we
 search, using this or that theories.





  That presence of reality self-manifests as the shared common present
 moment we all experience our existence within, which is the shared locus of
 reality, and that present moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no
 block time, no MW, etc.


 In the first person view. Not necessarily in the 3p view, and it should be
 better so, I think, to avoid solipsism and mono-dream.

 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Bruno,

I really do appreciate the details!


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:33, meekerdb wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


  On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:

  On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

  Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the
 universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the
 computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.

   So an external time dimension is required.

  So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less
 computations...I'll try.


 This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine
 computing everything...including space and time.


  Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the
 view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


 But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD,


 OK. The UD, seen as a prover, proves only the ExP(x) truth, but of
 course it obeys itself to the whole of arithmetic, for example, it will
 never emulate a correct machine proving a false pi_1 statements (AxP(x)).



The notion of self-obedience, is that a form of self-reference?





 so how can you be sure that this Lobian machine emerges?


 Because the existence of some Löbian machine is a sigma_1 (even sigma_0)
 sentence, as his the existence of their finite piece of computational
 histories.


OK. Does this follow from Lowenheim-Skolem?






 How does it emerge?


 The UD, alias RA, emulates all machines.


I see this as true, but in the sense of a static representational model.
There is no action involved!






 And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many emerging?


 Yes, there are infinitely many emerging, and that is why there is a global
 relative 1-indeterminacy on the whole UD*, or RA emulation.


Are you saying that the FPI obtains from the infinite number of
emergings? Does it have to be global? I worry about this because it
seems to assume a privileged observer that has the ability to
simultaneously perceive all of the emergings. I reject that God's eye
view.




 Bruno




 Brent

  The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1
 truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all
 computations.  It is also the truth about those computations, and 99,999 %
 of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach conjecture is true
 of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by this or that machine,
 but that is independent of its truth or falsity.

  To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the
 faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to
 believe in addition and multiplication.

  Bruno




 Brent

  --
 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.


   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.



 --
 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.


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/



Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
 the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...


So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur in
the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.

Jason




 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:01:43 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Not quite. The CONTENTS of conscious are the results of computations.
 The FACT of consciousness itself, that the computations are conscious, is
 due to the self-manifesting nature of reality as explained in the other
 post.

 The rest of your questions don't follow. The fact that reality is real
 and actually exists means it must be present. That presence of reality
 self-manifests as the shared common present moment we all experience our
 existence within, which is the shared locus of reality, and that present
 moment is the only locus of reality. Therefore no block time, no MW, etc.


 If the contents of conscious are the results of computations, and the
 course of the computations is identical under presentism or block time,
 then shouldn't the contents of the consciousness be the same whether
 presentism or block time is true?  I don't follow why you say that doesn't
 follow.  Could you elaborate?


 Jason




 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 11:06:51 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:



 On Dec 31, 2013, at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Thanks for asking. I'll start a new topic on Consciousness hopefully
 sometime today as it is clearly an important topic on its own.

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 12:13:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:



 Do you think a computer can be conscious?

 If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within
 the computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
 universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
 cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
 course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
 no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
 reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
 the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes 
 any
 realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.



 Edgar,

 I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above
 reasoning. It seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some
 level holds that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

 Thanks,

 Jason



 Edgar,

 Thanks for your reply in the other thread. I see you answer that
 consciousness is the result of a computation.

 If a conscious computation believes and feels like it is in a single
 moving present moment, do you agree it will feel this way so long as the
 same computation is performed, regardless of the hardware that executed it?

 If so, shouldn't it follow that whether the computation exists in a
 moving present or in a block universe, that the conscious computation will
 still feel and believe it exists in a single present moment?

 I don't see how any theory that uses the computational theory of mind
 can escape this conclusion. As a consequence of it, we cannot use our
 feeling of existing in a single present as any kind of true indicator for
 what the reality of the matter is.

 Jason


  --
 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
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 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-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 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread LizR
My 15 year old son asked me Why do people believe in God?

Once I'd sung a couple of verses of The Second Sitting for the Last
Supper by 10cc (as you do) I started to explain the various angles on this
- avoiding cognitive dissonance, being sure that you're right in the face
of all the evidence, having answers to all possible criticisms because of
The Book, being able to take the moral highground and patronise all the
deluded fools who haven't seen the light, and so on.

No relevance to the present topic, 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/groups/opt_out.


Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread meekerdb

On 12/31/2013 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
To be sure, the material hypostases are not transitive, so when we observe, we don't 
observe that we observe, but when we feel or know, it is the case that we feel feeling 
and we know that we know (although not as such).


Here I use comp + Theaetetus.


But then to know that we know requires only that we know that we have a belief and that 
it's true:


B(Bp+p)+(Bp+p) = B(Bp)+Bp+p

that seems like an easy path to knowledge, since I suppose that Bp-B(Bp).  In this system 
isn't it the case that


 ((p+q)-s)-((Bp+Bq)-Bs)

Yet the rhs doesn't generally hold.

Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread LizR
On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in
 the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...


 So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur
 in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.


That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back and
never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) objections
have gone unanswered.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz, et al,

I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my 
business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just 
responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or 
those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the 
theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions 
over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of 
the theories.

Best all and Happy New Year!
Edgar



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 4:48:55 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 1 January 2014 10:18, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

 On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 Because it's not the computations themselves, but the fact they occur in 
 the Present Time locus of reality that makes them real that is relevant...


 So your answer is that they can't be real computations unless they occur 
 in the present moment?  This seems somewhat circular.


 That reminds me, I mentioned that Edgar's argument is circular way back 
 and never got a reply. Although I guess most of my (and indeed our) 
 objections have gone unanswered.
  

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread LizR
On 1 January 2014 12:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz, et al,

 I apologize for not responding to all posts, I'm very busy running my
 business and have limited time to post here. So in general I'm just
 responding to posts that don't ask questions I've already answered, or
 those that demonstrate some real comprehension or genuine interest in the
 theories I present. It's pretty frustrating answering the same questions
 over and over or responding over and over to the same misunderstandings of
 the theories.


I'm afraid the misunderstanding isn't with us, my dear. We keep asking the
same question because you persistently misunderstand what the problems are
with a theory that posits a common present moment.

So, can you answer this one yet?

The relativity of simultaneity affects *all* time dimensions connecting
events. P-time, clock-time, whatever - they are all susceptible to the same
analysis, with the results that Einstein showed. How do you reconcile this
fact with your theory ?

Until you give a satisfactory answer to the above question, rather than
just woolly hand waving accompanied by patronising comments about how
anyone who doesn't grasp the pearls of wisdom from your towering intellect
must be imbeciles*, people will keep asking it.

Best all and Happy New Year!

 You too!




* The poor fools! They said I was mad, but I showed them! I showed them
all! Nothing in the world can stop me now, not even you, Doctor / Sherlock
/ Mr Bond! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

** Oops, sorry, that just slipped out (must keep that to myself until AFTER
I rule the World...)

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread LizR
Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
beauty).

Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as
well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a
bad start.

By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment.
Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that
it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style
theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this
problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz invariant,
everything else has to break down at high enough energies and / or speeds.
Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth to a very
high degree of precision.

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-31 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR,

   Indeed! The observation of ultra high energy gamma rays that traveled a
long long way ... no dependence seen between energy and velocity...

  My thought was to replace the single IceCube or FishBowl of space-time
with many; one per observer with a composition rule for observers that
generates the Lorentz invariance. (I got the idea from David
Finkelstein)...


On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:16 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Another question that has been asked but not had a satisfactory response
 is, what testable consequences does your theory have? Or if that's too
 difficult, other supporting evidence could be considered (like mathematical
 beauty).

 Comp, for example, appears to predict some aspects of quantum theory, as
 well as some aspect of conscious experience, or so I'm told - which isn't a
 bad start.

 By the way I do understand WHY you need to posit a common present moment.
 Any theory that attempts to quantise space-time has the same problem, that
 it's very hard to do it in a Lorentz-invariant way. Computational style
 theories (cellular automata, spin foams, LQG, CDT etc) all run into this
 problem. Only a space-time continuum can be *completely *Lorentz
 invariant, everything else has to break down at high enough energies and /
 or speeds. Hence the recent result that appear to sohw space-time is smooth
 to a very high degree of precision.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Stephen, Jason, Liz,

The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of time. 
Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and the 
computations compute clock time.

The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything. 
The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us 
nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz 
properly raises

OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation!
:-)

Edgar

On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Jason,

   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in 
 the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things 
 we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the 
 point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all? 
   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the 
 appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) 
 as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon 
 alighting on the answer.


 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)?


 Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why 
 does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does 
 destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?

 Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation 
 tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain. 
  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to 
 your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state 
 change your conscious state for x=2?
  
 Jason
  



 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch 
 jason...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:




 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.com javascript: wrote:

 Dear Brent,

I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with 
 using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?


  In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the 
 graph of y = 2x + 7

 Jason 

  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




 -- 

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 step...@provensecure.com javascript:

  http://www.provensecure.us/

  
 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of 
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain 
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and 
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as 
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are 
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message 
 immediately.” 
  

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the  
universal processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the  
computations compute dimensional space and CLOCK time.


So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less  
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine  
computing everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the  
view of self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.
The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1  
truth. With comp everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not  
just all computations.  It is also the truth about those computations,  
and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any machine. Goldbach  
conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by  
this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity.


To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the  
faith of surviving with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just  
to believe in addition and multiplication.


Bruno





Brent

--
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.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Hi LizR,

  Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
 connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
 change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about
 every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
 point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
 first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
 whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
 that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time
arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of
physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of
physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to
be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by
saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens
for both GR *and *QM!

:-)

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR
On 30 December 2013 22:30, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Stephen, Jason, Liz,

 The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds of
 time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the computations, and
 the computations compute clock time.

 The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute anything.


This is, of course, a circular argument.


The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't moving gives us
 nothing. All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz
 properly raises


This is, of course, only true if one has failed to grasp the block universe
view.


 OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable explanation!
 :-)


Hmm, looks like a smidgeon of progress here.



 Edgar


 On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Dear Jason,

   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
 the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking questions about things
 we are trying to understand. Merely stating that this is that ignores the
 point. Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
 appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking)
 as an explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon
 alighting on the answer.


 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Hi Jason,

   So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)?


 Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
 does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
 destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?

 Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation
 tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.
  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to
 your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state
 change your conscious state for x=2?

 Jason




 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King 
 step...@provensecure.com wrote:

 Dear Brent,

I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with
 using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?


  In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the
 graph of y = 2x + 7

 Jason

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
 topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




 --

 Kindest Regards,

 Stephen Paul King

 Senior Researcher

 Mobile: (864) 567-3099

 step...@provensecure.com

  http://www.provensecure.us/


 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
 the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
 information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
 exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
 attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
 hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
 this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
 message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
 immediately.”

  --
 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.


-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 08:25, LizR wrote:

I admit I have difficulty understanding how Bruno's UD runs inside  
arithmetic




Don't push me too much as I really want to explain this to you :)

It is not completely obvious, especially if we want be 100% rigorous.

There are not so much textbook which do that entirely correctly. But  
here are three best one:


Boolos and Jeffrey (and Burgess for late edition).
http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Logic-George-S-Boolos/dp/0521701465

Epstein and Carnielli   (out of stock!)
http://www.amazon.com/Computability-Computable-Functions-Foundations-Mathematics/dp/0534103561/ref=sr_1_2?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1388400218sr=1-2keywords=epstein+and+carnielli

Matiyasevitch
http://www.amazon.com/Hilberts-10th-Problem-Foundations-Computing/dp/0262132958/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1388400285sr=1-1keywords=matiyasevich

Matiyasevitch shows explicitly how to emulate any Turing machine with  
diophantine polynomials.


Oh, well, there is also the old good Stephen Kleene 1952 book, and  
many by Smullyan (although like Gödel they do that in PA or  
equivalent, and not in RA, which ask for more verification.  
Matiyasevitc shows that for diophantine equation, which means that it  
makes the RA universal quantifier not needed, and so gives the  
stronger result.


The main deep idea is already in Gödel 1931.

May be the shortest path is to explain the phi_i and use Kleene  
predicate to explain that equalities involving the phi_i are made  
arithmetical by the use of Kleene's predicate, but this needs the  
Gödel coding, which is long to describe, and even longer to prove that  
it does correctly the job.


I am thinking how to explain this without going in the technical  
details.


Bruno


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Dec 2013, at 10:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Stephen, Jason, Liz,

The answer is very simple when one understands there are two kinds  
of time. Present moment P-time is the processor cycle of the  
computations, and the computations compute clock time.


The computations MUST take place in time of some sort to compute  
anything. The fact that there is a logical sequence that isn't  
moving gives us nothing.


You are right: you don't get anything with only

0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...

But you get the subjective time and possible relatively objective 3p  
time from the sequence above, once you agree with the laws of numbers:  
explicitly:



x + 0 = x
x + s(y) = s(x + y)

 x *0 = 0
 x*s(y) = x*y + x

Arithmetic contains all diophantine approximation of all ... soccer  
cups, and things like that, like the collison between the Milky Way  
and Andromeda. But the 1p (consciousness) emerges really only in the  
limiting glue of the diophantine solutions, and those might not be  
solution of any particular diophantine equation.


Bruno



All comps, including Bruno's, must face this problem which Liz  
properly raises


OK, I'm ducking, but nevertheless it's the only reasonable  
explanation!

:-)

Edgar

On Monday, December 30, 2013 12:43:34 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

Dear Jason,

  You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is  
involved in the discussion here. The fact is that we are asking  
questions about things we are trying to understand. Merely stating  
that this is that ignores the point. Where doth change emerge if it  
does not exist at all?
  This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the  
appearance of change. We can point at this or that (figuratively  
speaking) as an explanation, but the finger that points does not  
vanish upon alighting on the answer.



On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Hi Jason,

  So what is turning the knob on the values of y (or x)?

Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.   
Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?   
What does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't  
there before?


Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation  
tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your  
brain.  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2  
corresponds to your consciousness in time 2, then how would  
destroying the x=1 state change your conscious state for x=2?


Jason



On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch jason...@gmail.com  
wrote:




On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King  
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear Brent,

   I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with  
using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless  
entities?



In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the  
graph of y = 2x + 7


Jason


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in  
the Google Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe 
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.



--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/




“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the  
use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may  
contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged,  
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may  
be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended  
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly  
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify  
sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”



--
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.


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 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread meekerdb

On 12/30/2013 1:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 02:59, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 4:41 PM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:


Liz,

Good questions. The computations take place in P-time which is the universal
processor cycle in which they execute. The results of the computations 
compute
dimensional space and CLOCK time.

So an external time dimension is required.

So imagine a universe with a time dimension and some space-less 
computations...I'll try.


This shouldn't be any harder than imagining Bruno's Turing machine computing 
everything...including space and time.


Space, time and physical things are not computed. They emerge in the view of 
self-aware Löbian machine, which exist in arithmetic.


But not all of arithmetic is computed by the UD, so how can you be sure that this Lobian 
machine emerges?  How does it emerge?  And if there is one, aren't there indefinitely many 
emerging?


Brent

The universal machine does not compute everything---only the sigma_1 truth. With comp 
everything is the whole arithmetical truth, not just all computations.  It is also the 
truth about those computations, and 99,999 % of those truth are not computed by any 
machine. Goldbach conjecture is true of false, but not computed. It may be be proved by 
this or that machine, but that is independent of its truth or falsity.


To understand comp, you need only to conceive that some can have the faith of surviving 
with a digital brain. The TOE itself asks you just to believe in addition and 
multiplication.


Bruno





Brent

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



--
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.


--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread meekerdb

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com 
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:


Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are 
connected
to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between 
them.
does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that 
attempts
to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the 
illusion
of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of 
numbers,
events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular 
sequence is
the one that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of 
each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to explain time away - 
they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I 
suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so 
I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)


You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In 
the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations 
which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.


Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to be an 
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In 
classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is 
the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we 
have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a 
broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to 
occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because 
all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible 
(logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?


Brent



That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens for both GR 
/and /QM!


:-)
--
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.


--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

  Hi LizR,

   Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
 are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
 change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about
 every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
 point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
 first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
 whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
 that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
 stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
 attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time
 arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
 betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
 be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
 of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
 of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
 describe a block universe.

  Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has
 to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
 otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by
 saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
 physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
 answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
 allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
 A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
 because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.


 But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
 which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?



That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of
nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra
information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
may be required, but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Brent,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

  Hi LizR,

   Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
 are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
 change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about
 every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
 point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
 first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
 whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
 that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
 stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
 attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time
 arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
 betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
 be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
 of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
 of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
 describe a block universe.

  Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has
 to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
 otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by
 saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
 physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
 answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
 allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
 A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
 because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.


 But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
 which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions
 obtain?


Yes, QM -as standardly used- has a state transition model to do
calculations with it. There are other ways of doing computations. My
favorite is Hewitt's Actor Model:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7erJ1DV_Tlo

Observers come with self-consistent universes -which are their
observations. Interactions between these must be, at some level, logically
non-contradictory (incontrovertible).




 Brent


  That answers the question of how this particular sequence just happens
 for both GR *and *QM!

  :-)
   --
 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.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
  wrote:

  Hi LizR,

   Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
 are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
 change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about
 every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
 point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
 first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
 whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
 that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
 stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
 attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time
 arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
 betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
 be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
 laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
 laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
 They describe a block universe.

  Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has
 to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
 otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by
 saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
 physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
 answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
 allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
 A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
 because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.


 But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
 which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?



 That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of
 nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
 information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
 is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra
 information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
 outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
 may be required, but I suspect not.)

 Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?


Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
buy, but I assume that Becoming is fundamental: change exists at all
levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
thing is that a change is not a thing, at best it is a transition between
a pair of things...

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread meekerdb

On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth 
change
between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about every 
book and
paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None 
offer
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. 
If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still 
need to
explain how that particular sequence is the one that just happened. 
No, it
could not Happen.


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie 
stacked on
top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to 
explain
time away - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the 
relevant
equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias 
against the
idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But 
anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of
physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of 
physics
are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a 
block
universe.

Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has to 
be an
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise 
occurs.
In classical relativity this question is answered by saying that the block
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in 
the
form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the
probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to 
evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws 
of
physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in 
which all
possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory of nothing - to 
specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific 
ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant mathematical 
structure and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible 
starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A 
visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?


But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  
I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led 
to here.


Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Brent,

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here.

No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not
random per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with
our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us
(communicating/interacting observers).


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
  wrote:

  Hi LizR,

   Round and round we go... This sentence It emerges because instants
 are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
 change between them. does not explain anything. I have read just about
 every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
 point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
 first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
 whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
 that just happened. No, it could not Happen.


  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
 stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
 attempting to explain time away - they are attempting to explain how time
 arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
 betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
 be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
 laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
 laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
 They describe a block universe.

  Asking why one sequence of events just happened is assuming there has
 to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
 otherwise occurs. In classical relativity this question is answered by
 saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
 physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
 answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
 allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
 A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
 because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.


  But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
 which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?



  That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of theory
 of nothing - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
 information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
 is ONLY the relevant mathematical structure and doesn't require any extra
 information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
 outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
 may be required, but I suspect not.)

  Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)
 reasonable?


 But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
 happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
 somethings happen at random and they led to here.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
 Google Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
 To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.




-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
immediately.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread meekerdb

On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist 
in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and 
they led to here.


No, the one we happen to find ourselves in may be arbitrary, but not random per se. 
The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it 
and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).


Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable 
for our existence too.


Brent

--
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR
On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

 Dear LizR,
 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
 stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

  Hi LizR,

 Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
 buy, but I assume that Becoming is fundamental: change exists at all
 levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
 thing is that a change is not a thing, at best it is a transition between
 a pair of things...


That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.

However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
anything simpler.


   I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...


Hope you get well soon!

-- 
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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

2013-12-30 Thread LizR
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
 happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
 somethings happen at random and they led to here.

 Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about
the nature of reality.

-- 
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.


  1   2   >