subject:"Re\: Church Turing be dammed."

On May 31, 5:15 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 2:22 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > To know what an interface is... how 2 programs communicate. The way you
> > > talk is like "hey dude it's in the OS !"... like the operating system was
> > > not a software...
>
> > No, I'm saying it's all software, except for the hardware. That has
> > been my point from the start. You can make as many virtual worlds
> > nested within each other as you like and it doesn't matter. No
> > interface is required because they are all being physically hosted by
> > the semiconducting microelectronics.
>
> >  It is not a problem to have an avatar have virtual dinner in virtual
> > Paris by using his virtual computer. He can dive into the monitor and
> > end up on the Champs-Élysées if the programmer writes the virtual
> > worlds that way. No interface can allow or restrict anything within a
> > virtual context
>
> You simply don't know what the terms means or you're stupid... one or the
> other or both.

No, it's just that you aren't seeing my point that there is a
difference between a device that is ontologically necessary and one
that that is entirely optional. I don't think that means you're
stupid, just that you cannot tolerate being wrong. It doesn't matter
if you call it an interface, what matters is that I need a way to turn
my free will into electronic changes in a computer, but electronic
changes don't need a way to turn themselves into other electronic
changes.

>
> > - it's all an election by the programmer, not an
> > ontological barrier.
>
> > > like if you want to access the network you're not calling
> > > a software... like in the end it was not writing something into some
> > place
> > > in memory... pfff only thing I can say is "AhAhAh !!!"... as your "sense"
> > > BS.
>
> > When I use my keyboard to type these words, I am using hardware.
>
> Which calls software, basically calling an interrupt and setting something
> into memory to be read by other programs (os or driver or whatever)

No, it calls hardware, and the behavior of part of that hardware seems
to us like software when it is displayed back to us through screen
hardware. Programs are nothing but logical scripts to control
hardware. Hardware doesn't need a program, but programs need hardware.
Programs can run in other programs, but only if they all ultimately
run on hardware. They have no existence on their own. There is no
virtual universe being created, it is just a well maintained facade.

>
> > When
> > an avatar uses a virtual keyboard, or when that avatar's avatar's
> > avatar uses a virtual virtual virtual keyboard, there is no keyboard
> > there.
>
> If you don't do a simulation no.. so what.

So you are not limited to the logic of physics in a virtual world
because it's not physically real.

>
> > The keyboard can be a turnip or a cloud, it doesn't matter. For
> > me, in hardware world, it matters.
>
> > > The way you don't understand "level"... when a emulator is in a
> > emulator...
> > > the second level emulator run on the first level emulated hardware...
>
> > No, I understand exactly how you understand level but I am telling you
> > that you are wrong. You are mistaking marketing hype for reality.
>
> I write emulator, I know exactly how this works contrary to you.

But you don't know how it fails to work, which is the more relevant
issue. Emulation is a theory that fails in reality.

>
> > Emulation is a figure of speech.
>
> No

Yes

>
> > There is no virtual hardware.
>
> There is.

Prove it.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 31, 2:22 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > To know what an interface is... how 2 programs communicate. The way you
> > talk is like "hey dude it's in the OS !"... like the operating system was
> > not a software...
>
> No, I'm saying it's all software, except for the hardware. That has
> been my point from the start. You can make as many virtual worlds
> nested within each other as you like and it doesn't matter. No
> interface is required because they are all being physically hosted by
> the semiconducting microelectronics.
>
>  It is not a problem to have an avatar have virtual dinner in virtual
> Paris by using his virtual computer. He can dive into the monitor and
> end up on the Champs-Élysées if the programmer writes the virtual
> worlds that way. No interface can allow or restrict anything within a
> virtual context


You simply don't know what the terms means or you're stupid... one or the
other or both.


> - it's all an election by the programmer, not an
> ontological barrier.
>
> > like if you want to access the network you're not calling
> > a software... like in the end it was not writing something into some
> place
> > in memory... pfff only thing I can say is "AhAhAh !!!"... as your "sense"
> > BS.
>
> When I use my keyboard to type these words, I am using hardware.


Which calls software, basically calling an interrupt and setting something
into memory to be read by other programs (os or driver or whatever)


> When
> an avatar uses a virtual keyboard, or when that avatar's avatar's
> avatar uses a virtual virtual virtual keyboard, there is no keyboard
> there.


If you don't do a simulation no.. so what.


> The keyboard can be a turnip or a cloud, it doesn't matter. For
> me, in hardware world, it matters.
>
> >
> > The way you don't understand "level"... when a emulator is in a
> emulator...
> > the second level emulator run on the first level emulated hardware...
>
> No, I understand exactly how you understand level but I am telling you
> that you are wrong. You are mistaking marketing hype for reality.
>

I write emulator, I know exactly how this works contrary to you.


> Emulation is a figure of speech.


No


> There is no virtual hardware.


There is.


> It's
> just one piece of software that acts like several. The organization of
> it is meaningless ontologically. The entire program is an
> epiphenomenon of the same piece of hardware.
>
> > which
> > run itself run on physical hardware, no program in the nth level could
> > access n-1 level hardware without the n-1 level emulator giving interface
> > to it.
>
> That is just not true and you aren't listening to what I'm saying. You
> are confusing user permissions with hardware to software interface.
> Every week I see nth level programs break n-1 OS and take down the
> entire node. It's not what you think. They use the same OS. There is
> only one copy of Windows Server 2008 that every container shares. If
> they had separate copies, there would still be a meta-OS that they
> share.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 2:29 pm, "Stephen P. King"  wrote:

>
>      It seems that we might be glossing over the difference between
> hardware and software...
>

Hi Stephen,

Yes, that seems to be the case a lot. I guess it can be confusing, but
I'm not sure why. If a cat can pee on it, then it's hardware.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 2:22 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> To know what an interface is... how 2 programs communicate. The way you
> talk is like "hey dude it's in the OS !"... like the operating system was
> not a software...

No, I'm saying it's all software, except for the hardware. That has
been my point from the start. You can make as many virtual worlds
nested within each other as you like and it doesn't matter. No
interface is required because they are all being physically hosted by
the semiconducting microelectronics.

 It is not a problem to have an avatar have virtual dinner in virtual
Paris by using his virtual computer. He can dive into the monitor and
end up on the Champs-Élysées if the programmer writes the virtual
worlds that way. No interface can allow or restrict anything within a
virtual context - it's all an election by the programmer, not an
ontological barrier.

> like if you want to access the network you're not calling
> a software... like in the end it was not writing something into some place
> in memory... pfff only thing I can say is "AhAhAh !!!"... as your "sense"
> BS.

When I use my keyboard to type these words, I am using hardware. When
an avatar uses a virtual keyboard, or when that avatar's avatar's
avatar uses a virtual virtual virtual keyboard, there is no keyboard
there. The keyboard can be a turnip or a cloud, it doesn't matter. For
me, in hardware world, it matters.

>
> The way you don't understand "level"... when a emulator is in a emulator...
> the second level emulator run on the first level emulated hardware...

No, I understand exactly how you understand level but I am telling you
that you are wrong. You are mistaking marketing hype for reality.
Emulation is a figure of speech. There is no virtual hardware. It's
just one piece of software that acts like several. The organization of
it is meaningless ontologically. The entire program is an
epiphenomenon of the same piece of hardware.

> which
> run itself run on physical hardware, no program in the nth level could
> access n-1 level hardware without the n-1 level emulator giving interface
> to it.

That is just not true and you aren't listening to what I'm saying. You
are confusing user permissions with hardware to software interface.
Every week I see nth level programs break n-1 OS and take down the
entire node. It's not what you think. They use the same OS. There is
only one copy of Windows Server 2008 that every container shares. If
they had separate copies, there would still be a meta-OS that they
share.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-05-31 Thread meekerdb


On 5/31/2012 12:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote:



On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:


To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won 
a
price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state 
law
forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars 
without
annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of 
earth
complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the
observer, and from your point of view, you can of course only see 
the guy
who got the feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, 
staying on
earth for n experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter
experience). Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a 
probability
near one to go quickly on Mars.


Bruno,

Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to 
get back
to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above
experiment that I wanted to clear up.

You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n, 
where n
is the number of teleportations. 


Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by 
the
person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the 
probability is
1/2, but his experience is "harry-Potter-like".





I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the 
first
teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it remain 50%? 


Yes.




Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy 
on
earth.  Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 
1/6th?


You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense.





While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I 
see the
probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is pressed, I 
split
in two).  It is easier for me to see how this works in quantum 
mechanics under
the following experiment:

I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis, the
probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I 
have
caused 5 splittings), 


OK.



but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5 
electrons,
but stop once you find one in the up state. 


That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to 
the
earth/mars experience.




In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following 
records:

1. D
2. DU
3. DDU
4. DDDU
5. U
6. D

However, not all of these copies should have the same measure.   The 
way I see
it is they have the following probabilities:

1. D (1/2)
2. DU (1/4)
3. DDU (1/8)
4. DDDU (1/16)
5. U (1/32)
6. D (1/32)

I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter 
experiment, it
seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies on mars) is 
no
different from the case where the transporter creates all 5 copies on 
Mars at
once. 


This is ambiguous.



What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net result 
being 1
copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping into the 
teleporter
once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with delay) on Mars.

Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA:

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif



Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created 
with delay
on Mars (instead of one with delay).

When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on Mars 
(with
various delays between each one being produced) is the probability of 
remaining on
Earth 1/6th?


Yes.
That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or a 
one,
finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in front of the
"looser", even if you multiply by 20. billions your delayed copies on mars.




Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge that 
the other
copy made it to Mars before stepping into the Teleporter again?


I

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-05-31 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won a
>>> price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state law
>>> forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars without
>>> annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of earth
>>> complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the observer,
>>> and from your point of view, you can of course only see the guy who got the
>>> feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n
>>> experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience).
>>> Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go
>>> quickly on Mars.
>>>
>>>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to get
>> back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above
>> experiment that I wanted to clear up.
>>
>> You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n,
>> where n is the number of teleportations.
>>
>>
>> Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by
>> the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the
>> probability is 1/2, but his experience is "harry-Potter-like".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the
>> first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it
>> remain 50%?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy on
>> earth.  Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 1/6th?
>>
>>
>> You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I
>> see the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is
>> pressed, I split in two).  It is easier for me to see how this works in
>> quantum mechanics under the following experiment:
>>
>> I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis, the
>> probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I
>> have caused 5 splittings),
>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>> but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5
>> electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state.
>>
>>
>> That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to
>> the earth/mars experience.
>>
>>
>>
>> In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following
>> records:
>>
>> 1. D
>> 2. DU
>> 3. DDU
>> 4. DDDU
>> 5. U
>> 6. D
>>
>> However, not all of these copies should have the same measure.   The way
>> I see it is they have the following probabilities:
>>
>> 1. D (1/2)
>> 2. DU (1/4)
>> 3. DDU (1/8)
>> 4. DDDU (1/16)
>> 5. U (1/32)
>> 6. D (1/32)
>>
>> I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter
>> experiment, it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies
>> on mars) is no different from the case where the transporter creates all 5
>> copies on Mars at once.
>>
>>
>> This is ambiguous.
>>
>
>
> What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net
> result being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping
> into the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with
> delay) on Mars.
>
> Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA:
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif
>
> Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created
> with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay).
>
> When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on
> Mars (with various delays between each one being produced) is the
> probability of remaining on Earth 1/6th?
>
>
> Yes.
> That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or a
> one, finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in front
> of the "looser", even if you multiply by 20. billions your delayed copies
> on mars.
>
>
>
> Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge that
> the other copy made it to Mars before stepping into the Teleporter again?
>
>
> I don't understand the sentence. It looks like what is the difference
> between 24.
>


I apologize for not being clear.  There are two different experiments I am
contrasting:

1. A person steps into a teleporter, and 5 copies (with varying delays) are
reproduced on Mars.

2. A person steps into a teleporter, and a duplicate is created on Mars.
 To increase the chance of subjectively finding himself on Mars, he does it
again (when he fails) and the copy on Earth does so 5 times before giving
up.

For expe

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 May 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I think there are many tricks the brain employs against itself to  
aid the selfish propagation of its genes.  One example is the  
concept of the ego (having an identity).


Agreed. As I said just above.


So having an identity, a unity of thoughts, depends on there being a  
brain which depends on physics.  Which is why I argue that, whatever  
is fundamental, physics is essential to consciousness.


I can agree. This does not make physics primitive though. Just that  
that the physical realm might delude us on our identity, as it does on  
materiality. Keep in mind that physics, with comp, is a statistic on  
computations as seen from some points of view.









Many drugs can temporarily disable whatever mechanism in our brain  
creates this feeling, leading to ego death, feelings of  
connectedness, oneness with other or the universe, etc.  Perhaps  
one of our ancestors always felt this way, but died out when the  
egoist gene developed and made its carriers exploitative of the  
egoless.


Probably. I think so.


Evolutionarily the ego must have preceded Lobian programming by many  
generations.


I agree, for the human egos, but arithmetic is full of relative  
"egos", non lobian and lobian one.



Competition and natural selection must have occurred even in the  
primordial soup.


No doubt. From our perspective. ("our" can include the bacteria, and  
all living creatures).


Bruno

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-05-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 May 2012, at 18:29, Jason Resch wrote:




On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won  
a price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state  
law forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to  
Mars without annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and  
the version of earth complained, and so try again and again, and  
again ... You are the observer, and from your point of view, you  
can of course only see the guy who got the feeling to be infinitely  
unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n experience has  
probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience). Assuming the  
infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go quickly  
on Mars.



Bruno,

Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend  
to get back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading  
about the above experiment that I wanted to clear up.


You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is  
(1/2)^n, where n is the number of teleportations.


Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred  
by the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time  
the probability is 1/2, but his experience is "harry-Potter-like".





I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after  
the first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue,  
does it remain 50%?


Yes.



Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1  
copy on earth.  Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be  
equal to 1/6th?


You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense.





While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so  
that I see the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport  
button is pressed, I split in two).  It is easier for me to see how  
this works in quantum mechanics under the following experiment:


I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis,  
the probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in  
32 (as I have caused 5 splittings),


OK.


but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5  
electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state.


That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding  
to the earth/mars experience.




In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following  
records:


1. D
2. DU
3. DDU
4. DDDU
5. U
6. D

However, not all of these copies should have the same measure.
The way I see it is they have the following probabilities:


1. D (1/2)
2. DU (1/4)
3. DDU (1/8)
4. DDDU (1/16)
5. U (1/32)
6. D (1/32)

I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter  
experiment, it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5  
copies on mars) is no different from the case where the transporter  
creates all 5 copies on Mars at once.


This is ambiguous.


What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net  
result being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like  
stepping into the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating  
5 copies (with delay) on Mars.


Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif

Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies  
created with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay).


When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created  
on Mars (with various delays between each one being produced) is the  
probability of remaining on Earth 1/6th?


Yes.
That would be a good idea to enhance the probability to be the one, or  
a one, finding himself of mars. But again, the guy on earth will be in  
front of the "looser", even if you multiply by 20. billions your  
delayed copies on mars.





Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge  
that the other copy made it to Mars before stepping into the  
Teleporter again?


I don't understand the sentence. It looks like what is the difference  
between 24.


In this thought experience you were supposed to be an external  
observer on earth, not the candidate doing the duplication.
In your diary, you will always write things like, "he try to multiply  
the copy on mars, push on the button and told me "this fails again".


Bruno








In that case, it is clear that the chance of remaining on Earth  
should be (1/6th)


Yes. In that case.



but if the beginning and end states of the experiment are the same,  
why should it matter if the replication is done iteratively or all  
at once? Do RSSA and ASSA make different predictions in this case?


RSSA has to be applied. Your first protocol is faithful, isomorphic,  
to the experience I was describing. Te second is not.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-31 Thread Stephen P. King


On 5/31/2012 12:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 31, 1:45 am, Jason Resch  wrote:

Craig,

You mentioned that you can open a remote desktop connection from a
virtualized computer to a real computer (or even the one running the
virtualization).

This, as Quentin mentioned, requires an interface.  In this case it is
provided by the virtual network card made available to the virtual OS.

A 'virtual network card' is just a name for the part of OS. There is
no interface. The 'real computer' is no more real than the virtual
computer. The partition is purely fictional - a presentation layer to
appeal to our sense of organization and convenience. No virtual
network card is required. You could just call it the part of the OS
that we call virtual.

The partition between the OS and the actual hardware however, does
require an interface for our hands and eyes to make changes to the
hardware that affects the software.


When the virtual OS writes network traffic to this virtual interface, it is
read by the host computer, and from there on can be interpreted and
processed.  It is only because the host computer is monitoring the state of
this virtual network card and forwarding its traffic that the virtual OS is
able to send any network traffic outside it.

No, the containers all share the same root OS. The virtual interface
is a convenient fiction.

Craig


Hi Craig,

It seems that we might be glossing over the difference between 
hardware and software...


--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 31, 1:58 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 31, 12:26 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> > > > > On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> > > > > > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that
> you
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a
> Church-Turing
> > > > > > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level
> > > separation?
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference
> between
> > > one
> > > > > > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
> >
> > > > > > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact
> through
> > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
> >
> > > > > > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
> >
> > > > > > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared
> memory
> > > (and
> > > > > > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So
> give
> > > me a
> > > > > > program that can talk/share thing with another program without
> any
> > > > > > interface between them...
> >
> > > > > You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
> > > > > necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality.
> To
> > > > > use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an
> interface
> > > > > that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
> > > > > microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
> > > > > universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
> > > > > prevented by the lack of such a thing.
> >
> > > > > Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with
> anything
> > > > > else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
> > > > > virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
> > > > > The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
> > > > > facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
> > > > > representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to
> pass
> > > > > from one area of memory to another.
> >
> > > > > > > There is no
> > > > > > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node
> whether
> > > the
> > > > > > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the
> physical
> > > > > > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual
> machines.
> >
> > > > > > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine
> > > has no
> > > > > > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist)
> on the
> > > > > > physical hardware.
> >
> > > > > The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
> > > > > the root level.
> >
> > > > That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access
> to
> > > the
> > > > host hardware it does not...
> >
> > > I'm not talking about the user having access to the host hardware, I'm
> > > talking about the virtual machine: the software. It is using the host
> > > machines's memory and CPUs, is it not?
> >
> > > > The point is that the program running on the
> > > > emulator *HAS NO WAY* to know it does not run on physical
> > > hardware
> > > > if no interface is present to give it access to it.
> >
> > > No program has any way of knowing whether it is running on physical
> > > hardware or not, even if it has an interface. Whether the program is
> > > running on an emulator or not makes no difference.
> >
> > > > Shared memory IS an interface. But anyway, I leave this
> > > discussion
> > > > here, can't cure your stupidity.
> >
> > > Despite your ad hominem retort, there is no basis for it if you
> > > understand the points I am making. It is your understanding that is a
> > > little fuzzy. I am an MCSE and CCEA btw, and I have been configuring
> > > and managing hundreds of RDP, Citrix, and virtual servers every day
> > > for over 13 years.
> >
> > Yes but you still have to learn what a program is... then come back
> talking.
> >
>
> What 'come back'? Did I leave? What understanding about what a program
> is do you have that could possibly make an difference in this
> conversation?
>


To know what an interface is... how 2 programs communicate. The way you
talk is like "hey dude it's in the OS !"... like the operating system was
not a software... like if you want to access the network you're not calling
a software... like in the end it was not writing something into some place
in memory... pfff only thing I can say is "AhAhAh !!!"... as your "sense"
BS.

The way you don't understand "level"... when a emulator is in a emulator...
the second level emulator run on the first level emulated hardware... which
run itself ru

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 1:58 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 12:26 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > > > On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > > > > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you
> > are
> > > > > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > > > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level
> > separation?
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between
> > one
> > > > > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>
> > > > > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through
> > > > interface
> > > > > > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
>
> > > > > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
>
> > > > > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory
> > (and
> > > > > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give
> > me a
> > > > > program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
> > > > > interface between them...
>
> > > > You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
> > > > necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. To
> > > > use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an interface
> > > > that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
> > > > microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
> > > > universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
> > > > prevented by the lack of such a thing.
>
> > > > Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with anything
> > > > else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
> > > > virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
> > > > The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
> > > > facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
> > > > representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to pass
> > > > from one area of memory to another.
>
> > > > > > There is no
> > > > > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether
> > the
> > > > > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> > > > > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
>
> > > > > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine
> > has no
> > > > > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
> > > > > physical hardware.
>
> > > > The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
> > > > the root level.
>
> > > That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access to
> > the
> > > host hardware it does not...
>
> > I'm not talking about the user having access to the host hardware, I'm
> > talking about the virtual machine: the software. It is using the host
> > machines's memory and CPUs, is it not?
>
> > > The point is that the program running on the
> > > emulator *HAS NO WAY* to know it does not run on physical
> > hardware
> > > if no interface is present to give it access to it.
>
> > No program has any way of knowing whether it is running on physical
> > hardware or not, even if it has an interface. Whether the program is
> > running on an emulator or not makes no difference.
>
> > > Shared memory IS an interface. But anyway, I leave this
> > discussion
> > > here, can't cure your stupidity.
>
> > Despite your ad hominem retort, there is no basis for it if you
> > understand the points I am making. It is your understanding that is a
> > little fuzzy. I am an MCSE and CCEA btw, and I have been configuring
> > and managing hundreds of RDP, Citrix, and virtual servers every day
> > for over 13 years.
>
> Yes but you still have to learn what a program is... then come back talking.
>

What 'come back'? Did I leave? What understanding about what a program
is do you have that could possibly make an difference in this
conversation?

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 31, 12:26 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> > > > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you
> are
> > > > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level
> separation?
> > > The
> > > > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between
> one
> > > > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
> >
> > > > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through
> > > interface
> > > > > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
> >
> > > > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
> >
> > > > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory
> (and
> > > > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give
> me a
> > > > program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
> > > > interface between them...
> >
> > > You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
> > > necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. To
> > > use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an interface
> > > that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
> > > microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
> > > universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
> > > prevented by the lack of such a thing.
> >
> > > Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with anything
> > > else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
> > > virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
> > > The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
> > > facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
> > > representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to pass
> > > from one area of memory to another.
> >
> > > > > There is no
> > > > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether
> the
> > > > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> > > > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
> >
> > > > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine
> has no
> > > > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
> > > > physical hardware.
> >
> > > The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
> > > the root level.
> >
> > That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access to
> the
> > host hardware it does not...
>
> I'm not talking about the user having access to the host hardware, I'm
> talking about the virtual machine: the software. It is using the host
> machines's memory and CPUs, is it not?
>
> > The point is that the program running on the
> > emulator *HAS NO WAY* to know it does not run on physical
> hardware
> > if no interface is present to give it access to it.
>
> No program has any way of knowing whether it is running on physical
> hardware or not, even if it has an interface. Whether the program is
> running on an emulator or not makes no difference.
>
> >
> > Shared memory IS an interface. But anyway, I leave this
> discussion
> > here, can't cure your stupidity.
>
> Despite your ad hominem retort, there is no basis for it if you
> understand the points I am making. It is your understanding that is a
> little fuzzy. I am an MCSE and CCEA btw, and I have been configuring
> and managing hundreds of RDP, Citrix, and virtual servers every day
> for over 13 years.


Yes but you still have to learn what a program is... then come back talking.

Quentin

I can assure you that you can break an entire
> hardware node by doing something on one container. Virtual is a
> relative term, it is not literal. The virtual machines are all really
> the same physical computer.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 12:26 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> > > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation?
> > The
> > > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> > > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>
> > > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through
> > interface
> > > > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
>
> > > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
>
> > > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory (and
> > > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give me a
> > > program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
> > > interface between them...
>
> > You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
> > necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. To
> > use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an interface
> > that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
> > microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
> > universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
> > prevented by the lack of such a thing.
>
> > Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with anything
> > else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
> > virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
> > The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
> > facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
> > representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to pass
> > from one area of memory to another.
>
> > > > There is no
> > > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether the
> > > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> > > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
>
> > > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine has no
> > > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
> > > physical hardware.
>
> > The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
> > the root level.
>
> That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access to the
> host hardware it does not...

I'm not talking about the user having access to the host hardware, I'm
talking about the virtual machine: the software. It is using the host
machines's memory and CPUs, is it not?

> The point is that the program running on the
> emulator *HAS NO WAY* to know it does not run on physical hardware
> if no interface is present to give it access to it.

No program has any way of knowing whether it is running on physical
hardware or not, even if it has an interface. Whether the program is
running on an emulator or not makes no difference.

>
> Shared memory IS an interface. But anyway, I leave this discussion
> here, can't cure your stupidity.

Despite your ad hominem retort, there is no basis for it if you
understand the points I am making. It is your understanding that is a
little fuzzy. I am an MCSE and CCEA btw, and I have been configuring
and managing hundreds of RDP, Citrix, and virtual servers every day
for over 13 years. I can assure you that you can break an entire
hardware node by doing something on one container. Virtual is a
relative term, it is not literal. The virtual machines are all really
the same physical computer.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 2:33 am, Jason Resch  wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 1:45 am, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > > So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
> > > issue with?
>
> > > A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy
>
> > So does a cadaver's brain and body. The fact that a cadaver is not
> > intelligent should show us that the difference between life and death
> > can't be meaningfully reduced to matter and energy.
>
> That some organizations of matter/energy are intelligent and others are not
> is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not you agree that the brain is
> made of matter and energy.  Do you agree the brain is made of matter and
> energy, and that the brain is responsible for your consciousness (or at
> least one of the many possible manifestations of it)?

I think that Matter-Energy and Sense-Motive are dual aspects of the
same thing. If you are talking about the brain only, then you are
talking about matter and energy, but no person exists if you limit the
discussion to that. The matter and energy side of what we are is just
organs. There is no person there. The brain is not responsible for
consciousness anymore than your computer is responsible for the
internet. It is the necessary vehicle through which human level
awareness is accessed.

>
> > > B. that matter and energy follow natural laws,
>
> > No, laws follow from our observation of natural matter and energy.
>
> You are mistaking our approximations and inferences concerning the natural
> laws for the natural laws themselves.

No, you are mistaking the interaction of concretely real natural
phenomena with abstract principles which we have derived from
measurement and intellectual extension.

> Before there were any humans, or any
> life, there must have been laws that the universe obeyed to reach the point
> where Earth formed and life could develop.

Before there was matter, there were no laws that the universe obeyed
pertaining to matter, just as there were no laws of biology before
biology. The universe makes laws by doing. It isn't only a disembodied
set of invisible laws which creates obedient bodies. Laws are not
primordial. You have to have some kind of capacity to sense and make
sense before any kind of regularity of pattern can be established.
Something has to be able to happen in the first place before you can
separate out what can happen under which conditions. The reality of
something being able to happen - experience - possibility - prefigures
all other principles.

> Do you agree that such natural
> laws exist (regardless of our human approximations of them)?

No. It has nothing to do with human approximations though. If an
audience cheers it is not because there is a law of cheering they are
following, it is because they personally are participating in a
context of sense and motive which they and their world mutually push
and pull. The understanding of when cheering happens and under what
conditions it can be produced is an a posterior abstraction. We can
call it a law, and indeed, it is highly regular and useful to think of
it that way, but ultimately the law itself is nothing. It is a set of
meta-observations about reality, not an ethereal authoritative core
around which concrete reality constellates and obeys. Laws come from
within. Human laws from within humans, atomic laws from within atoms,
etc.

>
>
>
> > > C. that these laws are describable in mathematical terms
>
> > You have jumped from physics to abstraction. It's like saying 'I have
> > a rabbit > rabbits act like rabbits > Bugs Bunny is modeled after the
> > behavior of rabbits > Bugs Bunny is a rabbit'.
>
> I haven't jumped there yet.  All "C" says is that there exists some formal
> system that is capable of describing the natural laws as they are.  You may
> accept or reject this.  If you reject this, simply say so and provide some
> justification if you have one.

The formal system doesn't exist until some sentient being
intentionally brings it into existence. Bugs Bunny requires a
cartoonist to draw him. Bugs is a formal system that is capable of
describing rabbit behaviors as they are but he doesn't exist
'there' ('he' insists 'here' instead).

>
> Note that I have not made any statement to the effect that "an abstract
> rabbit is the same as a physical rabbit", only that natural laws that the
> matter and energy in (a rabbit or any other physical thing) follow can be
> described.

You aren't factoring in the limitation of perception. Think of a young
child trying to imitate an accent from another language. To the child,
they perceive that they are doing a pretty good job of emulating
exactly how that way of speaking sounds. To an adult though,
especially one who is a native speaker of the language being imitated,
there is an obvious difference. This is where we are in our
contemporary belief that we have accounted for physical forces. I
think that we are looking at a

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-31 Thread meekerdb


On 5/31/2012 8:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I think there are many tricks the brain employs against itself to aid the selfish 
propagation of its genes.  One example is the concept of the ego (having an identity).


Agreed. As I said just above.


So having an identity, a unity of thoughts, depends on there being a brain which depends 
on physics.  Which is why I argue that, whatever is fundamental, physics is essential to 
consciousness.





Many drugs can temporarily disable whatever mechanism in our brain creates this 
feeling, leading to ego death, feelings of connectedness, oneness with other or the 
universe, etc.  Perhaps one of our ancestors always felt this way, but died out when 
the egoist gene developed and made its carriers exploitative of the egoless.


Probably. I think so.


Evolutionarily the ego must have preceded Lobian programming by many generations.  
Competition and natural selection must have occurred even in the primordial soup.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed. (Probability Question)

2012-05-31 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 29 May 2012, at 22:26, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> To see this the following thought experience can help. Some guy won a
>> price consisting in visiting Mars by teleportation. But his state law
>> forbid annihilation of human. So he made a teleportation to Mars without
>> annihilation. The version of Mars is very happy, and the version of earth
>> complained, and so try again and again, and again ... You are the observer,
>> and from your point of view, you can of course only see the guy who got the
>> feeling to be infinitely unlucky, as if P = 1/2, staying on earth for n
>> experience has probability 1/2^n (that the Harry Potter experience).
>> Assuming the infinite iteration, the guy as a probability near one to go
>> quickly on Mars.
>>
>>
> Bruno,
>
> Thanks for your very detailed reply in the other thread, I intend to get
> back to it later, but I had a strange thought while reading about the above
> experiment that I wanted to clear up.
>
> You mentioned that the probability of remaining on Earth is (1/2)^n, where
> n is the number of teleportations.
>
>
> Not really. I pretend that this is the relative probability inferred by
> the person in front of you. But he is wrong of course. Each time the
> probability is 1/2, but his experience is "harry-Potter-like".
>
>
>
>
> I can see clearly that the probability of remaining on earth after the
> first teleportation is 50%, but as the teleportations continue, does it
> remain 50%?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> Let's say that N = 5, therefore there are 5 copies on Mars, and 1 copy on
> earth.  Wouldn't the probability of remaining on Earth be equal to 1/6th?
>
>
> You cannot use absolute sampling. I don't think it makes any sense.
>
>
>
>
> While I can see it this way, I can also shift my perspective so that I see
> the probability as 1/32 (since each time the teleport button is pressed, I
> split in two).  It is easier for me to see how this works in quantum
> mechanics under the following experiment:
>
> I choose 5 different electrons and measure the spin on the y-axis, the
> probability that I measure all 5 to be in the up state is 1 in 32 (as I
> have caused 5 splittings),
>
>
> OK.
>
>
> but what if the experiment is: measure the spin states of up to 5
> electrons, but stop once you find one in the up state.
>
>
> That is a different protocol. The one above is the one corresponding to
> the earth/mars experience.
>
>
>
> In this case it seems there are 6 copies of me, with the following records:
>
> 1. D
> 2. DU
> 3. DDU
> 4. DDDU
> 5. U
> 6. D
>
> However, not all of these copies should have the same measure.   The way I
> see it is they have the following probabilities:
>
> 1. D (1/2)
> 2. DU (1/4)
> 3. DDU (1/8)
> 4. DDDU (1/16)
> 5. U (1/32)
> 6. D (1/32)
>
> I suppose what is bothering me is that in the Mars transporter experiment,
> it seems the end result (having 1 copy on earth, and 5 copies on mars) is
> no different from the case where the transporter creates all 5 copies on
> Mars at once.
>
>
> This is ambiguous.
>


What I mean is me stepping into the teleporter 5 times, with the net result
being 1 copy on Earth and 5 copies on Mars, seems just like stepping into
the teleporter once, and the teleporter then creating 5 copies (with delay)
on Mars.

Like the diagram on step 4 of UDA:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHAL_fichiers/image012.gif

Except there is no annihilation on Earth, and there are 4 copies created
with delay on Mars (instead of one with delay).

When stepping into the teleporter once, and having 5 copies created on Mars
(with various delays between each one being produced) is the probability of
remaining on Earth 1/6th?

Is the difference with the iterated example receiving the knowledge that
the other copy made it to Mars before stepping into the Teleporter again?

Thanks,

Jason



>
>
>
> In that case, it is clear that the chance of remaining on Earth should be
> (1/6th)
>
>
> Yes. In that case.
>
>
>
> but if the beginning and end states of the experiment are the same, why
> should it matter if the replication is done iteratively or all at once? Do
> RSSA and ASSA make different predictions in this case?
>
>
> RSSA has to be applied. Your first protocol is faithful, isomorphic, to
> the experience I was describing. Te second is not.
>
> OK?
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> > > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> >
> > > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> > > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation?
> The
> > > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> > > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
> >
> > > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through
> interface
> > > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
> >
> > > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
> >
> > Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory (and
> > eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give me a
> > program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
> > interface between them...
>
> You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
> necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. To
> use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an interface
> that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
> microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
> universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
> prevented by the lack of such a thing.
>
> Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with anything
> else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
> virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
> The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
> facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
> representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to pass
> from one area of memory to another.
>
> >
> > > There is no
> > > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether the
> > > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> > > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
> >
> > Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine has no
> > direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
> > physical hardware.
>
> The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
> the root level.


That's complete bullshit... If my emulator does not give you access to the
host hardware it does not... The point is that the program running on the
emulator *HAS NO WAY* to know it does not run on physical hardware
if no interface is present to give it access to it.


Shared memory IS an interface. But anyway, I leave this discussion
here, can't cure your stupidity.

Quentin


> It's entirely up to the programmer how direct they
> want it to appear to the user, but ultimately, it is still just a
> program running on the hardware. The virtual machine cannot run
> without hardware.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation
> (simulation in
> > > a
> > > > > > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like
> > > multi
> > > > > > level.
> >
> > > > > > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
> > > > > virtualize
> > > > > > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another
> os
> > > > > inside
> > > > > > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first
> level
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
> >
> > > > > No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node -
> pick a
> > > > > virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote
> desktop
> > > > > there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if
> I
> > > > > want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level
> within
> > > > > the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are
> all
> > > > > running on the same physical hardware node.
> >
> > > > Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."
> >
> > > What interface are you talking about? I can make a million nested
> > > layers of virtual worlds and I can make it so the same virtual fire
> > > burns in all of them, with no interface required.
> >
> > Well I know you do it through magic mushroom... but hey, that doesn't
> work.
>
> Sounds like you are conceding my point though.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message becau

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 1:54 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> > > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
> > > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> > > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>
> > > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through interface
> > > and that's the **only** way to interact.
>
> > Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.
>
> Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory (and
> eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give me a
> program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
> interface between them...

You brought in the term interface specifically to talk about the
necessity to intentionally bridge two separate layers of reality. To
use a computer, I need a KVM or touchscreen or whatever, an interface
that samples the behavior of physical matter and maps it to
microelectronic settings. I pointed out that in a truly digitial
universe, no such thing would be necessary and nothing would be
prevented by the lack of such a thing.

Once something is native digital, it can be integrated with anything
else that is digital native - that is sort of the point. It's all
virtual. Any formalized virtual interfaces, a KVM in Second Life or
The Matrix or whatever, are purely decorative. They are cartoon
facades. The actual code doesn't need any kind of graphic
representation or digital-to-something-to-digital transduction to pass
from one area of memory to another.

>
> > There is no
> > interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether the
> > program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> > machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
>
> Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine has no
> direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
> physical hardware.

The virtual machine has the same access to the physical hardware as
the root level. It's entirely up to the programmer how direct they
want it to appear to the user, but ultimately, it is still just a
program running on the hardware. The virtual machine cannot run
without hardware.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in
> > a
> > > > > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like
> > multi
> > > > > level.
>
> > > > > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
> > > > virtualize
> > > > > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os
> > > > inside
> > > > > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level
> > > > can't
> > > > > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
>
> > > > No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> > > > virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
> > > > there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
> > > > want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
> > > > the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
> > > > running on the same physical hardware node.
>
> > > Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."
>
> > What interface are you talking about? I can make a million nested
> > layers of virtual worlds and I can make it so the same virtual fire
> > burns in all of them, with no interface required.
>
> Well I know you do it through magic mushroom... but hey, that doesn't work.

Sounds like you are conceding my point though.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 31, 1:45 am, Jason Resch  wrote:
> Craig,
>
> You mentioned that you can open a remote desktop connection from a
> virtualized computer to a real computer (or even the one running the
> virtualization).
>
> This, as Quentin mentioned, requires an interface.  In this case it is
> provided by the virtual network card made available to the virtual OS.

A 'virtual network card' is just a name for the part of OS. There is
no interface. The 'real computer' is no more real than the virtual
computer. The partition is purely fictional - a presentation layer to
appeal to our sense of organization and convenience. No virtual
network card is required. You could just call it the part of the OS
that we call virtual.

The partition between the OS and the actual hardware however, does
require an interface for our hands and eyes to make changes to the
hardware that affects the software.

> When the virtual OS writes network traffic to this virtual interface, it is
> read by the host computer, and from there on can be interpreted and
> processed.  It is only because the host computer is monitoring the state of
> this virtual network card and forwarding its traffic that the virtual OS is
> able to send any network traffic outside it.

No, the containers all share the same root OS. The virtual interface
is a convenient fiction.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-31 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 31 May 2012, at 08:02, Jason Resch wrote:

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:

On 29 May 2012, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:

The question I have in mind is "Does a brain produce consciousness,
or does the brain filter consciousness?

I had some thoughts on this same topic a few months ago. I was
thinking about what the difference is between a God-mind that knows
everything, and an empty mind that knew nothing. Both contain zero
information (in an information theoretic sense), so perhaps if
someone has no brain they become omniscient (in a certain sense).

"In a certain sense". OK. (The devil is there). But an empty mind has
still to be the mind of a machine, probably the virgin (unprogrammed)
universal machine, or the Löbian one (I still dunno).

If we consider RSSA, our consciousness followed some path to get to
the current moment.

Key point. I just used this in a reply on the FOAR list (where I
explain UDA/AUDA).

If we look at brain development, we find our consciousness formed
from what was previously not conscious matter.

Not really. It is counter-intuitive, but matter is the last thing that
emanates from the ONE (in Plato/Plotinus, and in comp, and even in the
information theoretic view of QM as explained by Ron Garrett and that
you compare rightly to the comp consequence). Matter can even be seen
as what God loose control on. It is almost pure absolute
indetermination. The primitive matter is really a product of
consciousness differentiation (cf UDA). But I see what you mean. I
think.

Therefore, there is some path from a (null conscious state)->(you),
and perhaps, there are paths from the null state to every possible
conscious state.

Yes, and vice versa by amnesia, plausibly.

If so, then every time we go to sleep, or go under anesthesia, or
die, we can wake up as anyone.

In a sense, we do that all the time. This points to the idea that
there is only one (universal) dreaming person, and that personal
identity is a relative illusion.

We "know" that consciousness is in "platonia", and that local brains
are just relative universal numbers making possible for a person (in
a large sense which can include an amoeba) to manifest itself
relatively to its most probable computation/environment. But this
does not completely answer the question. I think that many thinks
that the more a brain is big, the more it can be conscious, which is
not so clear when you take the reversal into account. It might be
the exact contrary.

I think there are many tricks the brain employs against itself to
aid the selfish propagation of its genes. One example is the
concept of the ego (having an identity).

Agreed. As I said just above.

Many drugs can temporarily disable whatever mechanism in our brain
creates this feeling, leading to ego death, feelings of
connectedness, oneness with other or the universe, etc. Perhaps one
of our ancestors always felt this way, but died out when the egoist
gene developed and made its carriers exploitative of the egoless.

Probably. I think so.

And this might be confirmed by studies showing that missing some
part of the brain, like an half hippocampus, can lead to to a
permanent feeling of presence.
Recently this has been confirmed by the showing that LSD and
psilocybe decrease the activity of the brain during the
hallucinogenic phases. And dissociative drugs disconnect parts of
the brain, with similar increase of the first person experience.
Clinical studies of Near death experiences might also put evidence
in that direction. haldous Huxley made a similar proposal for
mescaline.

This is basically explained with the Bp & Dt hypostases. By
suppressing material in the brain you make the "B" poorer (you
eliminate belief), but then you augment the possibility so you make
the consistency Dt stronger. Eventually you come back to the
universal consciousness of the virgin simple universal numbers,
perhaps.

Here are some recent papers on this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-psychedelics-expand-mind-reducing-brain-activity&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20120523

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/17/1119598109.short

Thanks for the links and your thoughts. They are, as always, very
interesting.

Thanks Jason,

Bruno

PS I asked Colin on the FOR list if he is aware of the European
Brain Project, which is relevant for this thread. Especially that
they are aware of "simulating nature at some level":

http://www.humanbrainproject.eu/introduction.html

Has he replied on the FOR list? It seems he has been absent from
this list for the past few days.

He has disappeared again, apparently.

Best,

Bruno

Jason

If you have _everything_ in your model (external world included),
then you can simulate it. But you don’t. So you can’t simulate it.

Would you stop behaving intelligently if the gravity

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-30 Thread Jason Resch

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> On May 29, 1:45 am, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> > So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
> > issue with?
> >
> > A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy
>
> So does a cadaver's brain and body. The fact that a cadaver is not
> intelligent should show us that the difference between life and death
> can't be meaningfully reduced to matter and energy.
>
>
That some organizations of matter/energy are intelligent and others are not
is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not you agree that the brain is
made of matter and energy.  Do you agree the brain is made of matter and
energy, and that the brain is responsible for your consciousness (or at
least one of the many possible manifestations of it)?



> > B. that matter and energy follow natural laws,
>
> No, laws follow from our observation of natural matter and energy.
>

You are mistaking our approximations and inferences concerning the natural
laws for the natural laws themselves.  Before there were any humans, or any
life, there must have been laws that the universe obeyed to reach the point
where Earth formed and life could develop.  Do you agree that such natural
laws exist (regardless of our human approximations of them)?


>
> > C. that these laws are describable in mathematical terms
>
> You have jumped from physics to abstraction. It's like saying 'I have
> a rabbit > rabbits act like rabbits > Bugs Bunny is modeled after the
> behavior of rabbits > Bugs Bunny is a rabbit'.
>

I haven't jumped there yet.  All "C" says is that there exists some formal
system that is capable of describing the natural laws as they are.  You may
accept or reject this.  If you reject this, simply say so and provide some
justification if you have one.

Note that I have not made any statement to the effect that "an abstract
rabbit is the same as a physical rabbit", only that natural laws that the
matter and energy in (a rabbit or any other physical thing) follow can be
described.



>
> > D. that mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by
> > algorithms
> >
>
> Precision only determines the probability that a particular detector
> fails to detect the fraud of simulation over time. It says nothing
> about the genuine equivalence of the simulation and the reality.
>
>
It sounds like you accept that mathematics can be simulated to any degree
of precision by algorithms, but your objection is that without absolutely
perfect precision, the simulation will eventually diverge from the object
being simulated in some noticeable way.  I think this is a valid
objection.  However, I don't see this objection serving as the basis for
Colin's argument against artificial general intelligence.  Let's say we
have a near perfect simulation of the physics of Einstein's brain running
in a computer.  It is near-perfect, rather than perfect, because due to
rounding errors, it is predicted that there will  be one neuron misfire
every 50 years of operation.  (Where a misfire is a neuron that fires when
the actual brain would not have, or doesn't fire when the actual brain
would not have).  Maybe this misfire causes the simulated brain to develop
a wrong idea when he would have otherwise had the right one, but who would
argue that this simulated Einstein brain is not intelligent?  Perhaps it
has an IQ of 159 instead of the 160 of the genuine brain, but it would
still be consider an example of AGI.  If you don't like the 1 error every
50 years, then you can double the amount of memory used in the floating
point numbers (going from 64 bits to 128 bits per number), and then you
make the system have a precision that is 2^64 times finer, so there would
not be a deviation in the simulation during the whole life of the universe.

So while I accept your argument that a digital machine cannot perfectly
simulate a continuous one perfectly, I do not see how that could serve as a
practical barrier in the creation of AGI.

Jason

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-30 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 29 May 2012, at 16:32, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Colin Geoffrey Hales <
> cgha...@unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>  ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 May 2012 3:45 PM
>> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: Church Turing be dammed.
>>
>>
>> Natural physics is a computation. Fine.
>>
>> But a computed natural physics model is NOT the natural physicsit is
>> the natural physics of a computer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Colin,
>>
>> I recently read the following excerpt from "The Singularity is Near" on
>> page 454:
>>
>> "The basis of the strong (Church-Turing thesis) is that problems that are
>> not solvable on a Turing Machine cannot be solved by human thought,
>> either.  The basis of this thesis is that human thought is performed by the
>> human brain (with some influence by the body), that the human brain (and
>> body) comprises matter and energy, that matter and energy follow natural
>> laws, that these laws are describable in mathematical terms, and that
>> mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by algorithms.
>> Therefore there exist algorithms that can simulate human thought.  The
>> strong version of the Church-Turing thesis postulates an essential
>> equivalence between what a human can think or know, and what is computable."
>>
>> So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
>> issue with?
>>
>> A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy
>> B. that matter and energy follow natural laws,
>> C. that these laws are describable in mathematical terms
>> D. that mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by
>> algorithms
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Brain physics is there to cognise the (external) world. You do not know
>> the external world.
>>
>> Your brain is there to apprehend it. The physics of the brain inherits
>> properties of the (unknown) external world. This is natural cognition.
>> Therefore you have no model to compute. Game over.
>>
>
> If I understand this correctly, your point is that we don't understand the
> physics and chemistry that is important in the brain?  Assuming this is the
> case, it would be only a temporary barrier, not a permanent reason that
> prohibits AI in practice.
>
>
> You are right. That would neither prohibit AI,  nor comp.
>
>
>
>
> There are also reasons to believe we already understand the mechanisms of
> neurons to a sufficient degree to simulate them.  There are numerous
> instances where computer simulated neurons apparently behaved in the same
> ways as biological neurons have been observed to.  If you're interested I
> can dig up the references.
>
>
> Meaning: there are reasonable levels to bet on.
>
> Here, for once, I will give my opinion, if you don't mind. First, about
> the level, the question will be "this level, this year, or that more finest
> grained level next year, because technology evolves. In between it *is* a
> possible Pascal Wag, in the sense that if you have a fatal brain disease,
> you might not afford the time to wait for possible technological deeper
> levels.
>
> And my opinion is that I can imagine saying "yes" to a doctor for a cheap
> "neuronal simulator", but I expect getting an altered state of
> consciousness, and some awareness of it. Like being stone or something. For
> a long run machine, I doubt we can copy the brain without respecting the
> entire electromagnetic relation of its constituents. I think it is highly
> plausible that we are indeed digital with respect to the law of chemistry,
> and my feeling is that the brain is above all a drug designer, and is a
> machine where only some part of the communication use the "cable". So I
> would ask to the doctor to take into account the glial cells, who seems to
> communicate a lot, by mechano-chemical diffusion waves, including some
> chatting with the neurons. And those immensely complex dialog are mainly
> chemical. This is quite close to the Heizenberg uncertainty level, which is
> probably our first person plural level (in which case comp is equivalent
> with QM).
>
> Also, by the first person indeterminacy, a curious happenin

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> > > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
> > > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> > > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
> >
> > A program is running on a machine... a program interact through interface
> > and that's the **only** way to interact.
>
> Huh? A program interacts with another program directly.


Yes ? Give me an example, the most basic interface is shared memory (and
eventually, any shared thing is done via memory access)... So give me a
program that can talk/share thing with another program without any
interface between them...


> There is no
> interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether the
> program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
> machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.
>

Yes there is a difference, the paris running on a virtual machine has no
direct access (and can't know of it unless an interface exist) on the
physical hardware.

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in
> a
> > > > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like
> multi
> > > > level.
> >
> > > > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
> > > virtualize
> > > > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os
> > > inside
> > > > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level
> > > can't
> > > > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
> >
> > > No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> > > virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
> > > there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
> > > want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
> > > the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
> > > running on the same physical hardware node.
> >
> > Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."
>
> What interface are you talking about? I can make a million nested
> layers of virtual worlds and I can make it so the same virtual fire
> burns in all of them, with no interface required.


Well I know you do it through magic mushroom... but hey, that doesn't work.

Quentin


> It would magically
> burn on command if I wanted it to. It's no problem at all unless I
> want it to burn outside of the root level - into the literal reality
> of time-space-matter-energy.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-30 Thread Jason Resch

Craig,

You mentioned that you can open a remote desktop connection from a
virtualized computer to a real computer (or even the one running the
virtualization).

This, as Quentin mentioned, requires an interface.  In this case it is
provided by the virtual network card made available to the virtual OS.
When the virtual OS writes network traffic to this virtual interface, it is
read by the host computer, and from there on can be interpreted and
processed.  It is only because the host computer is monitoring the state of
this virtual network card and forwarding its traffic that the virtual OS is
able to send any network traffic outside it.

Jason

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> On May 30, 6:13 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> >
> > >> No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> > >> virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
> >
> > So for you a remote desktop is not an interface... "remote" is a magic
> > mushroom ?
>
> It's not an interface, it's just the OS. It doesn't have to be a
> remote desktop, it can be anything. I can open a local folder or a
> remote folder, it makes no difference.
>
>
> >
> > So for you when two programs "talk" they do it through wishful thinking ?
> > read what **interface** means.
>
> Then programs are made of 'interfaces'? Each line of code interfaces
> with another? Each byte interfaces with the next byte? There is no
> difference between running code on the root level and running it on a
> nested virtual level. There is a big difference between running code
> on the root level and causing changes in the outside world. There is
> no 'interface' that will allow a computer to control all matter and
> energy in the universe and there is no 'interface' required for a
> program to control any software running in a given digital environment
> that it is designed to control.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 30, 6:13 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
> >> No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> >> virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
>
> So for you a remote desktop is not an interface... "remote" is a magic
> mushroom ?

It's not an interface, it's just the OS. It doesn't have to be a
remote desktop, it can be anything. I can open a local folder or a
remote folder, it makes no difference.

>
> So for you when two programs "talk" they do it through wishful thinking ?
> read what **interface** means.

Then programs are made of 'interfaces'? Each line of code interfaces
with another? Each byte interfaces with the next byte? There is no
difference between running code on the root level and running it on a
nested virtual level. There is a big difference between running code
on the root level and causing changes in the outside world. There is
no 'interface' that will allow a computer to control all matter and
energy in the universe and there is no 'interface' required for a
program to control any software running in a given digital environment
that it is designed to control.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 30, 6:09 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> > You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> > smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> > Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
> > whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> > Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>
> A program is running on a machine... a program interact through interface
> and that's the **only** way to interact.

Huh? A program interacts with another program directly. There is no
interface. It makes no difference to the OS of the HW node whether the
program is running virtual Paris on the root level of the physical
machine or virtual virtual Paris on one of the virtual machines.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
> > > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
> > > level.
>
> > > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
> > virtualize
> > > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os
> > inside
> > > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level
> > can't
> > > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
>
> > No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> > virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
> > there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
> > want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
> > the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
> > running on the same physical hardware node.
>
> Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."

What interface are you talking about? I can make a million nested
layers of virtual worlds and I can make it so the same virtual fire
burns in all of them, with no interface required. It would magically
burn on command if I wanted it to. It's no problem at all unless I
want it to burn outside of the root level - into the literal reality
of time-space-matter-energy.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/31 Quentin Anciaux 

>
>
> 2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 
>
>> On May 30, 4:36 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>> > 2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>> >
>> > > > You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect
>> to
>> > > have
>> > > > dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you
>> want an
>> > > > computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control
>> real
>> > > > world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it
>> was in a
>> > > > virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world
>> for you
>> > > > to interact.
>> >
>> > > > You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't
>> see
>> > > any
>> > > > problem with that.
>> >
>> > > Why not? In a virtual world you could mix levels without an interface.
>> >
>> > No you can't, if in your virtual world, you made a real computer
>> simulator,
>> > what runs in the simulator cannot escape in the upper virtual world
>> unless
>> > you've made an interface to it.
>>
>> You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
>> smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
>> Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
>> whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
>> Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>>
>
> A program is running on a machine... a program interact through interface
> and that's the **only** way to interact.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
>> > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
>> > level.
>> >
>> > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
>> virtualize
>> > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os
>> inside
>> > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level
>> can't
>> > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
>>
>> No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
>> virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
>>
>
So for you a remote desktop is not an interface... "remote" is a magic
mushroom ?

So for you when two programs "talk" they do it through wishful thinking ?
read what **interface** means.


>  there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
>> want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
>> the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
>> running on the same physical hardware node.
>>
>>
> Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."
>
>
>>  Craig
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 30, 4:36 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > 2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> >
> > > > You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
> > > have
> > > > dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you
> want an
> > > > computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control
> real
> > > > world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it was
> in a
> > > > virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world
> for you
> > > > to interact.
> >
> > > > You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't
> see
> > > any
> > > > problem with that.
> >
> > > Why not? In a virtual world you could mix levels without an interface.
> >
> > No you can't, if in your virtual world, you made a real computer
> simulator,
> > what runs in the simulator cannot escape in the upper virtual world
> unless
> > you've made an interface to it.
>
> You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
> smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
> Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
> whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
> Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.
>

A program is running on a machine... a program interact through interface
and that's the **only** way to interact.


>
> >
> > If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
> > simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
> > level.
> >
> > Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you
> virtualize
> > an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os
> inside
> > it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level
> can't
> > reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
>
> No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
> virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
> there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
> want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
> the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
> running on the same physical hardware node.
>
>
Well you can't read "unless an interface between them exists."


>  Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 30, 4:36 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > > You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
> > have
> > > dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
> > > computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control real
> > > world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it was in a
> > > virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world for you
> > > to interact.
>
> > > You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't see
> > any
> > > problem with that.
>
> > Why not? In a virtual world you could mix levels without an interface.
>
> No you can't, if in your virtual world, you made a real computer simulator,
> what runs in the simulator cannot escape in the upper virtual world unless
> you've made an interface to it.

You are defining a 'real computer' in terms in terms that you are
smuggling in from our real world of physics. In a Church-Turing
Matrix, why would there be any kind of arbitrary level separation? The
whole point is that there is no fundamental difference between one
Turing emulation and another. Paris is a program.

>
> If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
> simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
> level.
>
> Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you virtualize
> an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os inside
> it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level can't
> reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.

No, you can. I can log into the root level on a hardware node - pick a
virtual machine on that node and log into it, open up a remote desktop
there and log back into the hardware node that the VM box is on if I
want. I can reboot the hardware machine from any nested level within
the node. There doesn't need to be an interface at all. They are all
running on the same physical hardware node.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg 

> On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
> have
> > dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
> > computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control real
> > world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it was in a
> > virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world for you
> > to interact.
> >
> > You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't see
> any
> > problem with that.
>
> Why not? In a virtual world you could mix levels without an interface.
>

No you can't, if in your virtual world, you made a real computer simulator,
what runs in the simulator cannot escape in the upper virtual world unless
you've made an interface to it.

If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
level.

Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you virtualize
an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os inside
it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level can't
reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.

Quentin


You could have a virtual world where your avatar has dinner in a
> virtual virtual Paris on his virtual computer and in a virtual Paris
> at the same time. You could have a virtual factory where virtual
> virtual drawings of robots make root level virtual cars.
>
> There is something more than level which makes the difference between
> real and virtual. Level itself is an abstraction. Virtual worlds
> aren't really worlds at all. They are nothing but sophisticated
> stories using pictures instead of words. Characters in stories don't
> really think or feel.
>
> It's confusing because what we know of reality is in our mind, and so
> is what we know of a virtual reality, so it is easy to conflate the
> two and imagine that reality is nothing more than we think it is. We
> reduce them both to seem like phenomenological peers, but they aren't.
> If you look at a mirror in another mirror, they may look the same but
> one of them is an actual piece of glass. You can't break the reflected
> mirror. It's not a matter of level, it is a matter of mistaking a
> purely visual-semantic text for a concrete multi-sense presentation
> that is rooted in a single historical context that goes back to the
> beginning of time.
>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.

On May 29, 1:45 am, Jason Resch  wrote:

> So which of the following four link(s) in the logical chain do you take
> issue with?
>
> A. human brain (and body) comprises matter and energy

So does a cadaver's brain and body. The fact that a cadaver is not
intelligent should show us that the difference between life and death
can't be meaningfully reduced to matter and energy.

> B. that matter and energy follow natural laws,

No, laws follow from our observation of natural matter and energy.

> C. that these laws are describable in mathematical terms

You have jumped from physics to abstraction. It's like saying 'I have
a rabbit > rabbits act like rabbits > Bugs Bunny is modeled after the
behavior of rabbits > Bugs Bunny is a rabbit'.

> D. that mathematics can be simulated to any degree of precision by
> algorithms
>

Precision only determines the probability that a particular detector
fails to detect the fraud of simulation over time. It says nothing
about the genuine equivalence of the simulation and the reality.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Church Turing be dammed.