Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/17/2014 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable


UDA does not use that assumption.

And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can  
prove


That is provable=believed.


That is all we need for the semi-axiomatic. Then, also,  believed ==  
provable, for the ideally rational simple machine we consider.





, and that you are willing to be cautious on believing anything  
more, as UDA suggests.


That is ~provable=~believed or believed=provable and hence  
believed=provable.


Yes.

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 17 Jan 2014, at 23:35, Jason Resch wrote:





On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com



2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


snip



And, in AUDA, the mathematical structure of the observable, which  
are already shown to be a quantum logic. And von Neumann provides  
some argument that the right quantum logic should determine all the  
relative probabilities, something realized somehow by Gleason  
theorem. But comp has not been able to get his Gleason theorem, but  
it is only a matter of work in math to get it.
We get not just the many-worlds (and the indeterminacy, non  
locality, and non cloning), we get all the quantum tautologies, and  
probably quantum physics. Do we get the physical constant? That is  
an open problem to me.


If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine  
tuning very strange.


I am not sure about the fine tuning.

But I am also not sure comp will derive the constants. perhaps some of  
them, perhaps all of them, perhaps none of them. If arithmetic itself  
is the winner, the constant will be related from the mathematical  
constant apperaning in number theory. But we are far from being able  
to find them today.





If there is only one physics, and that includes only these  
constants, we ought to be astonished and delighted that they allowed  
life at all. Or are the constants that win also bounded by anthropic  
reasons?


You mean Turing-tropic reason?
Open problem.

Bruno

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 18 Jan 2014, at 00:13, LizR wrote:

Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I  
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is  
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing  
properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological flatness and  
god (ahem) knows what else.


Note that there is a formal heavy nucleus resonance appearing in the  
math of the distribution of the prime numbers (the work by  
Montgomery). It seems to describe a quantum chaos. If that quantum  
chaos is Turing complete, it might already describes the winner (a  
quantum machinery in the bottom).


But such approached neglect the G/G* difference, and thus would only  
give the quanta, and neglect the qualia.


Bruno





On 18 January 2014 11:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine  
tuning very strange. If there is only one physics, and that includes  
only these constants, we ought to be astonished and delighted that  
they allowed life at all. Or are the constants that win also bounded  
by anthropic reasons?




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 18 Jan 2014, at 04:55, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I  
believe just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is  
already incredibly fine tuned, after which we have the amazing  
properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological flatness and  
god (ahem) knows what else.


Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at  
7.7Mev in order to produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was  
observed at 7.656Mev. But it was shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989).  
The Anthropic Significance of the Existence of an Excited State of  
C12. Nature 340, 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be  
produced by a resonance between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more  
would be produced with a lower resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the  
difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.  And carbon sufficient for  
life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether an 8% range is fine- 
tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly fine-tuned.


Interesting. This illustrates perhaps some spectrum of different  
geographies possible, with the same physics, but different parameters.


Bruno





Brent



On 18 January 2014 11:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine  
tuning very strange. If there is only one physics, and that  
includes only these constants, we ought to be astonished and  
delighted that they allowed life at all. Or are the constants that  
win also bounded by anthropic reasons?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-18 Thread LizR
On 18 January 2014 23:24, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Interesting. This illustrates perhaps some spectrum of different
 geographies possible, with the same physics, but different parameters.


The WAP requires that, otherwise the fine tuning starts to look a little
(tries to think of a word acceptable to Brent...)

interesting.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net  
wrote:


 The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the  
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world


Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast  
calculations is possible (and I can't see why it wouldn't be) then  
sooner of later it will be achieved,


IF you can believe that 17 is prime independently of you, and, out of  
time, space, physics, so to speak, THEN we can say that all  
computations are achieved, as they are emulated by the arithmetical  
reality.







then a future Jupiter Brain will be able to create astonishingly  
realistic simulations, and Mr. Jupiter Brain would probably be  
curious about humans, the creatures that made it,  and so it would  
make a simulation of them, and those simulated humans will make a  
simulated Jupiter Brain which in turn will make simulated simulated  
humans who will [...]


I admit this is a VERY long chain of reasoning, but you might  
conclude that the most likely conclusion is we live in a simulation.  
I'm not saying any of this is true but...


The quantum facts confirms that we are living in the bottom  
simulation, that is the one naturally emerging from arithmetic. If we  
bet on comp, and discover that the laws of physics that we can infer  
from first person observation contradicts the laws of physics that we  
can extract from comp, then we can infer that we are in a higher level  
simulation done by Jupiter or some of our descendants.


Bruno




 We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and  
that may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always  
be a way to figure that out),


I'm almost embarrassed to admit it but from time to time I have  
found myself drawing analogies from the coarse grained nature of the  
quantum world and getting too close to the screen in a video game  
and seeing individual pixels; and between the quantum world where  
things don't seem to actually exist before you measure them and the  
fact that a good programmer doesn't waste computer power simulating  
things behind a big rock that nobody will ever see. And the  
singularity at the center of a Black Hole does sometimes seem a  
little like a screw up where a programer tried to divide by zero.


I'm half joking in all this, but only half.

  John K Clark





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/17 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:27, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

  The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world
 we appear to live in IS the real actual world


 Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
 calculations is possible (and I can't see why it wouldn't be) then sooner
 of later it will be achieved,


 IF you can believe that 17 is prime independently of you, and, out of
 time, space, physics, so to speak, THEN we can say that all computations
 are achieved, as they are emulated by the arithmetical reality.






 then a future Jupiter Brain will be able to create astonishingly realistic
 simulations, and Mr. Jupiter Brain would probably be curious about humans,
 the creatures that made it,  and so it would make a simulation of them, and
 those simulated humans will make a simulated Jupiter Brain which in turn
 will make simulated simulated humans who will [...]

 I admit this is a VERY long chain of reasoning, but you might conclude
 that the most likely conclusion is we live in a simulation. I'm not saying
 any of this is true but...


 The quantum facts confirms that we are living in the bottom simulation,
 that is the one naturally emerging from arithmetic. If we bet on comp, and
 discover that the laws of physics that we can infer from first person
 observation contradicts the laws of physics that we can extract from comp,
 then we can infer that we are in a higher level simulation done by
 Jupiter or some of our descendants.


That's IMHO false, it's not because you can't infer contradictions between
 the observed fact and the UD theory that you are in the bottom
simulation, you can be in a faithfull simulation... and secondly, I think
bottom simulation is non-sensical, there is no bottom...

Quentin



 Bruno



  We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that
 may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to
 figure that out),


  I'm almost embarrassed to admit it but from time to time I have found
 myself drawing analogies from the coarse grained nature of the quantum
 world and getting too close to the screen in a video game and seeing
 individual pixels; and between the quantum world where things don't seem to
 actually exist before you measure them and the fact that a good programmer
 doesn't waste computer power simulating things behind a big rock that
 nobody will ever see. And the singularity at the center of a Black Hole
 does sometimes seem a little like a screw up where a programer tried to
 divide by zero.

 I'm half joking in all this, but only half.

   John K Clark





 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/16/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not  
immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you  
intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate  
directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by  
comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the  
simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).



But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.


Hmm... OK. But he will soon or later. We are talking in  
principle, assuming the emulated person has all the time ...





Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite


Finite or computable (Recursively enumerable).



would imply comp is wrong.  In a finite world it seems it would be  
even easier to be sure of saying yes to the doctor.


I don't know how you can know that the universe if finite. But comp  
makes it non finite (and non computable), so if you have a good  
reason to believe that the universe is finite, you have a good  
reason to believe that comp is wrong, and to say no to the  
doctor. That *is* counter-intuitive, but follow from step 7 and 8.




I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an  
artificial brain is possible other times it means that plus the  
whole UDA.


Comp is where UDA is valid. By comp, according to the degree of  
understanding of the UD-Argument or the person I am speaking to,  
just means the hypothesis, or its logical consequences.


But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable


UDA does not use that assumption.

And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can  
prove, and that you are willing to be cautious on believing anything  
more, as UDA suggests.





and that consciousness requires proving there are unprovable true  
sentences.


Consciousness does not require that. Worms are conscious, and I doubt  
they prove incompleteness. But as finite entities, incompleteness  
applies to them, so they live or experience the incompleteness. It is  
true for them, but worlds are not Löbian, and so they can't explicitly  
explain this to themselves like a more introspective being (Löbian)  
can do.



Those are both much more dubious than an artificial neuron can  
replace a biological one.


Yes, that is why I prove what I assert from that assumption, and  
definition (which always simplify things).


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 19:18, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/16/2014 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam  
terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however,  
just more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly  
think is a dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to  
miss discussions with some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay  
theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ...


I'd like to know what the existence of non-standard models of  
arithmetic, especially the finitist ones, implies for comp?


All non-standard models are infinite. They does not play any direct  
roles, except for allowing the consistency of inconsistency. A  
model which satisfies Bf has to be non standard. A proof of false  
needs to be an infinite natural numbers, and it has an infinity  
of predecessors (due to the axiom saying that 0 is unique in having  
no predecessors).


I think that only refers to non-standard models which add not-G as  
an axiom where G is the Godel sentence.  What about application of  
the compactness theorem to produce a non-standard model?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic


I was just using one special non standard model, to illustrate the use  
of a non standrad natural number (and ewplain that it has nothing to  
so with usual integer).
But all non standard models have such infinite element, of course they  
are not in general capable of being interpreted into a proof of false.


Bruno







Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com



2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:





On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one  
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are  
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative  
physics.


You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You  
are introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori  
does not make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same  
laws of physics than us, with a very different histories and  
geographies and biologies.



I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with  
the math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single  
physics.


OK.

snip


By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an  
alternate geography.



Well... what's left to physics then ?


OK. That's an excellent question. I will try to answer.




many world ?


Notably. And also indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, but also  
white noise and white rabbits, a priori.





because we can do virtual worlds with any physical laws we wish


I disagree. (see below)

You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can  
make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing  
prevent us to do so.







and if comp is true we could make self aware inhabitant living in  
such virtual worlds...


OK with this.




so anything we can measure is a geographical fact and contingent...


That does not follow. That would have been the case if the  
hypostases would have collapsed into classical logic.

But I will try to explain this without invoking the hypostases.




seems to reduce physics not to math but to approximately nothing  
and leave what we call physical laws as geography... because there  
is no proof that the world we leave in is not such simulation,


No proof? Right. but it will not be a question of proof (which does  
not exist in experimental science, but of evidence).




so we cannot conclude anything from the weight of an electron we  
measure in our universe.


Perhaps, perhaps not. We have to compare the mass of the electron we  
measure in our neighborhood, with the mass of the electron in the  
comp physics.


Ok if you had any ways to extract such specific things from comp...


So you agree with the main things, but believe that there is no clear  
separation between physics and geography (like Smullyan in Forever  
Undecided!).




I'm not at all convince you can... and as we can construct any  
virtual world we want, I would like to know how you think you could  
extract that from integers + *.


I will. It just happen that comp will save a great part of physics  
from geography. So big that I call that physics, and reserve the  
word geography for what I cannot predict from comp (which will be of  
the type being the result of the comp indeterminacies).






If the comp physics is agnostic on the electron mass,

It should be or we should be magically prevented to do video games  
virtual world with self aware inhabitants.


I never said that this is not possible. I just said that if the self- 
aware entities there have the time, and are ideally rational, they  
will soon or later understand that there are in a simulation (or they  
will abandon comp).
It is very simple: if the mass of the electron *is* a physical law  
(and not a geographical fact) then it is deducible from arithmetic,  
and the self-aware entities will, by measuring the mass of the  
electron in their physics find the discrepancy.
I guess you agree with this, but are just skeptical that we can derive  
that from arithmetic. I am more optimistic on that, and the reason  
lies in AUDA.

In a sense you don't believe in physical laws.




it means that the mass of electron is not a law, but a contingent  
geographical fact. It means also that we can access in some ways  
place where the electron has a different mass.


Yes, perhaps a virtual world of our creation ?


Not really. It should mean we can build a rocket in our physics, and  
physically access that reality.







Physics is redefined by the UDA into a measure calculus on  
computations, relative to a computational state.


I understand that...


OK.




but nowhere this you put evidence that our shared reality wins that...


It has, unless we are in a simulation.




By RSSA, I expect *because I'm already in that reality*, to stay in  
that reality... that doesn't means this reality is the most probable  
for any self aware creature.


this reality includes geography. This is stable by the physical  
laws only. The laws is what maintain the stability of the  
geographies, but it is 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 17 Jan 2014, at 08:55, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014/1/16 LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can  
make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing  
prevent us to do so.


Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite  
number of computations can be carried out in a finite time. Also,  
within the game I got a solution to P vs NP so I got the Millennium  
Prize!


Well those are not physical laws... but yes you could anyway by  
deluding all self aware creature in the virtual world thinking so,  
and anytime they would hint that isn't true, change their mind...  
that would certainly affect their consciousness and free will... but  
it could be done in principle.


But anyway that was not what I was talking about, I was talking  
about physical laws not logic. You can make a totally logical  
consistent virtual world with other physical laws as our reality...  
nothing prevent us to do so, and if computationalism is true, we can  
make that virtual world have conscious inhabitants.



OK. To insist, my point was only that such creature will soon or later  
find that it is a simulation, unless you have changed only the  
geographical laws, in which case they are both in the simulation and  
in its normal rendering through the FPI on UD*.


In *that* case, you can stop the emulation without killing anyone.  
(Like in a novel by Greg Egan).


You can simulate real different physical laws, not extractible from  
comp, only for a finite time, or by doing yourself an infinite work to  
prevent the creature to find the flaw (assuming of course they are  
Löbian, free, and not brainwashed).


What happens below the substitution level is complex, the laws of  
physics are non trivial.


Eventually I will explain how to translate the UDA in arithmetic. A  
physical observation event will be a sigma_1 arithmetical sentence  
(they are all provable by RA already), which is provable (and so keep  
trueness through extensions) and consistent (so that keeping trueness  
is not trivial like in the cul-de-sac world, that is we assume  
explicitly the existence of an extension). So, we get the logics of  
the observation through Bp  p, and Bp  Dt,, and Bp  Dt  p.  (and  
others like B^n p  p  D^m t, with m  n).


But I have to explain more on modal logics, and its relation with the  
logic of provability and consistency.


Bruno



Quentin

:-)

...sorry, I'll get my coat.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy  
Batty/Rutger Hauer)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread meekerdb

On 1/17/2014 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable


UDA does not use that assumption.

And AUDA uses only the assumption that you believe in what PA can prove


That is provable=believed.


, and that you are willing to be cautious on believing anything more, as UDA 
suggests.


That is ~provable=~believed or believed=provable and hence believed=provable.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR
On 17 January 2014 20:55, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014/1/16 LizR lizj...@gmail.com

 On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:


 You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can
 make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to
 do so.

 Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
 number of computations can be carried out in a finite time. Also, within
 the game I got a solution to P vs NP so I got the Millennium Prize!


 Well those are not physical laws... but yes you could anyway by deluding
 all self aware creature in the virtual world thinking so, and anytime they
 would hint that isn't true, change their mind... that would certainly
 affect their consciousness and free will... but it could be done in
 principle.


You said we can make up any rules we want in the virtual worlds But I
know you really meant physical laws, I was just trying to make a joke (the
bit at the end about I'll get my coat is normally used to indicate that
the comment above was a bad joke, and the audience is now booing me off the
stage!)

I think a more important point is that we can't make up *any* physical
laws, only ones compatible with the existence of the virtual beings inside
the game. Of course real-life video games are far too simple for a virtual
being to be able to find the physical laws, they aren't rendered down to
the level of atoms, so an in-game scientist would soon find their world was
built from pixels and suchlike. But we assume a VR *could* be, for the sake
of argument...

A concrete example might be to render a world in which the ratio between
certain constants had a different value. Whether this world would generate
observers if run from time zero would be an interesting research project...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR

 I hope I will be able to clarify, after explaining the modal logic, why
 comp put maximal constraints on the physical law, making all the rest
 different instantiations of those laws.


I will be very interested to know why this is so, assuming my brain can
handle it. A lot of people have wondered about whether there are other
universes with different physics, of course the WAP assumes this ... so if
there is some handle on this idea (string theory seems to promise one but
it's a very large handle)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:

  There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one
 where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.


 OK.

 snip


 By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate
 geography.


 Well... what's left to physics then ?


 OK. That's an excellent question. I will try to answer.



 many world ?


 Notably. And also indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, but also
 white noise and white rabbits, a priori.



 because we can do virtual worlds with any physical laws we wish


 I disagree. (see below)


 You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can make
 any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to do
 so.







 and if comp is true we could make self aware inhabitant living in such
 virtual worlds...


 OK with this.



 so anything we can measure is a geographical fact and contingent...


 That does not follow. That would have been the case if the hypostases
 would have collapsed into classical logic.
 But I will try to explain this without invoking the hypostases.




 seems to reduce physics not to math but to approximately nothing and
 leave what we call physical laws as geography... because there is no proof
 that the world we leave in is not such simulation,


 No proof? Right. but it will not be a question of proof (which does not
 exist in experimental science, but of evidence).



 so we cannot conclude anything from the weight of an electron we measure
 in our universe.


 Perhaps, perhaps not. We have to compare the mass of the electron we
 measure in our neighborhood, with the mass of the electron in the comp
 physics.


 Ok if you had any ways to extract such specific things from comp...


 So you agree with the main things, but believe that there is no clear
 separation between physics and geography (like Smullyan in Forever
 Undecided!).



 I'm not at all convince you can... and as we can construct any virtual
 world we want, I would like to know how you think you could extract that
 from integers + *.


 I will. It just happen that comp will save a great part of physics from
 geography. So big that I call that physics, and reserve the word
 geography for what I cannot predict from comp (which will be of the type
 being the result of the comp indeterminacies).





 If the comp physics is agnostic on the electron mass,


 It should be or we should be magically prevented to do video games
 virtual world with self aware inhabitants.


 I never said that this is not possible. I just said that if the self-aware
 entities there have the time, and are ideally rational, they will soon or
 later understand that there are in a simulation (or they will abandon comp).
 It is very simple: if the mass of the electron *is* a physical law (and
 not a geographical fact) then it is deducible from arithmetic, and the
 self-aware entities will, by measuring the mass of the electron in their
 physics find the discrepancy.
 I guess you agree with this, but are just skeptical that we can derive
 that from arithmetic. I am more optimistic on that, and the reason lies in
 AUDA.
 In a sense you don't believe in physical laws.




  it means that the mass of electron is not a law, but a contingent
 geographical fact. It means also that we can access in some ways place
 where the electron has a different mass.


 Yes, perhaps a virtual world of our creation ?


 Not really. It should mean we can build a rocket in our physics, and
 physically access that reality.






 Physics is redefined by the UDA into a measure calculus on computations,
 relative to a computational state.


 I understand that...


 OK.



 but nowhere this you put evidence that our shared reality wins that...


 It has, unless we are in a simulation.




 By RSSA, I expect *because I'm already in that reality*, to stay in that
 reality... that doesn't means this reality is the most probable for any
 self aware creature.


 this reality includes geography. This is stable by the physical laws
 only. The laws is 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.

On 18 January 2014 11:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


 If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine tuning
 very strange. If there is only one physics, and that includes only these
 constants, we ought to be astonished and delighted that they allowed life
 at all. Or are the constants that win also bounded by anthropic reasons?


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread meekerdb

On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:
Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe just the 
nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly fine tuned, after 
which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water, and the cosmological flatness 
and god (ahem) knows what else.


Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev in order to 
produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at 7.656Mev. But it was shown by 
Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic Significance of the Existence of an Excited State 
of C12. Nature 340, 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be produced by a 
resonance between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would be produced with a lower 
resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.  And carbon 
sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether an 8% range is fine-tuned 
or not, I don't think it's incredibly fine-tuned.


Brent



On 18 January 2014 11:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com 
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:



If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine tuning very
strange. If there is only one physics, and that includes only these 
constants, we
ought to be astonished and delighted that they allowed life at all. Or are 
the
constants that win also bounded by anthropic reasons?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR
OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on
this, plus no doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.

So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god knows what
else.  Given the number of elements that don't assemble into chain
molecules, or liquids that don't float when they solidify  hm  let
me know if we ever reach the point where incredibleness can legitimately be
invoked, will you?

I believe there are are quite a number of these fine-tuning things, but
it's hard to know for sure without doing a statistical survey of universes
to check out how many have acquired life.



On 18 January 2014 16:55, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:

 Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
 just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
 fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
 and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.


 Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev in
 order to produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at
 7.656Mev. But it was shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic
 Significance of the Existence of an Excited State of C12. Nature 340,
 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be produced by a resonance
 between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would be produced with a lower
 resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.
 And carbon sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether
 an 8% range is fine-tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly
 fine-tuned.

 Brent


 On 18 January 2014 11:35, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:


   If we get the constants, then to me that makes the apparent fine
 tuning very strange. If there is only one physics, and that includes only
 these constants, we ought to be astonished and delighted that they
 allowed life at all. Or are the constants that win also bounded by
 anthropic reasons?



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:

 Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
 just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
 fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
 and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.


 Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev in
 order to produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at
 7.656Mev. But it was shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic
 Significance of the Existence of an Excited State of C12. Nature 340,
 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be produced by a resonance
 between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would be produced with a lower
 resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.
 And carbon sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether
 an 8% range is fine-tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly
 fine-tuned.


It becomes incredible when one considers the 10 - 20 other parameters that
similarly had to be within a narrow range.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread meekerdb

On 1/17/2014 8:17 PM, LizR wrote:
OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on this, plus no 
doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.


So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god knows what else.  Given 
the number of elements that don't assemble into chain molecules, or liquids that don't 
float when they solidify  hm  let me know if we ever reach the point where 
incredibleness can legitimately be invoked, will you?


The cosmological constant seemed to be incredibly fine-tuned as a near-zero remnant of the 
quantum-vacuum energy density.  But the holographic principle may have solved that.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR
On 18 January 2014 19:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 8:17 PM, LizR wrote:

 OK, I withdraw the incredibly. I'm just going by what folks tell me on
 this, plus no doubt a natural tendency towards hyperbole.

  So we still have the properties of water and carbon and god knows what
 else.  Given the number of elements that don't assemble into chain
 molecules, or liquids that don't float when they solidify  hm  let
 me know if we ever reach the point where incredibleness can legitimately be
 invoked, will you?


 The cosmological constant seemed to be incredibly fine-tuned as a
 near-zero remnant of the quantum-vacuum energy density.  But the
 holographic principle may have solved that.

 Wasn't inflation supposed to fix a similar problem?

I was thinking more of the properties of matter which allow stars and
planets and life to exist than the cosmological constant, although that may
be very fine tuned too. I must admit that the homogeneity and isotropy of
the universe look so smooth above some scale (I think it's around a few 100
million light years) that there is probably something fairly fundamental
smoothing it off. Wouldn't we otherwise expect the universe to be
drastically non-uniform with us just fortunate enough to be in a pocket of
smoothness ? (Or maybe it's easier for whatever-it-is to operate on the
whole universe, giving us an unlikely flat one...???)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread meekerdb

On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:

Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe 
just the
nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly fine 
tuned, after
which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water, and the 
cosmological
flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.


Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev in 
order to
produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at 7.656Mev. But 
it was
shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic Significance of the 
Existence of an
Excited State of C12. Nature 340, 281-284, that essentially the same 
amount would
be produced by a resonance between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would 
be
produced with a lower resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between 
Be^8 +
He^4 and C^12.  And carbon sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev. 
Whether an 8% range is fine-tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly fine-tuned.



It becomes incredible when one considers the 10 - 20 other parameters that similarly had 
to be within a narrow range.


What are they?  I've seen a lot of questionable claims of 'fine-tuning'.  One problem is 
that 'narrow range' is ill defined. If there is no natural limit on a variable, then any 
range is 'narrow' relative to _+_inf.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread LizR
Hence my suggestion that we just need to sample a lot of universes...

:-)


On 18 January 2014 19:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:

 Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
 just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
 fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
 and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.


  Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev
 in order to produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at
 7.656Mev. But it was shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic
 Significance of the Existence of an Excited State of C12. Nature 340,
 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be produced by a resonance
 between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would be produced with a lower
 resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.
 And carbon sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether
 an 8% range is fine-tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly
 fine-tuned.


  It becomes incredible when one considers the 10 - 20 other parameters
 that similarly had to be within a narrow range.


 What are they?  I've seen a lot of questionable claims of 'fine-tuning'.
 One problem is that 'narrow range' is ill defined.  If there is no natural
 limit on a variable, then any range is 'narrow' relative to *+*inf.

 Brent

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-17 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 12:17 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 8:35 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:55 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/17/2014 3:13 PM, LizR wrote:

 Indeed it would be very strange, perhaps verging on miraculous. I believe
 just the nuclear resonance discovered by Hoyle alone is already incredibly
 fine tuned, after which we have the amazing properties of carbon and water,
 and the cosmological flatness and god (ahem) knows what else.


  Hoyle predicted that there had to be an excited state of C^12 at 7.7Mev
 in order to produce the observed abundance of carbon. It was observed at
 7.656Mev. But it was shown by Livio, M. et al. (1989). The Anthropic
 Significance of the Existence of an Excited State of C12. Nature 340,
 281-284, that essentially the same amount would be produced by a resonance
 between 7.596Mev and 7.716Mev.  Even more would be produced with a lower
 resonance down to 7.3367Mev, the difference between Be^8 + He^4 and C^12.
 And carbon sufficient for life would be produced up to 7.933Mev.  Whether
 an 8% range is fine-tuned or not, I don't think it's incredibly
 fine-tuned.


  It becomes incredible when one considers the 10 - 20 other parameters
 that similarly had to be within a narrow range.


 What are they?  I've seen a lot of questionable claims of 'fine-tuning'.
 One problem is that 'narrow range' is ill defined.  If there is no natural
 limit on a variable, then any range is 'narrow' relative to *+*inf.


Tegmark provides a good list in his M.U.H. paper.  I've also provided a
number to you before.  I'll repeat some here:

- The atomic masses of the lightest elements was such that there was the
mass-5 roadblock. Without it, and the and the instability of beryllium, all
hydrogen would have fused in the first few minutes following the big bang.
- The expansion rate of the big bang was fast enough that everything didn't
fall into black holes but slow enough that gas was able to coalesce into
stars and galaxies
- Galaxies were just the right size that stars are far enough apart to
enable stable solar systems (near collisions between stars is rare) but
aren't so far apart that second and third generation stars could not form
from previous generations of stars
- Gravity is strong enough to hold stars together, but not so strong that
all stars exhaust all their fuel in millions of years rather than billions
of years
- Without neutrinos, nearly all of the heavy elements necessary for life
would be swallowed up when a heavy star collapses into a black hole
- Had the electromagnetic force had been weaker than the strong force, then
there would be no element but hydrogen
- Had the strong force been 11% weaker than it is, there could be no
deuterium (a necessary step in the process of stellar fusion)
- Had the strong force been 3.7% stronger, all hydrogen would have
converted to helium in the first few minutes
- Had neutrons been less massive than protons, then protons could decay
into neurons and Hydrogen would be unstable
- Had neutrons and protons been within less than one electron mass of each
other, then neither could decay, and all hydrogen would have converted to
helium in the first few minutes

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not  
immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you  
intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate  
directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by  
comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the  
simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).



But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.


Hmm... OK. But he will soon or later. We are talking in principle,  
assuming the emulated person has all the time ...





Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite


Finite or computable (Recursively enumerable).



would imply comp is wrong.  In a finite world it seems it would be  
even easier to be sure of saying yes to the doctor.


I don't know how you can know that the universe if finite. But comp  
makes it non finite (and non computable), so if you have a good reason  
to believe that the universe is finite, you have a good reason to  
believe that comp is wrong, and to say no to the doctor. That *is*  
counter-intuitive, but follow from step 7 and 8.




I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an  
artificial brain is possible other times it means that plus the  
whole UDA.


Comp is where UDA is valid. By comp, according to the degree of  
understanding of the UD-Argument or the person I am speaking to, just  
means the hypothesis, or its logical consequences.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com  
wrote:

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just  
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is  
a dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to  
miss discussions with some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay  
theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ...


I'd like to know what the existence of non-standard models of  
arithmetic, especially the finitist ones, implies for comp?


All non-standard models are infinite. They does not play any direct  
roles, except for allowing the consistency of inconsistency. A model  
which satisfies Bf has to be non standard. A proof of false needs to  
be an infinite natural numbers, and it has an infinity of  
predecessors (due to the axiom saying that 0 is unique in having no  
predecessors).


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:





On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one  
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are  
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative  
physics.


You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You  
are introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does  
not make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of  
physics than us, with a very different histories and geographies and  
biologies.



I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with  
the math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single  
physics.


OK.




What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from  
something more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the head  
or something,  and get highly amnesic.




There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno  
Marchal.


Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling  
on the grounds.




Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes  
through our consciousness,


OK.



in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity  
of Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by  
hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and  
identity must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


A particular biology? No doubt.
A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course,  
after the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or  
science trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations,  
which:
1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity)  
below the substitution level

2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those  
winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty  
relation, to simplify).




in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of  
Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be  
emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.





The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity  
of us, as human beings, with the idealized machines being  
interviewed. We are clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems  
clear to me that our consciousness, our subjective experience,  
integrates its embodiment.


Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to all  
Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics  
(given by S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as  
geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the  
mass of the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical  
reality.


our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The physics  
is only what makes such historico-geographical apperance quite stable  
or relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the comp histories;  
That is why Everett saves comp from solipsism.





Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through  
sensory interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our  
bodies are part of physics,


Part. Only part. the contingent part.



then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of  
Glak's identity,


Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be the  
same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see what  
result from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and the UD  
argument.



and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I  
think, require that alternative body, which require an alternative  
physics.


By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate  
geography.





I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of  
consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to  
allow for alternate physics.


Only if that alternate physics allows a non Turing emulable (at any  
level) brain. If Glak's brain is Turing emulable, it will be  
distributed in the UD*, like us, and if he look below its substitution  
level, he will have to use the same universal statistics, but of  
course relatively to its own comp state; which makes the difference of  
identity, geography, etc.


Bruno





 Terren





The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno


It is a complex question.


is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an  
alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has  
memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in  
our physics.



Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability  
in arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than  
us


What does same mean here.  Same coupling constants?...same number  
of Higgs bosons?...same spacetime dimensions?


If those notion depends only on the physical laws, they will be the  
same. If not, they will appear to be contingent or geographical.


For example, if all the hypostases would collapse into classical  
logic, (which does not happen!), then physics would have become  
trivial. Everything would be geographical, and comp would have predict  
the accessibility of worlds with ... different coupling constant,  
different number of H bosons, etc.
Incompleteness prevents the collapse of the hypostases, and thus save  
physics from being just a sort of geography. Comp saves the laws in  
the physical laws.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
 Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.


 OK.



 What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something
 more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


 That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the head or
 something,  and get highly amnesic.



 There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno Marchal.


 Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling on
 the grounds.



 Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes through
 our consciousness,


 OK.



 in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity of
 Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by
 hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and identity
 must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


 A particular biology? No doubt.
 A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course, after
 the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or science
 trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations, which:
 1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity) below
 the substitution level
 2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

 Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those
 winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty
 relation, to simplify).



 in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of Glak's
 memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


 What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be
 emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.



 The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us,
 as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
 clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
 consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment.


 Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to all
 Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics (given by
 S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
 Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as
 geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the mass of
 the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical reality.

 our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The physics is
 only what makes such historico-geographical apperance quite stable or
 relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the comp histories; That is
 why Everett saves comp from solipsism.




 Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
 interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
 physics,


 Part. Only part. the contingent part.



 then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of Glak's
 identity,


 Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be the
 same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see what result
 from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and the UD argument.


 and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I think,
 require that alternative body, which require an alternative physics.


 By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate
 geography.


Well... what's left to physics then ? many world ? because we can do
virtual worlds with any physical laws we whish and if comp is true we could
make self aware inhabitant living in such virtual worlds... so anything we
can measure is a geographical fact and contingent... seems to reduce
physics not to math but to approximately nothing and leave what we call
physical laws as geography... because there is no proof that the world we
leave in is not such simulation, so we cannot conclude anything from the
weight of an electron we measure in our universe.

Quentin




 I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of
 consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to allow
 for alternate physics.


 Only if that alternate physics allows a non Turing emulable (at any level)
 brain. If Glak's brain is Turing emulable, it will be 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
 Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.


 OK.



 What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something
 more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


 That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the head or
 something,  and get highly amnesic.



 There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno Marchal.


 Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling on
 the grounds.



 Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes
 through our consciousness,


 OK.



 in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity of
 Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by
 hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and identity
 must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


 A particular biology? No doubt.
 A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course,
 after the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or
 science trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations, which:
 1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity) below
 the substitution level
 2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

 Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those
 winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty
 relation, to simplify).



 in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of
 Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


 What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be
 emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.



 The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us,
 as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
 clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
 consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment.


 Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to all
 Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics (given by
 S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
 Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as
 geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the mass of
 the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical reality.

 our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The physics is
 only what makes such historico-geographical apperance quite stable or
 relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the comp histories; That is
 why Everett saves comp from solipsism.




 Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
 interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
 physics,


 Part. Only part. the contingent part.



 then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of Glak's
 identity,


 Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be the
 same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see what result
 from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and the UD argument.


 and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I think,
 require that alternative body, which require an alternative physics.


 By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate
 geography.


 Well... what's left to physics then ? many world ? because we can do
 virtual worlds with any physical laws we whish and if comp is true we could
 make self aware inhabitant living in such virtual worlds... so anything we
 can measure is a geographical fact and contingent... seems to reduce
 physics not to math but to approximately nothing and leave what we call
 physical laws as geography... because there is no proof that the world we
 leave


s/leave/live/


  in is not such simulation, so we cannot conclude anything from the weight
 of an electron we measure in our universe.

 Quentin




 I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of
 consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to allow
 for alternate physics.


 Only if that alternate physics allows a non Turing 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:

  On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

  So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
 that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the
 simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he
 is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the
 physics in the simulation.
 The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
 infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
 or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).



 But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.


 Hmm... OK. But he will soon or later. We are talking in principle,
 assuming the emulated person has all the time ...

 Ah, yes, I thought that must be what you meant. Had we but world enough
and time, this coyness, lady were no crime.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 04:25, freqflyer07281972 wrote:




On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the  
internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is  
crossing a line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look  
into your own heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly  
wart in your own character… one that if I were you I would be trying  
to understand and work through.


Chris


Just for the record:

a) I apologized (on a new thread so I wouldn't derail this one)

b) I didn't have to troll the internet very far to find his lonely  
hearts advert -- it's on the front page of google after you search  
edgar owen -- second entry -- I was just trying to find more  
information about this book on reality he keeps talking about, but  
his blog is the second entry in the search, and the advert is the  
very first thing you see when you go to the site -- hardly private  
details... indeed, given his clearly narcissistic posture, I thought  
he would be quite flattered anyone took that level of interest in him.


c) Ugly wart on my character? You think I am not aware that I have  
warts on my character? Dude, I got tons of 'em, all over the damn  
place... I think anyone who is honest with themselves will also find  
them. Oh yah, no doubt it exposes an ugly wart on my character. I  
only wish other people would be equally honest in their self- 
assessments (lookin' at you, Edgar) and take the time to perhaps  
try to understand and work through their ugly warts, i.e.  
condescension, truculence,  delusion. For me, it's a constant and  
daily struggle, but I never stop working at it... I admit that I  
backslide a bit and do some dumb stuff though, and looking back, I  
realize that posting that thing from Edgar's site was not a decent  
thing to do -- I fully accept your condemnation and repent.



I was also a bit shocked by what you did to Edgar, but I find  
wonderfully reassuring to see someone capable of offering apologies  
after doing something a bit nasty. That's rare.


Let us try to focus on the points. If there are no points in a post,  
there is no need to reply.


Bruno









--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:





2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be

On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:





On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one  
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are  
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative  
physics.


You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You  
are introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori  
does not make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same  
laws of physics than us, with a very different histories and  
geographies and biologies.



I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with  
the math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single  
physics.


OK.




What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from  
something more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the  
head or something,  and get highly amnesic.




There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno  
Marchal.


Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling  
on the grounds.




Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes  
through our consciousness,


OK.



in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity  
of Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by  
hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and  
identity must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


A particular biology? No doubt.
A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course,  
after the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or  
science trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations,  
which:
1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity)  
below the substitution level

2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those  
winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty  
relation, to simplify).




in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of  
Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be  
emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.





The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity  
of us, as human beings, with the idealized machines being  
interviewed. We are clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also  
seems clear to me that our consciousness, our subjective  
experience, integrates its embodiment.


Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to  
all Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics  
(given by S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as  
geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the  
mass of the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical  
reality.


our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The  
physics is only what makes such historico-geographical apperance  
quite stable or relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the  
comp histories; That is why Everett saves comp from solipsism.





Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through  
sensory interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our  
bodies are part of physics,


Part. Only part. the contingent part.



then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of  
Glak's identity,


Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be  
the same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see  
what result from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and  
the UD argument.



and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I  
think, require that alternative body, which require an alternative  
physics.


By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an  
alternate geography.



Well... what's left to physics then ?


OK. That's an excellent question. I will try to answer.




many world ?


Notably. And also indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, but also  
white noise and white rabbits, a priori.





because we can do virtual worlds with any physical laws we wish


I disagree. (see below)





and if comp is true we could make self aware inhabitant living in  
such virtual worlds...


OK with this.




so anything we can measure is a geographical fact and contingent...


That does not follow. That would have been the case if the hypostases  
would have collapsed into classical logic.

But I will try to explain this without invoking the hypostases.




seems to reduce physics not to math but to approximately nothing and  
leave what 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
 appear to live in IS the real actual world


Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
calculations is possible (and I can't see why it wouldn't be) then sooner
of later it will be achieved,  then a future Jupiter Brain will be able to
create astonishingly realistic simulations, and Mr. Jupiter Brain would
probably be curious about humans, the creatures that made it,  and so it
would make a simulation of them, and those simulated humans will make a
simulated Jupiter Brain which in turn will make simulated simulated humans
who will [...]

I admit this is a VERY long chain of reasoning, but you might conclude that
the most likely conclusion is we live in a simulation. I'm not saying any
of this is true but...

 We can imagine we live in some simulation by some super beings and that
 may or may not be a possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to
 figure that out),


I'm almost embarrassed to admit it but from time to time I have found
myself drawing analogies from the coarse grained nature of the quantum
world and getting too close to the screen in a video game and seeing
individual pixels; and between the quantum world where things don't seem to
actually exist before you measure them and the fact that a good programmer
doesn't waste computer power simulating things behind a big rock that
nobody will ever see. And the singularity at the center of a Black Hole
does sometimes seem a little like a screw up where a programer tried to
divide by zero.

I'm half joking in all this, but only half.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread meekerdb

On 1/16/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in 
a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you 
manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the 
comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it 
emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet 
that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).



But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.


Hmm... OK. But he will soon or later. We are talking in principle, assuming the 
emulated person has all the time ...





Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite


Finite or computable (Recursively enumerable).



would imply comp is wrong.  In a finite world it seems it would be even easier to be 
sure of saying yes to the doctor.


I don't know how you can know that the universe if finite. But comp makes it non finite 
(and non computable), so if you have a good reason to believe that the universe is 
finite, you have a good reason to believe that comp is wrong, and to say no to the 
doctor. That *is* counter-intuitive, but follow from step 7 and 8.




I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an artificial brain is 
possible other times it means that plus the whole UDA.


Comp is where UDA is valid. By comp, according to the degree of understanding of the 
UD-Argument or the person I am speaking to, just means the hypothesis, or its logical 
consequences.


But that comes from your assumption that belief=provable and that consciousness requires 
proving there are unprovable true sentences. Those are both much more dubious than an 
artificial neuron can replace a biological one.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread meekerdb

On 1/16/2014 12:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote:


On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:


condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending /*dismissal*/ in anyone else's mind, however, just more 
hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss discussions with 
some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited 
heavily in the AUDA ...


I'd like to know what the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic, especially 
the finitist ones, implies for comp?


All non-standard models are infinite. They does not play any direct roles, except for 
allowing the consistency of inconsistency. A model which satisfies Bf has to be non 
standard. A proof of false needs to be an infinite natural numbers, and it has an 
infinity of predecessors (due to the axiom saying that 0 is unique in having no 
predecessors).


I think that only refers to non-standard models which add not-G as an axiom where G is the 
Godel sentence.  What about application of the compactness theorem to produce a 
non-standard model?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

  There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
 Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.


 OK.



 What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something
 more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


 That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the head or
 something,  and get highly amnesic.



  There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno
 Marchal.


 Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling on
 the grounds.



 Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes
 through our consciousness,


 OK.



 in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity of
 Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by
 hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and identity
 must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


 A particular biology? No doubt.
 A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course,
 after the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or
 science trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations, which:
 1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity) below
 the substitution level
 2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

 Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those
 winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty
 relation, to simplify).



 in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of
 Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


 What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be
 emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.



 The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us,
 as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
 clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
 consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment.


 Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to all
 Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics (given by
 S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
 Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as
 geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the mass of
 the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical reality.

 our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The physics is
 only what makes such historico-geographical apperance quite stable or
 relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the comp histories; That is
 why Everett saves comp from solipsism.




 Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
 interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
 physics,


 Part. Only part. the contingent part.



 then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of Glak's
 identity,


 Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be the
 same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see what result
 from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and the UD argument.


 and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I think,
 require that alternative body, which require an alternative physics.


 By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate
 geography.


 Well... what's left to physics then ?


 OK. That's an excellent question. I will try to answer.



 many world ?


 Notably. And also indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, but also white
 noise and white rabbits, a priori.



 because we can do virtual worlds with any physical laws we wish


 I disagree. (see below)


You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we







 and if comp is true we could make self aware inhabitant living in such
 virtual worlds...


 OK with this.



 so anything we can measure is a geographical fact and contingent...


 That does not follow. That would have been the case if the hypostases
 would have collapsed into classical logic.
 But I will try to explain this without invoking the hypostases.




 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 16 Jan 2014, at 10:28, Quentin Anciaux wrote:




 2014/1/16 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 15 Jan 2014, at 21:02, Terren Suydam wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.bewrote:

  There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
 Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.


 OK.



 What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from
 something more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine.


 That is right, unless he smokes something, or get a strike on the head
 or something,  and get highly amnesic.



  There is a reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno
 Marchal.


 Yes, and it is the same as the reason why you will see a pen falling on
 the grounds.



 Even if we are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes
 through our consciousness,


 OK.



 in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and identity of
 Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further by
 hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and identity
 must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology,


 A particular biology? No doubt.
 A particular physics? This is what will lost his meaning. Of course,
 after the UDA, we have to redefine physics, which is the measure (or
 science trying to find that measure) on all (relative) computations, which:
 1) emulates my body (including my personal memory, my identity) below
 the substitution level
 2) and winning the measure (= are the most probable).

 Take an electron in some orbital. The orbital gives the map of those
 winning computation (in case our level is given by the uncertainty
 relation, to simplify).



 in such a way that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of
 Glak's memories etc, could not possibly manifest in our physics.


 What would that mean. If comp is correct, Glak can in principle be
 emulated in our neighborhood, although perhaps not in real time.



 The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of
 us, as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
 clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
 consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment.


 Yes. But all effective extension of PA is Löbian. AUDA applies to all
 Löbian machines, and that is why they will have the same physics (given by
 S4Grz1, or/and Z1*, or /and X1*).
 Anything NOT derivable in those mathematics will be defined as
 geographical. If Glak's electron are more heavy, it means that the mass of
 the electron depends on contingent aspect of the physical reality.

 our identity is not physical, but historico-geographical. The physics is
 only what makes such historico-geographical apperance quite stable or
 relatively numerous. Physics is what multiply the comp histories; That is
 why Everett saves comp from solipsism.




 Our (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
 interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
 physics,


 Part. Only part. the contingent part.



 then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of Glak's
 identity,


 Only what is above his substitution level, and the physics must be the
 same as us, as, under the substitution level, he can only see what result
 from the universal measure, which must exist by comp and the UD argument.


 and the measure of the most probable continuations for Glak, I think,
 require that alternative body, which require an alternative physics.


 By UDA, it seems to me rather clear that you can only use an alternate
 geography.


 Well... what's left to physics then ?


 OK. That's an excellent question. I will try to answer.



 many world ?


 Notably. And also indeterminacy, non-locality, non cloning, but also
 white noise and white rabbits, a priori.



 because we can do virtual worlds with any physical laws we wish


 I disagree. (see below)


 You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can make
 any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to do
 so.







 and if comp is true we could make self aware inhabitant living in such
 virtual worlds...


 OK with this.



 so anything we can measure is a geographical fact and contingent...


 That does not follow. That would have been the 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread meekerdb

On 1/16/2014 9:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Perhaps, perhaps not. We have to compare the mass of the electron we measure in our 
neighborhood, with the mass of the electron in the comp physics. If the comp physics is 
agnostic on the electron mass, it means that the mass of electron is not a law, but a 
contingent geographical fact.


I assume by geographic you mean that all values (-inf,inf) occur in UD physics.  
Otherwise geographic would mean the same as random.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread LizR
On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:


 You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can make
 any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to do
 so.

 Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
number of computations can be carried out in a finite time. Also, within
the game I got a solution to P vs NP so I got the Millennium Prize!

:-)

...sorry, I'll get my coat.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-16 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/16 LizR lizj...@gmail.com

 On 17 January 2014 10:01, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:


 You can disagree, but it's a fact, we can make video game, so we can
 make any rules we want in the created virtual worlds, nothing prevent us to
 do so.

 Yes, I made up a game in which 17 is an even number and an infinite
 number of computations can be carried out in a finite time. Also, within
 the game I got a solution to P vs NP so I got the Millennium Prize!


Well those are not physical laws... but yes you could anyway by deluding
all self aware creature in the virtual world thinking so, and anytime they
would hint that isn't true, change their mind... that would certainly
affect their consciousness and free will... but it could be done in
principle.

But anyway that was not what I was talking about, I was talking about
physical laws not logic. You can make a totally logical consistent virtual
world with other physical laws as our reality... nothing prevent us to do
so, and if computationalism is true, we can make that virtual world have
conscious inhabitants.

Quentin


 :-)

 ...sorry, I'll get my coat.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers  
this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'.


All those terms can be defined from comp, + and *. See the papers in  
my URL. (or ask).


Bruno

In the details of those definitions will be your answer... It's  
arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Edgar


On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:53:23 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,

Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time.  
I've programmed a number of them myself.


Edgar

On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept...

No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a  
simulated world, and then it would be equivalent to a character  
living in a video game. So there wouldn't be someone living outside  
the game, strapped to a couch with wires and tubes, in this  
particular case. Do you think it's impossible to create an AI, even  
in principle?



On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jason,

Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is  
adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the  
game? If so he has to actually be living outside the game (a la  
Matrix strapped to a couch with wires and tubes) and thus subject to  
the actual laws of reality.


If someone is just a character in a video game then he is not a real  
and actual being and totally irrelevant.


I can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously...

Lots of people take the idea of artificial intelligence seriously.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:





On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net  
wrote:

John,

The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the  
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily  
filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained  
before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence  
is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by  
some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I  
maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there  
is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.


Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the  
proper subject of science...


Its looks like you still haven't gotten around to reading the  
simulation argument (despite my having posted it multiple times). If  
you assert X, and someone says, wait a moment doesn't Y imply not X,  
you can't just pretend Y isn't there and keep asserting X.


Assuming that Edgar is rational.  That does not seem clear to me.

Bruno




Jason


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com  
wrote:

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just  
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a  
dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss  
discussions with some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay  
theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ...


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:


condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers  
this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your  
answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the  
real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling  
emoticon here)


OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a  
particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced  
technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created a  
computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like  
substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in the  
process. It's enough for the present discussion that the simulated  
Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, and appears  
to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you do,  
in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also  
modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they  
can do all this inside a relatively small space). The simulated  
Edgar will think just like you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact,  
the product of computation in your brain, and it has your memories,  
because the aliens were able to model the part of your brain that  
stores them.


So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be  
earth-Edgar.


Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in  
a virtual world, and if so, how?



And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately  
see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly  
on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can  
see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his  
head) and the physics in the simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily  
infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so,  
soon or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is  
wrong).


OK?

Bruno








--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 15 January 2014 21:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:22, Jason Resch wrote:

 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 John,

 The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
 appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through
 our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise
 in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we
 live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a
 possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but
 there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.

 Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper
 subject of science...


 Its looks like you still haven't gotten around to reading the simulation
 argument (despite my having posted it multiple times). If you assert X, and
 someone says, wait a moment doesn't Y imply not X, you can't just pretend Y
 isn't there and keep asserting X.

 Assuming that Edgar is rational.  That does not seem clear to me.


Nor to me. My own pet theory is that Edgar is an AI programme being tested
out on the Everything List by a professor of cognitive science. This would
explain a lot of things, for example his habit of not answering questions,
or when he does of answering them in a manner that shows he doesn't
understand them, or of giving out one of a series of canned responses
(I've already explained that Read my book That's obvious etc). Also,
some his answers are barely parsable as English, which would make more
sense if they are being constructed by a computer programme in response to
a few key words.

And his behavioural characteristics - arrogance, lack of humour except at
the expense of others, overbearing ego, etc - are all features that would
be easier to programme than a more rounded personality.

I think we're experiencing a Turing test. (Maybe I have to say You're a
programme written by a psychology class, and I claim my $5!)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:37, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine  
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is  
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the  
entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given  
human level intelligence, and human level capability to explore  
reality, the simulated being should be able to discover cues that  
give the simulation away.


Since we can determine the curvature of the space we live in without  
seeing it from the outside (angles of triangles) we should be able  
to determine the nature of any simulation we lived in as well.


Because there is NO evidence whatsoever that we do live in a  
simulation,


False, there are plenty evidences that we live in the canonical  
simulation (which does not depend on the ontology). All verified  
quantum propositional propositions provides such evidence. It explains  
the quantum aspect of the physical reality. You are *assuming* it.




AND the fact that it's an enormously non-parsimonious theory that  
adds an entire new level of reality inhabited by super beings with  
completely unlikely technologies on top of a universe which is  
already plenty complex, it is incredibly unlikely that we do live in  
a simulation, and absent any evidence at all for it I at least think  
it's a waste of time to give much thought to it no matter how 'cool'  
it might seem to sci fi fans.


If we assume comp, we don't even need evidences, except for  *testing*  
comp. And up to now, all evidence are that we are in a simulation,  
even in *the* emulation (not done by our descendants, but by the  
bottom ontology of the comp theory (which is given by any universal  
number, like Robinson arithmetic for example).


Then by the dream argument (or UDA step 6), there are no evidences,  
nor can there be possibly anyone, that we are not in a simulation, also.


Bruno






Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:27:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers  
this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your  
answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the  
real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling  
emoticon here)


OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a  
particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced  
technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created a  
computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like  
substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in the  
process. It's enough for the present discussion that the simulated  
Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you, and appears  
to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you do,  
in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also  
modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they  
can do all this inside a relatively small space). The simulated  
Edgar will think just like you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact,  
the product of computation in your brain, and it has your memories,  
because the aliens were able to model the part of your brain that  
stores them.


So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be  
earth-Edgar.


Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in  
a virtual world, and if so, how?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:

 condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
 this question...

 Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
 what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the
 details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill
 formed as asked


 Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the real
 actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling emoticon here)

 OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular
 scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last
 night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't
 worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether you are
 actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion
 that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,
 and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you
 do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled
 the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this
 inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like
 you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in
 your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model
 the part of your brain that stores them.

 So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be
 earth-Edgar.

 Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a
 virtual world, and if so, how?

 And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

 So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
 that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the
 simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he
 is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the
 physics in the simulation.


I'm not sure I understand. Suppose the simulation has the same physics as
the (allegedly) real world? Or are you saying that isn't possible?

On the subject of interventions, if the Bible is to be believed (and I have
it on good authority that it should :) then we are definitely living in a
simulation, because there were a lot of interventions - or at least tweaks
to the software! - a few thousand years ago.


 The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
 infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
 or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).


An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say. How would one
experience this - how would I know that I am in a finite simulation, if it
happens to be large enough (maybe it simulates the Hubble sphere?)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

 On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:

 condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

 Teehee.

 Not a condescending *dismissal* in anyone else's mind, however, just more
 hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.

 This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss
 discussions with some real meat in them.


 Ah ... Me too :)

 Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem,
 exploited heavily in the AUDA ...


OK!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first  
place.


The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one  
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the  
measure problem on all simulations is to abandon computationalism,  
with computation in the standard sense (not yours that you have not  
defined, as you add a fuzzy reification to it, through your 1p  
universal present time (which makes no sense, as we have pinted out).


Bruno



Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that  
God created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY  the same  
theory as the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just without  
the modern twist


Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:47:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine  
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is  
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the  
entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus given  
human level intelligence, and human level capability to explore  
reality, the simulated being should be able to discover cues that  
give the simulation away.


Should be able to... So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the  
creators of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any  
cues? You appear to be claiming that in principle, it would always  
be possible. How, exactly?




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment  
perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you  
didn't...


Lighten up and smile!
:-)


You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.

Bruno




Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:52:46 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Wow, did you really misunderstand what I was saying to that extent?  
You are starting to remind me of those people who come to the door  
to persuade me to accept Jesus as my saviour. They're also incapable  
of spotting the intent of a satirical comment, or a metaphor, or  
drawing a parallel, or - of course - getting their heads around  
intelligent criticism.


And they keep banging on about how they have a unique insight into  
the nature of the universe...



On 15 January 2014 14:42, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

Thanks for confirming what I've long suspected, that you actually  
live in the 19th century!


I have some good news for you, flying machines, robots, and rockets  
to the moon are actually real now. If you read my book you'll  
discover some other things that are real as well - but not simulated  
human beings

:-)

Edgar




On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:30:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 09:08, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
John,

The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the  
world we appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily  
filtered through our own internal simulation as I've explained  
before). To assume otherwise in the absence of any actual evidence  
is a waste of time. We can imagine we live in some simulation by  
some super beings and that may or may not be a possibility (I  
maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but there  
is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.


Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the  
proper subject of science...


Yes, just sci-fi like heavier than air flying machines, robots and  
rockets to the Moon.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Liz,

 Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
 perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...

 Lighten up and smile!
 :-)

 You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.


It's a technique of the bully. Make fun of someone, then ask them why they
aren't laughing.

However I *was* smiling, actually, after reading that, because Edgar's
heavy-handed attempt at retaliatory humour, together with the way he
clearly doesn't understand what satire is, were in fact laughable.

(But I didn't laugh too much, because I was at work at the time :)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:44, LizR wrote:


On 15 January 2014 21:34, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It  
answers this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your  
answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in  
the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye- 
rolling emoticon here)


OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a  
particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced  
technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created  
a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like  
substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in  
the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the  
simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,  
and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around,  
just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they  
have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using  
nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small  
space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming your  
thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your brain,  
and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model the  
part of your brain that stores them.


So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be  
earth-Edgar.


Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in  
a virtual world, and if so, how?


And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately  
see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly  
on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he  
can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics  
(in his head) and the physics in the simulation.


I'm not sure I understand. Suppose the simulation has the same  
physics as the (allegedly) real world? Or are you saying that isn't  
possible?


Yes, it is not possible. The simulation is the product of finite  
program. The real physics is brought by the 1p-indeterminacy applied  
to an infinity of programs, which are all the universal machines which  
makes a computation (or more than one) leading to your current state.


This astonish many people, because they feel that this contradict the  
dream argument. But the dream argument only shows that you cannot know  
that you are awake. It does not show that you cannot know that you are  
dreaming. Same with the simulation. To fail a machine on this needs an  
infinite work.






On the subject of interventions, if the Bible is to be believed (and  
I have it on good authority that it should :) then we are definitely  
living in a simulation, because there were a lot of interventions -  
or at least tweaks to the software! - a few thousand years ago.


IF the bible needs to be believed, which I (and you) are doubting, I  
hope.
No need of the bible, though, QM, is, for a computationalist a strong  
evidence that we are in the bottom simulation, made by the TOE  
ontology.
Everett, in particular confirms this and the first person plural  
nature of physics. That is why I dare to explain the consequence of  
comp: physicists have already found the most starling one (the MW).





The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).


An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say.


Yes, and Terren.


How would one experience this - how would I know that I am in a  
finite simulation, if it happens to be large enough (maybe it  
simulates the Hubble sphere?)


In Simulacron III, by Daniel Galouye, the guy discovers that he is in  
a simulation due to some bug in it, and then by being unable to quit  
the city (as the simulation simulates only one city!).


But such discoveries are not done by only the first person experience  
(if that was the case, the dream argument, and step 6, would be  
invalid). It is discovered by some work, which basically consists in  
testing the comp-physics, which is not entirely simulable. For  
example: if you test the random nature of spin, and discover that it  
is a pseudo-random, you know that you are not in the comp reality,  
(assuming comp = QM exactly), but in a higher level simulation.


Bruno







--
You received this 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:48, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:53, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Liz,

It's a lot less of hunch than the simulation theory in the first  
place.


The simulation exists, like prime number exists. Selecting one  
computation cannot work, by the UDA, so the only way to avoid the  
measure problem on all simulations is to abandon computationalism,


... or to derive physics from comp, which consists in making physics  
into a self-referential modality (and that works!).   [I forgot to  
finish the sentence, sorry].




with computation in the standard sense (not yours that you have not  
defined, as you add a fuzzy reification to it, through your 1p  
universal present time (which makes no sense, as we have pinted out).


Bruno



Why don't you just go back to the Bible and accept the theory that  
God created man and the world 4000 years ago? It's EXACTLY  the  
same theory as the simulation theory, and equally unlikely, just  
without the modern twist


Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:47:16 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 15 January 2014 14:37, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

If your question is whether or not it is possible to determine  
whether we are living in a matrix type simulation I believe it is  
because we would not just be living in the simulation but in the  
entire reality in which the simulation is being produced. Thus  
given human level intelligence, and human level capability to  
explore reality, the simulated being should be able to discover  
cues that give the simulation away.


Should be able to... So, so far it's just a hunch. Suppose the  
creators of the simulation were intelligent enough not to leave any  
cues? You appear to be claiming that in principle, it would always  
be possible. How, exactly?




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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


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




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:


On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Liz,

Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical  
comment perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which  
you didn't...


Lighten up and smile!
:-)

You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.

It's a technique of the bully. Make fun of someone, then ask them  
why they aren't laughing.


I agree, it is a bullying technic.

But in the case of Edgar, I don't think he is purposefully bullying.
He just seem unaware of what it means to confront his ideas with others.




However I was smiling, actually, after reading that, because Edgar's  
heavy-handed attempt at retaliatory humour, together with the way he  
clearly doesn't understand what satire is, were in fact laughable.


(But I didn't laugh too much, because I was at work at the time :)



Yeah, ... but it is also a bit sad.

Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 09:45, LizR wrote:


On 15 January 2014 21:29, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:
On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com  
wrote:

condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending dismissal in anyone else's mind, however, just  
more hand-waving nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a  
dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to  
miss discussions with some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay  
theorem, exploited heavily in the AUDA ...


OK!


OK, nice. It will be a new thread. Be ready :)

Bruno




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

So now you are on my case because my previous girlfriend died of cancer a 
few years back?!

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:26:02 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 *SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
 compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
 believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
 selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
 healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
 to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
 share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
 down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
 could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
 discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
 contact me at edga...@att.net javascript:. 

 And you said i didn't read things...

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

 You?

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
 finding a life partner. 

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? 
 Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.

 Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
 :-)

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Jason,

 There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones 
 one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
 answer your question.

 You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with 
 no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we 
 study 
 what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to 
 be

 Edgar



 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
  



 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

 http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html


 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

 This is too easy...

 Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
 SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
 compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
 believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
 selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
 healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open
 to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to
 share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
 down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
 could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in
 discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
 contact me at edgaro...@att.net. 

 And you said i didn't read things...

This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
discuss people.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt


 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

 You?

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
 finding a life partner.

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
 Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.

 Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
 :-)

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Jason,

 There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones
 one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
 answer
 your question.

 You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with
 no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study
 what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to
 be

 Edgar




 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/


 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

 http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html


 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

 This is too easy...

 Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Thanks Telmo! 

Freq's comment was especially painful as my previous lady companion died of 
cancer a few years ago which is why I was looking again.

Edgar


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:17:44 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972 
 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a 
  compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
  believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
  selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young 
 and 
  healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also 
 open 
  to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion 
 to 
  share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
  down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
  could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested 
 in 
  discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
  contact me at edga...@att.net javascript:.  
  
  And you said i didn't read things... 

 This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way. 
 Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that 
 you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion. 

 Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds 
 discuss people. 
 -- Eleanor Roosevelt 

  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  
  Freq, 
  
  But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one. 
  
  You? 
  
  Edgar 
  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: 
  
  Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
  finding a life partner. 
  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 
 wrote: 
  
  OK. 
  
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract 
  
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  
  Freq, 
  
  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you 
 respond? 
  Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one. 
  
  Send me a few links referencing that being possible please 
  :-) 
  
  Edgar 
  
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 
 wrote: 
  
  
  
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  
  Jason, 
  
  There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological 
 ones 
  one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out 
 and answer 
  your question. 
  
  You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things 
 with 
  no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we 
 study 
  what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's 
 thought to 
  be 
  
  Edgar 
  
  
  
  
  
 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
  
  
  
  
 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
  
  
  http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html 
  
  
  
 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
  
  
  This is too easy... 
  
  Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 
  
  -- 
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups 
  Everything List group. 
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an 
  email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. 

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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
 thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
  SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
  compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
  believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
  selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
  healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also
 open
  to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to
  share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
  down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
  could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in
  discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
  contact me at edgaro...@att.net. 
 
  And you said i didn't read things...

 This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
 Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
 you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

 Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
 discuss people.
 -- Eleanor Roosevelt


Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a
life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications.
That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread
in that fashion.

Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to
the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his
privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy,
consent, digital spying, cryptography etc...

Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent
of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to
denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer
street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror
truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-)  PGC


 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
 
  You?
 
  Edgar
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
 
  Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
  finding a life partner.
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
 
  OK.
 
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
  Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
 
  Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
  :-)
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
 wrote:
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Jason,
 
  There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones
  one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out
 and answer
  your question.
 
  You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things
 with
  no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we
 study
  what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's
 thought to
  be
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
 
 
 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
 
 
 
 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
 
  http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
 
 
 
 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
 
  This is too easy...
 
  Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
  email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread spudboy100

I am basically a humanist here, speaking only for myself. A secular one, most 
often, and a religious humanist, on occasion. So, I always nag, to gain 
perspective: How does this intellectual pursuit,  help humanity, how does this 
help the human condition? Yes, its a buzz kill, I admit. But, I want to 
encourage the brightest people, to direct themselves to this additional 
pursuit. I do admit, that science for its own sake is worthy, but that science 
applied to resolving human problems are the bomb. (American expression!) 
Example: Physicist, Craig Hogan at Fermilab, analyzes cosmic rays, especially 
neutrinos, as part of his work, but additionally ponders the data to see if it 
supports the notion that the visible universe may just be a hologram, a 
simulation. Now that would be the bomb. Stuff, like dat, dere!


-Original Message-
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 9:45 am
Subject: Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter







On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
 SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
 compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
 believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
 selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
 healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open
 to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to
 share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
 down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
 could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in
 discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
 contact me at edgaro...@att.net. 

 And you said i didn't read things...


This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
discuss people.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt






Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a 
life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. That's 
where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread in that 
fashion. 

Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain to the 
person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to, that his privacy was 
violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, consent, 
digital spying, cryptography etc... 

Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of 
some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to denounce 
the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer street cred, uhm 
credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth in the absolute 
because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-)  PGC

 


 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

 You?

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
 finding a life partner.

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

 Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond?
 Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.

 Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
 :-)

 Edgar



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Jason,

 There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones
 one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and 
 answer
 your question.

 You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with
 no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study
 what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to
 be

 Edgar




 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/


 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

 http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html


 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

 This is too easy...

 Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted was 
in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really starting to 
understand why you have difficulty with finding a life partner.

Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My 
post.

If you can't even get your facts straight you can't be taken seriously

Edgar



On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45:03 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes 
 te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
 thismind...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
  SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
  compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
  believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
  selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young 
 and
  healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also 
 open
  to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion 
 to
  share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
  down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
  could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested 
 in
  discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
  contact me at edga...@att.net javascript:. 
 
  And you said i didn't read things...

 This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
 Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
 you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

 Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
 discuss people.
 -- Eleanor Roosevelt


 Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have 
 a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications. 
 That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread 
 in that fashion. 

 Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to 
 the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his 
 privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy, 
 consent, digital spying, cryptography etc... 

 Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent 
 of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to 
 denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer 
 street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror 
 truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-)  PGC
  

 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
 
  You?
 
  Edgar
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
 
  Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
  finding a life partner.
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 
 wrote:
 
  OK.
 
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you 
 respond?
  Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
 
  Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
  :-)
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 
 wrote:
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Jason,
 
  There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological 
 ones
  one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out 
 and answer
  your question.
 
  You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things 
 with
  no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality 
 we study
  what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's 
 thought to
  be
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
 
  
 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
 
 
  
 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
 
  http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
 
 
  
 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
 
  This is too easy...
 
  Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups
  Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an
  email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
  To post to this group, send email to 
  everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 --
 You 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Jason Resch



On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:


condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It  
answers this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your  
answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in  
the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye- 
rolling emoticon here)


OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a  
particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced  
technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created  
a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like  
substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in  
the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the  
simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,  
and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around,  
just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they  
have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using  
nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small  
space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming your  
thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your brain,  
and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model the  
part of your brain that stores them.


So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be  
earth-Edgar.


Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in  
a virtual world, and if so, how?



And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately  
see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly  
on the simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he  
can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics  
(in his head) and the physics in the simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).


OK?

Bruno



Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum  
computer so the simulants observed a kind of FPI?


Jason










--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/15 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com



 On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:

 condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...


 On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR  lizj...@gmail.com
 lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen  edgaro...@att.net
 edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers
 this question...

 Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person',
 what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the
 details of those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill
 formed as asked


 Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in the real
 actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye-rolling emoticon here)

 OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a particular
 scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced technology turned up last
 night and scanned your body, and created a computer model of it. We won't
 worry about subtleties like substitution levels and whether you are
 actually duplicated in the process. It's enough for the present discussion
 that the simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,
 and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around, just as you
 do, in a world just like the one you're living in (they have also modelled
 the Earth and its surroundings. Using nanotechnology they can do all this
 inside a relatively small space). The simulated Edgar will think just like
 you, assuming your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in
 your brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to model
 the part of your brain that stores them.

 So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be
 earth-Edgar.

 Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation in a
 virtual world, and if so, how?



 And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

 So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
 that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the
 simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he
 is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the
 physics in the simulation.
 The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
 infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
 or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).

 OK?

 Bruno


 Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum computer
 so the simulants observed a kind of FPI?


I think the soon or later is wrong, unless he would have a complete comp
theory in which he extracted the physics and use it to predict things in
his reality and face discrepancy... either he will acknowledge comp is
wrong, or he is in a simulation... but even if he is in a simulation, if
comp is true, at each steps, there is a continuation which is not in the
simulation... the thing then will be to know the proportion of
continuations which are in a simulation vs which are not...

But *some* individuals running in a simulation are doomed to *never* know
it... whatever they try, because there will always exists by definition a
continuation where the observer is unaware of inhabiting such simulation.

Quentin



 Jason








 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
 https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Terren Suydam
Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
 infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
 or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).


 An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say.


 Yes, and Terren.


I think the answer is more complex than that. The simulation is locally
finite, but so are all simulations. There is still FPI going on in the
rogue simulation - the one where Glak emerges from an
alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations from Glak's
state(s) in the alternative physics.

The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno is that I can
imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an alternative physics -
that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has memories of being Glak - but
Glak is not able to be implemented in our physics. For example, in the
alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is embodied in a completely
different kind of biology, a biology that is not compatible with our
physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a simulation running
in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure is more probable.
It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative
physics.

Terren

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 PGC,

 No, you have your facts wrong. I did NOT start this. My post you quoted
 was in response to Freq's previous comment that Also, I am really
 starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a life
 partner.

 Just check your own post. You will see that comment by Freq down below My
 post.

 If you can't even get your facts straight you can't be taken seriously

 Edgar


Just exchange start for fuel and my interpretation, including that the
thread is increasingly derailed by your private details + implications as
subject, stays the same.

I don't get my facts straight because I don't really care about the
details of this nonsense.

Inappropriate from both sides and doesn't belong into the thread, as I
don't understand what this is contributing to consciousness/states of
matter etc. If you can make that clear, please share. PGC






 On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:45:03 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
 thismind...@gmail.com wrote:
  SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
  compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman
 who
  believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
  selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young
 and
  healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also
 open
  to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion
 to
  share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful
 and
  down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal.
 That
  could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested
 in
  discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free
 to
  contact me at edga...@att.net. 

 
  And you said i didn't read things...

 This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
 Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
 you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

 Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
 discuss people.
 -- Eleanor Roosevelt


 Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have
 a life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications.
 That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread
 in that fashion.

 Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain *to
 the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to*, that his
 privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy,
 consent, digital spying, cryptography etc...

 Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent
 of some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to
 denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer
 street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror
 truth in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-)  PGC


 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
 
  You?
 
  Edgar
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
 wrote:
 
  Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
  finding a life partner.
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
 wrote:
 
  OK.
 
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you
 respond?
  Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
 
  Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
  :-)
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
 wrote:
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen
 wrote:
 
  Jason,
 
  There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological
 ones
  one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them
 out and answer
  your question.
 
  You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things
 with
  no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality
 we study
  what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's
 thought to
  be
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
 
  http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/
 first-synthetic-neuron-created/
 
 
  http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/
 researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
 
  http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
 
 
  http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-
 artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
 
  This is too easy...
 
  Does Edgar have a higher 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
 thismindisbud...@gmail.com wrote:
  SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
  compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
  believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
  selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young
  and
  healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also
  open
  to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion
  to
  share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
  down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
  could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested
  in
  discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
  contact me at edgaro...@att.net. 
 
  And you said i didn't read things...

 This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
 Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
 you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

 Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
 discuss people.
 -- Eleanor Roosevelt


 Sure, but Edgar did start this nonsense challenging provocatively I have a
 life partner. A truly wonderful one. You?; with all those implications.
 That's where this is none of our business started and derailed the thread
 in that fashion.

 Isn't this rather: As you sow, so you shall reap? Can a flasher complain to
 the person they just...inappropriately exposed themselves to, that his
 privacy was violated unfairly? Good question these days, what with privacy,
 consent, digital spying, cryptography etc...

 Don't get me wrong though. I guess snooping is low like flashing, consent of
 some party is violated in both cases. If you denounce one, you have to
 denounce the other though; that is, if you want to keep your denouncer
 street cred, uhm credible, solid, consistent, peer reviewed and mirror truth
 in the absolute because it's simply, really true, ok?. Good. ;-)  PGC

I fancy myself an anarchist, but you frequently make me feel conservative :)

From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I
mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one
initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while
being attacked by someone using a pseudonym. I have nothing against
pseudonyms and I use them too, but I don't think it's fair play to do
the sort of thing freqflyer did while using one.

Telmo.


 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.
 
  You?
 
  Edgar
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
 
  Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with
  finding a life partner.
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
  wrote:
 
  OK.
 
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Freq,
 
  Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you
  respond?
  Note I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.
 
  Send me a few links referencing that being possible please
  :-)
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972
  wrote:
 
 
 
  On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 
  Jason,
 
  There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological
  ones
  one by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out
  and answer
  your question.
 
  You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things
  with
  no basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we
  study
  what is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's
  thought to
  be
 
  Edgar
 
 
 
 
 
  http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
 
 
 
  http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf
 
  http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html
 
 
 
  http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests
 
  This is too easy...
 
  Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting?
 
  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
  Groups
  Everything List group.
  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
  an
  email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
  Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
  For more options, visit 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:43, Jason Resch wrote:




On Jan 15, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:29, Terren Suydam wrote:


condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 06:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It  
answers this question...


Actually to answer your question properly you have to define  
'person', what you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a  
'simulation'. In the details of those definitions will be your  
answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as asked


Yeah, unlike waffle about it's really real because it's real in  
the real actual world, really, because I say so (insert eye- 
rolling emoticon here)


OK, let's say we simulate you in a virtual world. Or, to get a  
particular scenario, let's assume some aliens with advanced  
technology turned up last night and scanned your body, and created  
a computer model of it. We won't worry about subtleties like  
substitution levels and whether you are actually duplicated in  
the process. It's enough for the present discussion that the  
simulated Edgar feels it's you, believes it's you, thinks its you,  
and appears to have a body like yours which it can move around,  
just as you do, in a world just like the one you're living in  
(they have also modelled the Earth and its surroundings. Using  
nanotechnology they can do all this inside a relatively small  
space). The simulated Edgar will think just like you, assuming  
your thoughts are, in fact, the product of computation in your  
brain, and it has your memories, because the aliens were able to  
model the part of your brain that stores them.


So, sim-Edgar wakes up the next morning and believes himself to be  
earth-Edgar.


Would he know, or discover at some point, that he's a simulation  
in a virtual world, and if so, how?



And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not  
immediately see that he is in a simulation, but, unless you  
intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you manipulate  
directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by  
comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the  
simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).


OK?

Bruno



Is this necessarily true if the simulation were run on a quantum  
computer so the simulants observed a kind of FPI?


But even a classical computer inherit our FPI. The global FPI should  
be completely invariant. You might only make the task of the simulant  
more difficult, by some encoding.


In a sense, you couldt add complexity to the task of failing them on  
physics, as you exploit the root of the FPI, (in case comp gives  
exactly QM, and the Heisenberg uncertainty circumscribe our level of  
substitution).


The simulants themselves follow the FPI all the times. The difficulty,  
is making them relating their normal histories.


I might try to think of a better answer. The difficulty is that a  
precise answer to this depends on the precise relation between the  
comp FPI and Everett FPI.


Bruno








Jason










--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

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


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

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


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




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 15 Jan 2014, at 17:50, Terren Suydam wrote:


Bruno,


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is  
necessarily infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the  
whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that he is in a  
simulation (or that comp is wrong).


An interesting answer! I wonder what Brent will say.


Yes, and Terren.

I think the answer is more complex than that. The simulation is  
locally finite, but so are all simulations.


OK.



There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one  
where Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are  
infinite continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative  
physics.


You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are  
introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not  
make sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of  
physics than us, with a very different histories and geographies and  
biologies.






The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno


It is a complex question.


is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an  
alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has  
memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in  
our physics.


At which level? What does that mean?




For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is  
embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that  
is not compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be  
uploaded to a simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer  
clear which measure is more probable. It seems possible to me that  
Glak's measure is greatest in the alternative physics.


No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person  
perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the  
poor 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too,  
soon or later, for the preview reasons.


This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in  
arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us,  
and that can be approached  by some modal logics related to  
arithmetical self-reference.  It is hard for me to really decide if  
UDA is more simple or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the  
subject. You might tell me, soon or later :)


Bruno





Terren


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our Mr
 Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
 21st century deserves to be shot.


I am not sure whether or not the word is defined differently or more
clearly in New Zealand, but there is definitely no clear meaning for the
term in the states, and here only about 1/3 of women polled described
themselves as feminist.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see that he is in a 
simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the simulation, or unless you 
manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he is in a simulation by comparing the 
comp physics (in his head) and the physics in the simulation.
The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily infinite (it 
emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon or later, he will bet that 
he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).



But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.

Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite would imply comp is wrong.  In a 
finite world it seems it would be even easier to be sure of saying yes to the doctor.  I 
think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it means that an artificial brain is possible 
other times it means that plus the whole UDA.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 12:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:39, LizR wrote:

On 15 January 2014 10:29, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com 
mailto:terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:


condescending dismissal in 3... 2... 1...

Teehee.

Not a condescending /*dismissal*/ in anyone else's mind, however, just more hand-waving 
nonsense that only Edgar could possibly think is a dismissal.


This is fun, in a masochistic sort of way, but I am starting to miss discussions with 
some real meat in them.


Ah ... Me too :)

Ready for a bit of (modal) logic? That is needed for the Solovay theorem, exploited 
heavily in the AUDA ...


I'd like to know what the existence of non-standard models of arithmetic, especially the 
finitist ones, implies for comp?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Terren Suydam
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where Glak
 emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite continuations
 from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.

What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something
more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine. There is a
reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno Marchal. Even if we
are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes through our
consciousness, in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and
identity of Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further
by hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and
identity must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology, in such a way
that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of Glak's memories etc,
could not possibly manifest in our physics.

The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us,
as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment. Our
(apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
physics, then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of
Glak's identity, and the measure of the most probable continuations for
Glak, I think, require that alternative body, which require an alternative
physics.

I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of
consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to allow
for alternate physics.

 Terren




 The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno


 It is a complex question.


 is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an
 alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has
 memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in our
 physics.


 At which level? What does that mean?




 For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is
 embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that is not
 compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a
 simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure
 is more probable. It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest
 in the alternative physics.


 No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person
 perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the poor
 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too, soon or
 later, for the preview reasons.

 This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in
 arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us, and
 that can be approached  by some modal logics related to arithmetical
 self-reference.  It is hard for me to really decide if UDA is more simple
 or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the subject. You might tell me,
 soon or later :)

 Bruno




 Terren


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 4:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:26 AM, freqflyer07281972
thismindisbud...@gmail.com  wrote:

SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a
compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who
believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or
selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and
healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open
to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to
share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and
down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That
could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in
discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to
contact me atedgaro...@att.net. 

And you said i didn't read things...

This is none of our business nor is it relevant in any way.
Being a big defender of the right to anonymity, it makes me sad that
you use yours against Edgar in such a low fashion.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds
discuss people.
-- Eleanor Roosevelt



I agree, Telmo. I think there is far too much mockery and insult.  Civility and courtesy 
better serve the search for knowledge.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 10:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in arithmetic. If Glak 
is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us


What does same mean here.  Same coupling constants?...same number of Higgs 
bosons?...same spacetime dimensions?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


RE: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Chris de Morsella
Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the internet 
and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a line. I 
think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own heart and ask 
yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own character… one that 
if I were you I would be trying to understand and work through.

Chris

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of freqflyer07281972
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:26 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 

SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION: I'm seeking a compatible, 
loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who believes that male 
female relationships should not be adversarial or selfish, but based on mutual 
love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and healthy enough to be able to help 
me out through my old age. I'm also open to the possibility of a long term 
possibly live in friend or companion to share my house and help take care of 
things. Someone quiet, peaceful and down to earth who appreciates my work and 
lifestyle would be ideal. That could be either a man or woman or even a couple. 
If you are interested in discussing this further or know someone who might be 
please feel free to contact me at edgaro...@att.net. 

And you said i didn't read things...

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Freq,

 

But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

 

You?

 

Edgar

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with finding a 
life partner. 

On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

OK.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Freq,

 

Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note I 
said that could replace biological neurons one by one.

 

Send me a few links referencing that being possible please

:-)

 

Edgar

 



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

 

There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one by 
one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer your 
question.

 

You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no basis 
in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what is 
actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be

 

Edgar




http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/  
http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
 

http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html

http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

This is too easy...

Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 05:57, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I
 mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one
 initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while
 being attacked by someone using a pseudonym. I have nothing against
 pseudonyms and I use them too, but I don't think it's fair play to do
 the sort of thing freqflyer did while using one.

 I disagree that Edgar is never the one initiating personal attacks. I
doubt if anyone would have retaliated in kind if he hadn't constantly
been making derogatory remarks about everyone who disagrees with him. I've
observed many heated arguments on this list and others in which the
participants, while obviously passionately believing their views to be
right and their opponents to be a crock, nevertheless manage to preserve
politeness. Generally people also try to put their ideas across clearly,
trying different tacks if one is clearly not getting across. They geneally
respect the other person's viewpoint and make a serious effort to
understand it - and occasionally even realise that they are wrong and the
other person is right (I've even done it myself...)

We have had none of the above courtesies from Edgar. His explanations are
woolly and one note, with no attempt at re-presenting them with, say,
mathematical models or meaningful analogies. He is constantly insinuating
that people who disagree must be stupid, and sometimes saying it outright.
He clearly doesn't get the problems others (from Einstein onwards) have
perceived with his universal time idea, and furthermore makes no effort
to do so. He is constantly patronising, smug and up himself. I would almost
say he has adopted the bad points of Isaac Newton while ignoring the good
ones (kind of in a similar vein to the reasoning they laughed at Galileo
and Einstein, and they're laughing at me, so I must be a genius too!)

I don't know about the name-vs-pseudonym business. I wouldn't have posted
Edgar's lonely hearts thing myself (well, I hope I wouldn't!) but I can see
why someone would be tempted to do so. Edgar has spent the last week or so
calling everyone stupid and was in the process of nitpicking FF about a
thought experiment, rather than answering the question honestly, and that
evasiveness and refusal to answer honest questions coupled with his usual
smugness was no doubt very irritating. (Also, if FF has encounted EO on
other forums, as seems to be the case, there may be some history we're
unaware of.)

But none of that excuses posting personal details, I agree.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 08:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:50 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Assuming this is genuine (and the phraseology certainly sounds like our
 Mr Owen) ... all I can say is, anyone who asks for a non-feminist in the
 21st century deserves to be shot.


 I am not sure whether or not the word is defined differently or more
 clearly in New Zealand, but there is definitely no clear meaning for the
 term in the states, and here only about 1/3 of women polled described
 themselves as feminist.


OK, I admit that was a slight over-reaction. I don't really think he should
be shot - but I do think this is a significant point, and that anyone who
asks for a non-feminist should at the very least be treated with great
caution by anyone who may be interested.

The point isn't to do with the fact that only 1/3 of US women describe
themselves as feminists. I don't actually describe myself as one, because I
think the feminist movement has made sufficient headway in the Western
world that most people nowadays have opinions that would have been
described as feminist 50 years ago. So most people are feminists, to some
extent, even men (yes I know they're only pretending because that's the way
to get laid, don't distract me...) No, seriously, lots of things are now
accepted - equal opportunities, equal pay (almost), maternity leave etc -
whether this is good for society, I'm not 100% sure, but anyway that's a
discussion for a different thread. Hence, when I use the term feminist I
mean a more hardline feminist, and as such I generally think of an
ideology that includes some things I disagree with, like the idea that
gender roles are purely cultural constructs.

Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a
non-feminist must be wanting someone who will accept a female role from
long ago and far away - they're looking for someone docile and obedient,
with non-threatening hair. This specific usage speaks to me of a control
freak. Now, personally I am happy to *play* at being submissive and
suchlike, but only within an equal relationship, and I am not 100% happy
that anyone should apparently want that to be the defining dynamic of their
relationship.

(THAT said, I'm happy to fantasise about being the woman in Secretary ...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 08:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/15/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 And the answer is yes, he would know that, but not immediately.

  So it would not change the indeterminacy, as he will not immediately see
 that he is in a simulation, but, unless you intervene repeatedly on the
 simulation, or unless you manipulate directly his mind, he can see that he
 is in a simulation by comparing the comp physics (in his head) and the
 physics in the simulation.
 The simulation is locally finite, and the comp-physics is necessarily
 infinite (it emerges from the 1p indeterminacy on the whole UD*), so, soon
 or later, he will bet that he is in a simulation (or that comp is wrong).

 But if it is sufficiently large he won't find it is finite.


That was my objection too. Maybe the point is that the time he will take is
proportional to the size? If you simulate the Hubble sphere, a simulated
person won't find out for maybe 100 billion years. But can't the sim just
be set up to always generate the person's surroundings, like in the
Heinlein story about the guy who thinks he's paranoid?


 Also, I don't understand why finding his world is finite would imply comp
 is wrong.  In a finite world it seems it would be even easier to be sure of
 saying yes to the doctor.  I think you equivocate on comp; sometimes it
 means that an artificial brain is possible other times it means that plus
 the whole UDA.


I think - vaguely! - that this has something to do with the integers being
infinite.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Thanks Chris, much appreciated!

Best,
Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

 Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the 
 internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a 
 line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own 
 heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own 
 character… one that if I were you I would be trying to understand and work 
 through.

 Chris

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *
 freqflyer07281972
 *Sent:* Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:26 PM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

  

 *SEEKING A COMPATIBLE WOMAN OR LONG TERM COMPANION:* I'm seeking a 
 compatible, loyal, caring, natural, affectionate, non-feminist woman who 
 believes that male female relationships should not be adversarial or 
 selfish, but based on mutual love, trust and benefit. Hopefully young and 
 healthy enough to be able to help me out through my old age. I'm also open 
 to the possibility of a long term possibly live in friend or companion to 
 share my house and help take care of things. Someone quiet, peaceful and 
 down to earth who appreciates my work and lifestyle would be ideal. That 
 could be either a man or woman or even a couple. If you are interested in 
 discussing this further or know someone who might be please feel free to 
 contact me at edga...@att.net javascript:. 

 And you said i didn't read things...

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:21:39 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

  

 But I have a life partner, a truly wonderful one.

  

 You?

  

 Edgar

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:03:55 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 Also, I am really starting to understand why you have difficulty with 
 finding a life partner. 

 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:02:30 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:

 OK.

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201200640/abstract



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:56:09 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Freq,

  

 Yes it is too easy. Do you actually read anything before you respond? Note 
 I said that could replace biological neurons one by one.

  

 Send me a few links referencing that being possible please

 :-)

  

 Edgar

  



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:51:13 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote:



 On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:24:31 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Jason,

  

 There are no 'synthetic neurons' that could replace biological ones one 
 by one.  When there are let me know and I'll check them out and answer 
 your question.

  

 You are letting your imagination run wild here imagining things with no 
 basis in reality as if they were true. When we study reality we study what 
 is actually true, not sci fi no matter how 'cool' it's thought to be

  

 Edgar


 http://metabiological.wordpress.com/2011/04/25/first-synthetic-neuron-created/
  



 http://www.princeton.edu/pccmeducation/undergrad/reu/researchprojects/REU2008Presentations/duseja-richardson.pdf

 http://www.neurotechreports.com/pages/hybrids.html


 http://www.dvice.com/2012-12-2/worlds-most-complex-artificial-brain-ever-passes-iq-tests

 This is too easy...

 Does Edgar have a higher difficulty setting? 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread meekerdb

On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks /specifically/ for a non-feminist must 
be wanting someone who will accept a female role from long ago and far away - they're 
looking for someone docile and obedient, with non-threatening hair.


On the other hand, given as you say that being feminists is taken for granted in the West, 
I'd tend to avoid a woman who did identify herself as a feminist.  Might have a chip on 
her shoulder.  So maybe Edgar was just trying to avoid that kind of woman.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

I've never called anyone on this list stupid, not a single time. You 
claim I have spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid. That is 
simply not true so one wonders why you would say it?


Edgar



On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:57:53 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 16 January 2014 05:57, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 From what I could observe, Edgar came here with his ideas (which I
 mostly don't agree with, but that's fine). He was never the one
 initiating personal attacks. Also he's using his real name, while
 being attacked by someone using a pseudonym. I have nothing against
 pseudonyms and I use them too, but I don't think it's fair play to do
 the sort of thing freqflyer did while using one.

 I disagree that Edgar is never the one initiating personal attacks. I 
 doubt if anyone would have retaliated in kind if he hadn't constantly 
 been making derogatory remarks about everyone who disagrees with him. I've 
 observed many heated arguments on this list and others in which the 
 participants, while obviously passionately believing their views to be 
 right and their opponents to be a crock, nevertheless manage to preserve 
 politeness. Generally people also try to put their ideas across clearly, 
 trying different tacks if one is clearly not getting across. They geneally 
 respect the other person's viewpoint and make a serious effort to 
 understand it - and occasionally even realise that they are wrong and the 
 other person is right (I've even done it myself...)

 We have had none of the above courtesies from Edgar. His explanations are 
 woolly and one note, with no attempt at re-presenting them with, say, 
 mathematical models or meaningful analogies. He is constantly insinuating 
 that people who disagree must be stupid, and sometimes saying it outright. 
 He clearly doesn't get the problems others (from Einstein onwards) have 
 perceived with his universal time idea, and furthermore makes no effort 
 to do so. He is constantly patronising, smug and up himself. I would almost 
 say he has adopted the bad points of Isaac Newton while ignoring the good 
 ones (kind of in a similar vein to the reasoning they laughed at Galileo 
 and Einstein, and they're laughing at me, so I must be a genius too!)

 I don't know about the name-vs-pseudonym business. I wouldn't have posted 
 Edgar's lonely hearts thing myself (well, I hope I wouldn't!) but I can see 
 why someone would be tempted to do so. Edgar has spent the last week or so 
 calling everyone stupid and was in the process of nitpicking FF about a 
 thought experiment, rather than answering the question honestly, and that 
 evasiveness and refusal to answer honest questions coupled with his usual 
 smugness was no doubt very irritating. (Also, if FF has encounted EO on 
 other forums, as seems to be the case, there may be some history we're 
 unaware of.)

 But none of that excuses posting personal details, I agree.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

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

Correct. I actually spell it out and make it pretty clear in the advert 
what I mean by a non-feminist. 

Edgar


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:45:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:
  
 Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a 
 non-feminist must be wanting someone who will accept a female role from 
 long ago and far away - they're looking for someone docile and obedient, 
 with non-threatening hair.


 On the other hand, given as you say that being feminists is taken for 
 granted in the West, I'd tend to avoid a woman who did identify herself as 
 a feminist.  Might have a chip on her shoulder.  So maybe Edgar was just 
 trying to avoid that kind of woman.

 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 15 January 2014 23:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:39, LizR wrote:

 On 15 January 2014 21:49, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 On 15 Jan 2014, at 02:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Liz,

 Are you describing YOUR inability to understand MY satirical comment
 perchance? I even included a smiley to indicate that which you didn't...

 Lighten up and smile!
 :-)

 You cannot insult someone and ask him or her to smile.


 It's a technique of the bully. Make fun of someone, then ask them why they
 aren't laughing.

 I agree, it is a bullying technic.
 But in the case of Edgar, I don't think he is purposefully bullying.
 He just seem unaware of what it means to confront his ideas with others.


I hope you're right.

 However I *was* smiling, actually, after reading that, because Edgar's
 heavy-handed attempt at retaliatory humour, together with the way he
 clearly doesn't understand what satire is, were in fact laughable.
 (But I didn't laugh too much, because I was at work at the time :)

 Yeah, ... but it is also a bit sad.

 Yes, I think so too.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread Jason Resch
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.comwrote:




 On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 There is still FPI going on in the rogue simulation - the one where
 Glak emerges from an alternative-physics, as there are infinite
 continuations from Glak's state(s) in the alternative physics.


 You cannot change the FPI, as it is the same for all machines. You are
 introducing a special physical continuation, which a priori does not make
 sense. Glak, in his own normal world obeys the same laws of physics than
 us, with a very different histories and geographies and biologies.


 I'm asking you, for the moment, and in apparent contradiction with the
 math, to suspend the AUDA entailment that there is a single physics.

 What I'm suggesting is that Glak's identity is constructed from something
 more than its characterization as a mere Lobian machine. There is a
 reason why I will suddenly never wake up to be Bruno Marchal. Even if we
 are both Lobian machines, there is a lot more that goes through our
 consciousness, in order to arrive at the unique subjective experience and
 identity of Bruno or Terren, than mere Lobianity. I'm taking that further
 by hypothesizing the example of Glak, whose subjective experience and
 identity must be bound to a *particular* physics/biology, in such a way
 that a being who self-identifies as Glak, with all of Glak's memories etc,
 could not possibly manifest in our physics.


I agree with this point. I think one's own conscious moment defines a
particular trajectory of likely experiences and continuations, including
for example, what your future possible experiences are if you open a book
to look up the mass of the electron to be, or the age of the universe. That
we already have such notions on our minds, at least momentarily, traps us
in those universes where those results are correct and definite. A still
stranger idea is that if we forget this, or it slips our mind and we decide
to open a book again and see what the result is, is it certain to even be
the same? Might it change, or agree with a previously remembered value (in
an altogether different universe?), in effect, reality can slip out from
underneath us without us knowing, and later appear to match all our
memories and recollections. But I think we are in some sense bound by the
experience, in the same way how your mom looks could change when you aren't
thinking of how she looks, she could not look grossly different without it
changing the DNA and structure of your brain, so in that sense what
possibilities exist for her is constrained by what you are experiencing now.

Jason



 The sticking point of the AUDA for me has always been the identity of us,
 as human beings, with the idealized machines being interviewed. We are
 clearly Lobian, in some sense, but it also seems clear to me that our
 consciousness, our subjective experience, integrates its embodiment. Our
 (apparent) bodies are part of our identities, and through sensory
 interfaces shape our subjective experience... and as our bodies are part of
 physics, then Glak's body in an alternative physics is likewise a part of
 Glak's identity, and the measure of the most probable continuations for
 Glak, I think, require that alternative body, which require an alternative
 physics.

 I'm wondering if there's room in the math for an accounting of
 consciousness that goes beyond Lobian machines in such a way as to allow
 for alternate physics.

  Terren




 The reason I am still unsure of your answer here Bruno


 It is a complex question.


 is that I can imagine a scenario where Glak is implemented in an
 alternative physics - that is to say, knows herself as Glak and has
 memories of being Glak - but Glak is not able to be implemented in our
 physics.


 At which level? What does that mean?




 For example, in the alternative physics world, Glak's psychology is
 embodied in a completely different kind of biology, a biology that is not
 compatible with our physics. Now by comp, Glak's mind can be uploaded to a
 simulation running in our physics, but it is no longer clear which measure
 is more probable. It seems possible to me that Glak's measure is greatest
 in the alternative physics.


 No problem with that. Then we will not fail him from his first person
 perspective, because he will go back there in a nanosecond. And the poor
 3p-I staying here with us, well, he will suspect something too, soon or
 later, for the preview reasons.

 This should be clearer, hopefully, when I translate probability in
 arithmetic. If Glak is Löbian, then it has the same physics than us, and
 that can be approached  by some modal logics related to arithmetical
 self-reference.  It is hard for me to really decide if UDA is more simple
 or more complex than AUDA, on the heart of the subject. You might tell me,
 soon or later :)

 Bruno




 Terren


 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 11:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 I've never called anyone on this list stupid, not a single time. You
 claim I have spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid. That is
 simply not true so one wonders why you would say it?

 Because you keep implying it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
On 16 January 2014 11:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 1/15/2014 2:14 PM, LizR wrote:

 Anyway. That said, I think that anyone who asks *specifically* for a
 non-feminist must be wanting someone who will accept a female role from
 long ago and far away - they're looking for someone docile and obedient,
 with non-threatening hair.


 On the other hand, given as you say that being feminists is taken for
 granted in the West, I'd tend to avoid a woman who did identify herself as
 a feminist.  Might have a chip on her shoulder.  So maybe Edgar was just
 trying to avoid that kind of woman.


It's possible, but it didn't read that way, to me at least. I was a bit
outraged that anyone would say that in this day and age, but in any case
it's none of our business.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread LizR
To take one example at random, when Stephen suggested that your theory had
similarities with ideal monism, you said:

Trying to shoehorn it won't help you understand it.

This implies that Stephen's attempt to understand your theory was
shoehorning and that he wasn't able to understand it, both of which are
insulting and derogatory suggestions. There are countless similar examples
of you insulting people's intelligence, which is to say, implying that
they're stupid.


On 16 January 2014 16:02, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 16 January 2014 11:48, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 I've never called anyone on this list stupid, not a single time. You
 claim I have spent the last week or so calling everyone stupid. That is
 simply not true so one wonders why you would say it?

 Because you keep implying it.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-15 Thread freqflyer07281972


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 4:54:09 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

 Man that’s uncool. You may think he is an idiot, but to go troll the 
 internet and then publish on this list his very personal life is crossing a 
 line. I think you owe the man an apology and need to look into your own 
 heart and ask yourself if perhaps this exposes an ugly wart in your own 
 character… one that if I were you I would be trying to understand and work 
 through.

 Chris

  

Just for the record:

a) I apologized (on a new thread so I wouldn't derail this one)

b) I didn't have to troll the internet very far to find his lonely hearts 
advert -- it's on the front page of google after you search edgar owen -- 
second entry -- I was just trying to find more information about this book 
on reality he keeps talking about, but his blog is the second entry in the 
search, and the advert is the very first thing you see when you go to the 
site -- hardly private details... indeed, given his clearly narcissistic 
posture, I thought he would be quite flattered anyone took that level of 
interest in him. 

c) Ugly wart on my character? You think I am not aware that I have warts on 
my character? Dude, I got tons of 'em, all over the damn place... I think 
anyone who is honest with themselves will also find them. Oh yah, no doubt 
it exposes an ugly wart on my character. I only wish other people would be 
equally honest in their self-assessments (lookin' at you, Edgar) and take 
the time to perhaps try to understand and work through their ugly warts, 
i.e. condescension, truculence,  delusion. For me, it's a constant and 
daily struggle, but I never stop working at it... I admit that I backslide 
a bit and do some dumb stuff though, and looking back, I realize that 
posting that thing from Edgar's site was not a decent thing to do -- I 
fully accept your condemnation and repent. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 13 Jan 2014, at 18:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Terren,

Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical  
realities being computed. There is no Platonia


You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in  
my theory.


Comp needs only the arithmetical Platonia, that is, the idea that 17  
is prime independently of you, me, or the (physical) universe.


Without it, you can't even define what is a computation.






There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present  
moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our  
existence.


Of course, if that is obvious ...




Just pull your head out of your books and look around for goodness  
sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present moment...


That is true for all conscious moments, at any time.





No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation  
of reality is different.


There is absolute certain evidence for real, actual reality.


You confuse your own consciousness with reality.




Something has to be real because we exist,


OK.




and what we exist in is reality.


Perhaps, but that cannot be used to define or explain reality. Or it  
becomes circular.




Whatever that is is the real, actual reality. Anyone who doesn't  
think reality actually exists is brain dead


Reality exists by definition. But this does not entail that we know  
what reality is.


Bruno


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2014/1/14 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net

 Liz,

 That's one possibility but more likely is that you just don't take the
 time to read and consider what I've actually written in your over eagerness
 to criticize...


The more likely is that you just talking garbage since the beginning...
your present time idea is just silly and plain false, when you say
computation in fact it means kdsnlkfsfnsdklnfdslkn but not computation,
etc, etc, etc... You're a joke (a bad one).

Quentin



 Anyway thanks for letting us know you don't have any theory of reality
 yourself in spite of your incessant proclamations as to what reality must
 be or is not.
 :-)

 Edgar



 On Monday, January 13, 2014 7:39:11 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 14 January 2014 13:23, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the
 essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on
 consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally
 by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book).
 I made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register...

 Yes, I know, you're surrounded by idiots. Never mind, one day everyone
 will tremble before your mighty intellect.

 In the meantime, you can always practice your maniacal laughter...

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Jason,

There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.

It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality 
but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time 
thinking about it. As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists 
assume their must be multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after 
all.

Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you..

Edgar




On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jason,

 Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite. 


 You believe there is only one physical universe, right?  What is your 
 justification for this?  How do you know there wasn't another big bang 
 really far away that we cannot see?  Or for that matter another universe 
 altogether, with different laws?  I see only assertions from you, but no 
 reasons, arguments, justifications, etc.
  

 See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real 
 and actual can be infinite

 We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate 
 physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it.


 There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from 
 existing?  Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big 
 bangs, what does it get wrong?
  


 I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains 
 reality as it is observed.


 If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you 
 reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the 
 presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only 
 one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many.
  


 There is not only one computation being performed in OE. There are 
 uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of 
 information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing 
 both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being 
 computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those 
 that are actually being computed, 


 Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were 
 being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their 
 existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under 
 the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their 
 tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use 
 our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it 
 before our eyes.
  

 and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to 
 what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'?


 I don't consider these wild what ifs, these are legitimate questions, 
 which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists.
  


 Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that 
 informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the 
 current logical structures of their information environments. They exist 
 and function within their information environments to the extent that 
 sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external 
 reality in its simulation of it.


 So if every being only has access to their local environments, what 
 justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities 
 elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)?
  


 Biological organisms do function effectively in their information 
 environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as 
 internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to 
 make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings, 
 meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal 
 simulation of it.


 I agree.
  


 The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment 
 PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi.


 Descartes cast serious doubt on this and he hasn't been refuted in the 
 hundreds of years since making his ideas public. We can know that our 
 thought is real, and from there maybe guess that some thinker is real, but 
 beyond that the foundation becomes very shaky and you won't find any proof 
 that what you think is real in your perceptions correspond to reality, 
 unless you go so far as to say perceptions are the only reality. But then 
 you will fall into solipsism and immaterialism.

 Jason
  

 If our functioning works according to some set of rules then those rules 
 are reality, if our functioning doesn't work then the rules we functioned 
 by are sci fi, or worse, delusion.

 Truth is internal consistency of our simulation across maximum scope. If 
 there is some inconsistency then we 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent,

Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that 
idea I wonder?
:-)

There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that 
exists by definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is 
ACTUAL. It's existence falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine 
other possible worlds but they aren't REALLY possible because they don't 
actually exist. 

You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a 
whole. It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on Why our Fine 
Tuning for a detailed explanation of why the logic of day to day things as 
expressed in linguistic syntax misleads when one attempts to apply it to 
the universe as a whole.

When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why 
other possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist 
is what ACTUALLY exists.

Edgar



On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:05:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 1/13/2014 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  
 Brent, 

  Jesus Brent don't you understand basic English syntax and logic, or are 
 you being purposefully dense?

  I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, 
  

 You wrote below, No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds.  We're pretty 
 sure there's one possible world - since we're in it.  So either there's 
 just one possible world (this one).  Or there is more than one possible 
 world.  So which is it?  You're the one contradicting yourself here. 

  I clearly stated there is only one ACTUAL world and many actual 
 simulations of that world in the minds of biological organisms. I even put 
 the words POSSIBLE and ACTUAL in caps to make it easy to understand.
  

 Pay attention to your own logic. Stating there is only one actual world is 
 compatible with that being the only possible world, or one world actualized 
 out of many possible - hence my question.  I now take that you think there 
 are more possible worlds than the actual one we experience. Is that how you 
 allow for quantum randomness: one possible world is realized from the 
 random ensemble that QM predicts?

  
  Of course that doesn't completely falsify pink rabbits or any other kind 
 of alternate realty but there is no evidence for those things. Now you are 
 criticizing my theory because it doesn't explain things for which there is 
 no evidence whatsoever? Get real!
  

 Where did I criticize your theory (except the relativity part)?  I just 
 asked questions.

  
  I'll let you spend your time constructing theories to explain what there 
 is no evidence for if you like. I have better things to do...
  

 But when there are multiple possible worlds but only one actual world, 
 then a theory of everything needs to explain why only the one is actual.  
 Maybe that's beyond your theory, which is OK; not every theory has to be a 
 theory of everything.  

 Brent


  
  Edgar

 On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:16:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 1/13/2014 6:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  
 Brent, 

  No, there are NOT many POSSIBLE worlds. 
  

 So there is only one possible world.  That would seem to imply the world 
 is determinstic.  How do you account for quantum randomness?  Are you 
 assuming hidden variables or hyperdeterminism?

  There are many ACTUAL simulations of a single computational reality, 
 and all of those simulations are not arbitrary sci fi scenarios but solidly 
 based in the actual logic of reality at least in their essentials. Because 
 these are real world views of real biological organisms. They have to be 
 accurate in their essentials for the organisms to exist and function.
  

 Yes that's all very well.  We and other beings model the world in our 
 minds. And (we hope) those models are accurate.  But that does not 
 logically entail that there cannot be other worlds with different physics 
 and different beings making mental models of it.  Are you just asserting it 
 as a contingent fact, or do you have some argument that only this world 
 with its physics is possible?

  
  I find it difficult to understand how you would think I believe in 
 many possible worlds with alternative physics, etc. when I've 
 consistently argued just the opposite.
  

 So far as I can tell you've never argued that this is the only possible 
 world.  You've just asserted that it is real and everything real is in it.  
 That doesn't logically entail that no other real worlds are possible.

 Brent

  
  Edgar

   

 On Monday, January 13, 2014 8:42:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

 On 1/13/2014 4:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Terren, 
  
  No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to 
 consider not just 
  what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or simulation but 
 the whole context of 
  the simulation. I'll try again. Even if a simulated world is entirely 
 convincing in the 
  short term it still MUST exist in the actual reality, and if it is not 
 in accordance 
  with the 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Brent,

Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single 
state that things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous 
non-linear spectrum from a thermostat through a mars rover through all 
biological organisms to a human and possibly beyond. Each of these has an 
awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly in terms of its actual 
structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration of the 
forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so 
properly speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that 
sense everything is the universe has some form of what could be called 
proto-consciousness.

Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty 
much an arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is 
simply the same old generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational 
reality. Normally consciousness is defined to denote some level of 
self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there are internal 
computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
its state is and how it is changing.

So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how 
consciousness is defined. In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the 
machine added to a machine, biological or otherwise, but the operational 
consequences of the structure of that machine, and its nature is strictly 
determined by the operation of those actual structures.

Edgar



On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Brent, 
  
  For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. 
 They are 
  completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
 reality in your 
  zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
 having this 
  discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know 
 things? 

 Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
 consequence of 
 your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to know things? 
  You never answered 
 my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You 
 evaded it by saying 
 conscious wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
 kinds of 
 consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot 
 that had that 
 kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot know things? 
  Does the Mars Rover 
 know things?  anything? 

 Brent 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Edgar L. Owen
Liz,

See my response to Brent on consciousness of an hour ago. It answers this 
question...

Actually to answer your question properly you have to define 'person', what 
you mean by an 'AI' and what you mean by a 'simulation'. In the details of 
those definitions will be your answer... It's arbitrary and ill formed as 
asked

Edgar


On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:53:23 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Liz,

 Of course it's possible to create an AI. It's done all the time. I've 
 programmed a number of them myself.

 Edgar

 On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:28:47 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 14 January 2014 16:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 That's not artificial intelligence. Completely different concept...


 No it isn't. If we could create an AI, we could put it inside a simulated 
 world, and then it would be equivalent to a character living in a video 
 game. So there wouldn't be someone living outside the game, strapped to a 
 couch with wires and tubes, in this particular case. Do you think it's 
 impossible to create an AI, even in principle?


 On Monday, January 13, 2014 10:00:09 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 14 January 2014 14:49, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is 
 adolescent fantasy. Is there some real person living inside the game? If 
 so 
 he has to actually be living outside the game (a la Matrix strapped to a 
 couch with wires and tubes) and thus subject to the actual laws of 
 reality.

 If someone is just a character in a video game then he is not a real 
 and actual being and totally irrelevant.

 I can't believe anyone would take this idea seriously...

 Lots of people take the idea of artificial intelligence seriously.

  



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Jason Resch
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 There is only one reality because I define reality as all that exists.


That's fine and I agree with it, but I asked how you know there is only one
physical universe.



 It is conceivable there is more than one physical universe in that reality
 but until you give me some evidence of it I'm not going to waste my time
 thinking about it.


Fine tuning, eternal inflation, no collapse theories, string theory,
arithmetical realism, to name a few.

Also, I could throw the same argument back at you: until you give me some
evidence this is the only possible universe that can exist, why should I
waste my time with the conclusions you draw from that?


As I've pointed out most of the reasons cosmologists assume their must be
 multiverses or MWs turn out not to be reasons after all.

 Whether you buy my arguments on that is up to you..


What are your arguments? All I see is I see no evidence for X so I won't
waste my time with X and instead will decide to believe X is false.  This
is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Moreover, there is substantial evidence for many of the above theories I
mentioned, all of which have multiple universes as a consequence.

Jason




On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:37:51 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:




 On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jason,

 Reality is not 'small', it's very very large. It's just not infinite.


 You believe there is only one physical universe, right?  What is your
 justification for this?  How do you know there wasn't another big bang
 really far away that we cannot see?  Or for that matter another universe
 altogether, with different laws?  I see only assertions from you, but no
 reasons, arguments, justifications, etc.


 See my other post of an hour ago for an explanation of why nothing real
 and actual can be infinite

 We explain what we can observe. If you have evidence of some alternate
 physics somewhere only then you can ask me why I don't assume it.


 There are many solutions in string theory, what prohibits the others from
 existing?  Eternal inflation says there are an infinite number of big
 bangs, what does it get wrong?



 I don't assume any 'collapse of wave' I posit what best explains
 reality as it is observed.


 If there is no collapse of the wave, then there are many worlds. But you
 reject both collapse and many-worlds, which seems contradictory. It is the
 presumption of collapse that is the justification for saying there is only
 one real world, when the mathematics of QM predict there should be many.



 There is not only one computation being performed in OE. There are
 uncountable googles of them in every processor cycle since every element of
 information in the entire universe is effectively a processor containing
 both code and data. But to assume all possible computations are being
 computed is rather off the wall since we observe only the results of those
 that are actually being computed,


 Assume for a moment that all possible types of physical universes were
 being computed. Do you believe we would *necessarily *be aware of their
 existence? I don't think we would, just like the hypothetical fish under
 the ice of Europa would not be aren't aware of anything else beyond their
 tiny isolated view of reality. Given that, I don't think it is valid to use
 our perceptions to say what does not exist, only because we cannot see it
 before our eyes.


 and they most certainly aren't all possible ones. How about sticking to
 what is actually real and observable instead of engaging in wild 'what ifs'?


 I don't consider these wild what ifs, these are legitimate questions,
 which are seriously considered and debated by serious scientists.



 Yes, of course there is something external to biological minds that
 informs their internal simulations. Biological minds continually sample the
 current logical structures of their information environments. They exist
 and function within their information environments to the extent that
 sampling is accurate. All the rest is qualia that mind adds to external
 reality in its simulation of it.


 So if every being only has access to their local environments, what
 justification is there to deny the existence of other possibilities
 elsewhere (beyond the scope of those creature's perceptions)?



 Biological organisms do function effectively in their information
 environments. That is how we confirm they do accurately represent it as
 internal knowledge. However that representation is highly embellished to
 make it appear as a physical dimensional world full of colors, feelings,
 meanings etc. which are not in the external world but only in our internal
 simulation of it.


 I agree.



 The fact that we do exist and function within our information environment
 PROVES we do know what is real and what is sci fi.


 Descartes cast serious 

Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there
 is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
 minds of biological organisms.


OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a
simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one?
And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but
it's logically possible.

 Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is
 adolescent fantasy.


It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between
adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information
that can be processed.

 Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things?


Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but
give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread meekerdb

On 1/14/2014 9:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Glad you aren't criticizing my theory! Thanks! How could I have gotten that 
idea I wonder?
:-)

There is only one ACTUAL world or reality which includes everything that exists by 
definition. There are NO POSSIBLE worlds except the one that is ACTUAL. It's existence 
falsifies all others. Of course you can imagine other possible worlds but they aren't 
REALLY possible because they don't actually exist.


You are improperly applying the logic of day to day things to reality as a 
whole.


No, I'm not.  I'm asking about quantum mechanics.  Are you denying that there are 
different possible outcomes in measuring the spin a particle along the x-axis after it has 
been measured along the y-axis?  We only observe one outcome.  So how does your theory 
model the apparent randomness?


Brent

It is not properly applicable. See my new topic on Why our Fine Tuning for a detailed 
explanation of why the logic of day to day things as expressed in linguistic syntax 
misleads when one attempts to apply it to the universe as a whole.


When you understand that it is clear that a TOE doesn't have to explain why other 
possibilities DON'T exist, it only has to explain why what does exist is what ACTUALLY 
exists.


Edgar


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread meekerdb

On 1/14/2014 9:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Brent,

Again, you are making the mistake of thinking consciousness is some single state that 
things either have or don't have. There is actually a continuous non-linear spectrum 
from a thermostat through a mars rover through all biological organisms to a human and 
possibly beyond. Each of these has an awareness (I call it Xperience) defined strictly 
in terms of its actual structure and how that works. All Xperience is simply alteration 
of the forms of something in computational interaction with other forms, so properly 
speaking every event in the universe is an Xperience so in that sense everything is the 
universe has some form of what could be called proto-consciousness.


Where you want to define 'actual consciousness' on this spectrum is pretty much an 
arbitrary definition. However it is defined, consciousness is simply the same old 
generic Xperience which is fundamental to computational reality. Normally consciousness 
is defined to denote some level of self-descriptive Xperience, in the sense that there 
are internal computational forms that tell an organism what it is Xperiencing and what 
its state is and how it is changing.


So a character in a video game could know things and could even be self conscious - 
contrary to your previous dismissal.


Brent



So the answer to your questions is pretty much a matter of how consciousness is defined. 
In all cases it's not any soul or ghost in the machine added to a machine, biological or 
otherwise, but the operational consequences of the structure of that machine, and its 
nature is strictly determined by the operation of those actual structures.


Edgar



On Monday, January 13, 2014 11:09:29 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 1/13/2014 6:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 Brent,

 For God's sakes, the characters in a video game' don't know anything. 
They are
 completely fictional characters. You seem to have lost all touch with 
reality in your
 zeal to find something to criticize. I can't believe we are actually 
having this
 discussion... Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know 
things?

Do you believe computations can realize beings that know things (it's a 
consequence of
your theory if I'm not mistaken).  What does it take to know things?  You 
never
answered
my question as to what it would take to make a conscious robot.  You evaded 
it by
saying
conscious wasn't well defined.  And I agree that there are levels and 
kinds of
consciousness.  But choose one or two - what would it take to make a robot 
that had
that
kind of consciousness.  What would it take for a robot know things?  Does 
the Mars
Rover
know things?  anything?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter

2014-01-14 Thread Edgar L. Owen
John,

The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we 
appear to live in IS the real actual world (though heavily filtered through 
our own internal simulation as I've explained before). To assume otherwise 
in the absence of any actual evidence is a waste of time. We can imagine we 
live in some simulation by some super beings and that may or may not be a 
possibility (I maintain there will always be a way to figure that out), but 
there is no evidence at all that it's an actuality or even remotely likely.

Until there is some actual evidence it's just sci fi and not the proper 
subject of science...

Edgar



On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 1:46:58 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

  I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there 
 is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the 
 minds of biological organisms.


 OK, but is the world you and I are familiar with the real deal or a 
 simulation made by some organism, almost certainly a non-biological one? 
 And is that organism a simulation made by something else? I don't know but 
 it's logically possible. 

  Come on Jason, the whole notion of 'living inside a video game' is 
 adolescent fantasy. 


 It's largely a difference in quantity not quality. The difference between 
 adolescent fantasy and everyday occurrence is the amount of information 
 that can be processed.

  Do you also believe ghosts, trolls and fairies know things?


 Not yet, and it might not happen for many trillions of nanoseconds, but 
 give Moore's law enough time and almost anything could happen.

   John K Clark 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


  1   2   3   >