Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/17 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/16 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
2014/1/16 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/16 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
2014/1/16 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/15 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2014/1/14 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Re: Consciousness as a State of Matter
Brent, Please, please, please! Read my New Topic on How Spacetime emerges from computational reality. I answer that QM question in considerable detail. I explain why the spin entanglement paradox is not actually paradoxical. It's the real complete answer to your question but nobody even commented on it. It's one of the main topics of my theory, I devote all of Part III of my book to it, but apparently it didn't even register with anyone... Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:27:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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
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. 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
Brent, Of course not. Characters in video games are not real. They know nothing, and have zero consciousness. Do you think Santa Claus is real and knows things and is conscious? I can't believe you'd even ask such a dumb question Edgar On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:33:35 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 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-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.
