### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 03 Jul 2014, at 20:30, Richard Ruquist wrote:

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like
square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space
(like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals
is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the
relative states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b.
In quantum mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this
must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a
mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of
observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of
universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them
belonging to a computation).

It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and
the comp measure are three different things.

Yes. They can be related though. For example you need a Lebesgue
measure on the real or complex to have nice measure on the square
normed functions, which in classical quantum theory can be related to
the position or impulsion bases. Math are quickly delicate, like with
the need of distributions instead of functions, due to that damned
Dirac functions.

With comp, I handle the measure problem by isolating the possible
logic and semantics associated with the different machine's view (the
'arithmetical hypostases p, []p, []p  p, etc.), with p arithmetical
sigma_1 sentences.

Bruno

Richard

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular
case. The first person histories with computable sequence like
WW..., or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event,
and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of
randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random
oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine
for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from
the machine view, by simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure
calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus
lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which
the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints)  should be
derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming
things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King
wrote:

Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
does that

come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation
that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have
the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a
reasonable

default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form
is close to

the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas
the measure

of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
To post to this group, send email to everything-

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 04 Jul 2014, at 02:15, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Is the measure idempotent?

How could a measure function be idempotent? It is a function from some
algebra of sets into some order or number structure. You cannot apply
the measure a second times on its result, as it will not have the
right type.

Well, with enough imagination, I can object to myself, by confusing
the measure result, and the measure tool. If you measure the hight of
man with a meter, and find 1m80, then if you remeasure the meter
itself up to the 1m80 point, you will find the same result, and may be
you meant only the following question:

Is it true that in comp, if we make quickly a measurement two times we
will find the same results. That is an open question of course, but
thanks to the p - []p, we have what is needed to expect that this
is possible. With some chance we might get the quantum Zeno freezing
effect (discovered by Turing): if we look seriously very often to a
particle state, we project it on the same state, and it freezes.

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like
square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space
(like in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals
is a measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the
relative states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b.
In quantum mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this
must be explained by a measure on all the computations going from a
mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of
observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity of
universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them
belonging to a computation).

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular
case. The first person histories with computable sequence like
WW..., or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event,
and the norm is high incompressibility (a very strong form of
randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random
oracle with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine
for the first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from
the machine view, by simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure
calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus
lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which
the measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints)  should be
derivable (and the measure one admits a quantization confirming
things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King
wrote:

Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
does that

come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation
that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have
the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a
reasonable

default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form
is close to

the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas
the measure

of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
To post to this group, send email to everything-

Visit this group at ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like
square normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like
in both QM and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a
measure on real numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative
states. It is really a measure on the transition a I b. In quantum
mechanics it is given by [a I b]^2, but with comp this must be
explained by a measure on all the computations going from a mind state
corresponding to observing 'a to a mind state of observing 'b, taking
into account the fact that an infinity of universal numbers justifies
those transitions (= makes them belonging to a computation).

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case.
The first person histories with computable sequence like WW...,
or WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is
high incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle
with the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the
first person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine
view, by simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure
calculus (Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus
lexicon), but it provides the logic of the measure one, from which the
measure calculus + the arithmetical constraints)  should be derivable
(and the measure one admits a quantization confirming things go well
there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
does that

come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation
that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have
the same

measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is
close to

the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
measure

of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square
normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM
and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real
numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a
measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a
I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the
computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a
mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity
of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to
a computation).

It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp
measure are three different things.
Richard

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The
first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or
WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high
incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with
the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first
person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by
simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus
(Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it
provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus +
the arithmetical constraints)  should be derivable (and the measure one
admits a quantization confirming things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is
close to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

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

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:

It seems that the measure of the reals and the quantum measure and the comp
measure are three different things.
Richard

They are three different measures, but all satisfy the measure axioms.

What I was trying to get at was why you think the quantum measure is
scenario dependent - is it because it depends on the chosen
observable and the previous quantum state (ie is a relative measure)?

But these (the observable, and previous state) just provide the
constraints defining the set being measured.

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi Bruno,

Is the measure idempotent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence?

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 03 Jul 2014, at 06:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

The quantum measure is a measure on solutions of an equation, like square
normed functions or operators in a linear (Hilbert) space (like in both QM
and functional analysis). The measure on the reals is a measure on real
numbers. With comp, the measure is on the relative states. It is really a
measure on the transition a I b. In quantum mechanics it is given by [a
I b]^2, but with comp this must be explained by a measure on all the
computations going from a mind state corresponding to observing 'a to a
mind state of observing 'b, taking into account the fact that an infinity
of universal numbers justifies those transitions (= makes them belonging to
a computation).

The protocol of the iterated WM-duplication is a very particular case. The
first person histories with computable sequence like WW..., or
WMWMWMWMWM... , becomes the white rabbits event, and the norm is high
incompressibility (a very strong form of randomness).

The ultimate protocol is  the logical structure of the sigma_1
arithmetic. By the dovetailing on the reals, it mixes a random oracle with
the halting oracle so that we can expect a non-machine for the first
person truth. But it is already a non machine, from the machine view, by
simple incompleteness.

The interview of the löbian machine does not provide the measure calculus
(Plato-Plotinus 'bastard' calculus with the Plotinus lexicon), but it
provides the logic of the measure one, from which the measure calculus +
the arithmetical constraints)  should be derivable (and the measure one
admits a quantization confirming things go well there).

Bruno

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is
close to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

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

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

We get a rather similar measure induced on UD* by observing the first
person probability for observing W or M (in the WM duplication
scenario) is 0.5.

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard

We get a rather similar measure induced on UD* by observing the first
person probability for observing W or M (in the WM duplication
scenario) is 0.5.

The late

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Quantum measure is the result of solving Schrodinger's Eq.
yielding a different probability for each quantum state
and a different measure for each different scenario
unlike the invariant measure of the reals.
Do you disagree?
Richard

On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au

wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:30:52PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this
example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does
that
come from?

The standard measure on the reals is based on the observation that we
expect the set of real numbers starting with 0.110... to have the same
measure as those starting with 0.111... That would be a reasonable
default assumption for most purposes.

The measure obtained by compression of the reals in binary form is close
to
the quantum mechanic measure, but not exact.
In fact, the quantum measure varies with the scenario, whereas the
measure
of the reals is invariant.
Richard

What do you mean? What is this quantum measure?

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi Russell,

Ah! I don't quite grok it completely, but thank you for this example. We
had to assume an already existing measure on the Reals. Where does that
come from?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome
the
inherent zero measure?

Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
items.

Consider the set of real numbers matching the constraint that the
initial sequence in the binary expansion is 0.110000111

Even though each real number has measure zero, the set of all numbers
matching that constraint has measure 2^{-13} (about 0.000122).

Assuming the standard measure on the reals, of course.

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is
a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-
god type of assumption.

But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.

OK.

And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to
'prove to much'.  It's just saying that whatever exists in your
physical theory is already in my arithmetical theory.

Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and
solve partially) that measure problem.

That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial.
But the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be
derived from the measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse
phenomenology can be derived from the SWE.

Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument.

It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple
general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine
emulable.

I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although
a partial one, which already gives a different (than usual)
theological perspective.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi,

Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?

My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?

If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
​​

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 30 Jun 2014, at 01:20, meekerdb wrote:

On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of
assumption.

But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.

OK.

And to say that arithmetic emulates all simulations seems to me to
'prove to much'.  It's just saying that whatever exists in your physical
theory is already in my arithmetical theory.

Yes. But at first sight with the measure all wrong. I submit (and solve
partially) that measure problem.

That your physical reality is in the arithmetical reality is trivial. But
the UDA shows that the physical reality has to be given by the measure on
all computations. It means, roughly, that the SWE ,must be derived from the
measure on the sigma_1 sentences, like the collapse phenomenology can be
derived from the SWE.

Which is a god-of-the-substrate type argument.

It would be, if we were not just deriving this reversal from a simple
general, but fertile, assumption: that we are (universal) machine emulable.

I give a theorem, which leads to a problem. Not a solution. (although a
partial one, which already gives a different (than usual) theological
perspective.

Bruno

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,

Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?

My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?

If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
​​

I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations
- that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will
always be finite.

It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low
measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP.

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi Russell,

Let me rephrase. You wrote:  With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

​​
I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the
usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased
sample.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi,

Bruno wrote previously ...the physical reality has to be given by the
measure on all computations. Would this not imply that physical reality
has a zero measure?

My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical
universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD
is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical
universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me?

If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics
completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why
bother measuring what doesn't exist?!
​​

I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations
- that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will
always be finite.

It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low
measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP.

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Let me rephrase. You wrote:  With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

​​
I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with the
usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very biased
sample.

By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible
COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with
certainty.

That has nothing to do with measure.

Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when
sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that
number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is
constrained by a finite number of observations.

You just need to ask the right question...

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi Russell,

I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:44:20PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

Let me rephrase. You wrote:  With COMP, the chance of our
physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero
is if COMP is false.

​​
I never understood where the measure 1 comes from unless we first take
the existence of an observer to be completely defined by the UDA. If we
introduce a finite measure onto the UD, are we not screwing around with
the
usual way of doing statistics? It is not unlike being OK with a very
biased
sample.

By definition, UD* contains all possible experiences for all possible
COMP observers. Therefore, you will find our reality somewhere in UD* with
certainty.

That has nothing to do with measure.

Measure has to do with how likely our observed reality is, when
sampled from the set of all possible observed realities. And that
number is non-zero, simply by virtue that our observed reality is
constrained by a finite number of observations.

You just need to ask the right question...

Cheers

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 08:32:37PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Russell,

I don't get it. How does the constraint of a finite sample overcome the
inherent zero measure?

Because a finite constraint matches an infinite number of zero measure
items.

Consider the set of real numbers matching the constraint that the
initial sequence in the binary expansion is 0.110000111

Even though each real number has measure zero, the set of all numbers
matching that constraint has measure 2^{-13} (about 0.000122).

Assuming the standard measure on the reals, of course.

--

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
(http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 26 Jun 2014, at 05:51, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level,
but the point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient
for interaction with neurons, but also the level which captures
interaction with 'external' or 'environmental' variables,
especially perceptions.  Then we must contemplate not just
replacing some brain components, but simulating some of the
external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way
galaxy. Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the
laws of physics are computable. If you emulate a large enough
volume, then it takes some FTL effect beyond the past light cone
of the emulated volume to mess things up.
Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you
have to simulate so much that you've essentially created a
simulated world, then all you've shown is that a simulated
consciousness can exist in a simulated world and this is
indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an
actual consciousness can exist in a simulated world.
Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced
by certain computational processes.

Yes, so there was no need to say simulated above. It looked as
though you were trying to make a distinction when there isn't one.
There's not a distinction that makes one consciousness different
from the other, except that one is conscious of the simulated world
and one is conscious of this world.

And if the simulation is good enough they have identical
experiences, so - no different at all. In fact it's hard to believe
that consciousness is something that can be simulated, regardless
of how its achieved I imagine it's always actual, by definition,
whether it's experiencing a simulated world or a real one (which is
also a simulation, at least in our case, as I believe Kant pointed
out).

I take Bruno (and Maudlin) to be arguing that there need not be any
physical process to instantiate consciousness - and that is what I
find unconvincing.

To be sure, both Maudlin and the MGA shows that comp and mechanism are
incompatible, but maudlin takes this as a difficulty for the
computationalist, and I take it as a difficulty for the (weak)
materialist (just because I work in comp).

Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god
type of assumption.

I realise that you find it unconvincing, of course, and I am still
hopeful that you will come up with a convincing reason why, i.e. one
that doesn't just say I just don't see how X can be true. (Or that
Bruno will come up with a convincing reason why not. (Or maybe I'll
just remain agnostic indefinitely, which is probably best...))

if comp is true, *and* if one universal number execution U needs to be
reifed with some primary matter (like with common physicalism), then
it is up to you to explain the role of the special U in consciousness,
and this without extracting that winning U from the measure problem.
This means that you will need to invent a specifically *non testable*
notion of primitive matter exactly at the place where comp proves that
if it exist we can test it.

It is weird that when someone use creationist god-of-the-gap in an
argument, most people see the logical or epistemological deficiency,
but yet when people use the primitive-matter-of-the-gap, they don't
see it.

Well, we see that people can't already change their mind after 70
years of brainwashing (like in the cannabis file), so it is not so
astonishing that they find hard to abandon the primary matter of
Aristotle, which is 1500 years of brainwashing. Matter is visible, but
primitive (assumed) matter is not.

It is not a question of truth, but of valid or not argument in the
applied fields.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor if
you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.

Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your
consciousness, but your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of
millions of billions of trillions of times a second. And by the way, what
does a discontinuity in your consciousness even mean?

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all simulations. Saying
that some of those are more real than other is a metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows
that it is a gap-of-the-god type of assumption.

But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.  And to say that arithmetic emulates
all simulations seems to me to 'prove to much'.  It's just saying that whatever exists in
your physical theory is already in my arithmetical theory.  Which is a
god-of-the-substrate type argument.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 30 June 2014 11:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/29/2014 1:35 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Note that it is an arithmetical fact that arithmetic emulates all
simulations. Saying that some of those are more real than other is a
metaphysical assumption, and MGA shows that it is a gap-of-the-god type of
assumption.

But it is not a physical fact that arithmetic exists.

Obviously (surely?)

(Although I was under the impression that you think arithmetic is derived
from physical facts...?)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/29/2014 10:41 AM, John Clark wrote:
Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your consciousness, but
your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of trillions of
times a second. And by the way, what does a discontinuity in your consciousness even mean?

It's remembering everything up until just before the crash, but nothing between there and
waking up in the hospital.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 30 June 2014 15:50, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/29/2014 10:41 AM, John Clark wrote:

Only if a change in your quantum state causes a discontinuity in your
consciousness, but your quantum state changes hundreds of thousands of
millions of billions of trillions of times a second. And by the way, what
does a discontinuity in your consciousness even mean?

It's remembering everything up until just before the crash, but nothing
between there and waking up in the hospital.

A simpler example - going to sleep and waking up the next morning. I
suppose if one is being pedantic, one might ask is the discontinuity in
your consciousness, or (from your point of view) in the outside world.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
mailto:jami...@gmail.com wrote:

Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances never
substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
explanations.
Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to receive
new
identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory arased of the
old one.
YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).

If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is possible, but it
was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the reasoning is based).

Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are substituted all the
time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts are not important so long as the
pattern is preserved.  Further, no known laws of physics are incomputable, so then the
brain must use some, as of yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism
is false.

I don't think it's that simple.  Obviously if you substitute atom-for-atom it will be
successful because (according to our best theories) atom are indistinguishable.  But
suppose you try to substitute a silicon chip implant for some part of the brain with
identical, functional i/o at all the neuron interfaces it replaced.  Would it preserve
your consciousness?  I think it would approximately; but there are possible differences.
It wouldn't react the same to EM fields, cosmic rays, potassium radioactive in the
blood,... So it might be a little different.  Second, it would have the plasticity of
neurons, the ability to grow and shrink and change in response to 'learning', i.e.
interaction with other parts.

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the point is that
it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction with neurons, but also the
level which captures interaction with 'external' or 'environmental' variables, especially
perceptions.  Then we must contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but
simulating some of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.  If we want
to preserve consciousness unaffected just by replacements in the brain, those replacements
will need to be at a very low level.  So low that the quantum non-cloning theorem comes
into play and it can't be done except by chance.  On the other hand we can do a
substitution that is behaviorally so similar that the difference will be unnoticable even
by close friends, but which maybe different at the incommunicable consciousness level.  Or
a third possibility is that we can simulate the consciousness AND it's interaction with
the world so that both the internal functions, plasticity, and external affects are
preserve.  But then the penalty is effectively creating another world - which is what
Everettian splitting does.

So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor if you insist on
there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.  The Moscow man and the Washington man
will be in different quantum states even before they step out of the teleporter and see
what city they are in. Of course in practice we're not particularly concerned with small
gaps in consciousness. None of this implies some undiscovered physics.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/19/2013 1:03 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the *fantasy-play*
'teleportation':
It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances
never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?)
explanations.
Wana play? be my guest.
In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to
receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory
arased of the old one.
YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*).

If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is
possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the
reasoning is based).

Why should we think computationalism is true?  Our particles are
substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts
are not important so long as the pattern is preserved.  Further, no known
laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of
yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false.

I don't think it's that simple.  Obviously if you substitute atom-for-atom
it will be successful because (according to our best theories) atom are
indistinguishable.  But suppose you try to substitute a silicon chip
implant for some part of the brain with identical, functional i/o at all
the neuron interfaces it replaced.  Would it preserve your consciousness?
I think it would approximately; but there are possible differences.  It
wouldn't react the same to EM fields, cosmic rays, potassium radioactive in
the blood,... So it might be a little different.  Second, it would have the
plasticity of neurons, the ability to grow and shrink and change in
response to 'learning', i.e. interaction with other parts.

If you assume zombies are not possible, then I think my original statement
holds. Without assuming uncomputable physics plays a necessary role in the
brain, then computationalism is true.

If you believe that consciousness is supported by the brain, and that the
brain is made of atoms, and that atoms obey laws of physics, and that those
laws are computable, then it is possible in theory for a program to
perfectly emulate the behavior and evolution of a brain. Now whether or not
this emulation is consciousness or not is not proved, unless you further
assume zombies are impossible. If they are not possible, then you must
attribute consciousness to this perfect brain emulation.

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with 'external'
or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must
contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but simulating some
of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.

If we want to preserve consciousness unaffected just by replacements in
the brain, those replacements will need to be at a very low level.  So low
that the quantum non-cloning theorem comes into play and it can't be done
except by chance.  On the other hand we can do a substitution that is
behaviorally so similar that the difference will be unnoticable even by
close friends, but which maybe different at the incommunicable
consciousness level.  Or a third possibility is that we can simulate the
consciousness AND it's interaction with the world so that both the internal
functions, plasticity, and external affects are preserve.  But then the
penalty is effectively creating another world - which is what Everettian
splitting does.

So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor
if you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.  The
Moscow man and the Washington man will be in different quantum states even
before they step out of the teleporter and see what city they are in. Of
course in practice we're not particularly concerned with small gaps in
consciousness. None of this implies some undiscovered physics.

The question of gaps is interesting, especially when when we consider
simulating physical objects as computations can be smeared out across
space-time, and may not be perfectly captured in any particular instant
(space-time slice).

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
```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is
that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction with
neurons, but
also the level which captures interaction with 'external' or 'environmental'
variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must contemplate not just
replacing some
brain components, but simulating some of the external world.  So it seems
to me

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy. Which makes no
theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics are computable. If you
emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some FTL effect beyond the past light cone
of the emulated volume to mess things up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have to simulate so much
that you've essentially created a simulated world, then all you've shown is that a
simulated consciousness can exist in a simulated world and this is indpendent of the
physical substrate. It does not show that a simulated consciousness can exist in THIS
world without being physically instantiated in this world's physics.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 26 June 2014 05:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

So in effect the non-cloning theorem prevents saying yes to the doctor
if you insist on there being no discontinuity in your consciousness.  The
Moscow man and the Washington man will be in different quantum states even
before they step out of the teleporter and see what city they are in. Of
course in practice we're not particularly concerned with small gaps in
consciousness. None of this implies some undiscovered physics.

This is exactly why I try to think of the comp stuff within the MWI, rather
than a classical teleportation scenario. According to theory the MWI
gives us a form of duplication which operates at either the substitution
level or below it.

(Not that this helps me understand some of the later steps...)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with 'external'
or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must
contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but simulating some
of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have to
simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world, then
all you've shown is that a simulated consciousness can exist in a simulated
world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an *actual*
consciousness can exist in a simulated world.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but
the point
is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction with
neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with 'external'
or
'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must
contemplate
not just replacing some brain components, but simulating some of the
external
world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes
no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics are
computable. If
you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some FTL effect beyond the
past
light cone of the emulated volume to mess things up.

Exactly. But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have to
simulate so
much that you've essentially created a simulated world, then all you've
shown is
that a simulated consciousness can exist in a simulated world and this is
indpendent
of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an /actual/ consciousness
can exist in a simulated world.

Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced by certain
computational processes.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 4:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for interaction
with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with 'external'
or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then we must
contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but simulating some
of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have to
simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world, then
all you've shown is that a simulated consciousness can exist in a simulated
world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

But if computations are substrate independent in terms of their ability to
support consciousness, then the result of the conclusions of the UDA
follow. You just need arithmetical realism to get all the computations
implementing the evolution of the milky way galaxy. Voila, arithmetic is a
candidate theory of all observations (if not everything).

Jason

It does not show that a simulated consciousness can exist in THIS world
without being physically instantiated in this world's physics.

What is it your brain is doing but creating its own little world inside the
confines of a hollow bone? Is the world your brain creates the same one we
live in, or the same one in another creature's head?

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but
the point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for
interaction with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction
with 'external' or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then
we must contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but
simulating some of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have
to simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world, then
all you've shown is that a *simulated *consciousness can exist in a *
simulated *world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an *actual*
consciousness can exist in a simulated world.

Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced by
certain computational processes.

Yes, so there was no need to say simulated above. It looked as though you
were trying to make a distinction when there isn't 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level,
but the
point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for
interaction
with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction with
'external' or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.
Then we
must contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but
simulating
some of the external world. So it seems to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way galaxy.
Which
makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of physics are
computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes some FTL
effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess things
up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have to
simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world,
then all
you've shown is that a *simulated *consciousness can exist in a
*simulated
*world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an /actual/
consciousness can exist in a simulated world.

Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced by
certain
computational processes.

Yes, so there was no need to say simulated above. It looked as though you were trying
to make a distinction when there isn't one.

There's not a distinction that makes one consciousness different from the other, except
that one is conscious of the simulated world and one is conscious of this world.  I take
Bruno (and Maudlin) to be arguing that there need not be any physical process to
instantiate consciousness - and that is what I find unconvincing.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong level, but
the point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient for
interaction with neurons, but also the level which captures interaction
with 'external' or 'environmental' variables, especially perceptions.  Then
we must contemplate not just replacing some brain components, but
simulating some of the external world.  So it seems to me there is a

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way
galaxy. Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of
physics are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes
some FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess
things up.

Exactly.  But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you have
to simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world, then
all you've shown is that a *simulated *consciousness can exist in a *
simulated *world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an *actual*
consciousness can exist in a simulated world.

Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced by
certain computational processes.

Yes, so there was no need to say simulated above. It looked as though
you were trying to make a distinction when there isn't one.

There's not a distinction that makes one consciousness different from the
other, except that one is conscious of the simulated world and one is
conscious of this world.

And if the simulation is good enough they have identical experiences, so -
no different at all. In fact it's hard to believe that consciousness is
something that can be simulated, regardless of how its achieved I imagine
it's always actual, by definition, whether it's experiencing a simulated
world or a real one (which is also a simulation, at least in our case, as I
believe Kant pointed out).

I take Bruno (and Maudlin) to be arguing that there need not be any
physical process to instantiate consciousness - and that is what I find
unconvincing.

I realise that you find it unconvincing, of course, and I am still hopeful
that you will come up with a convincing reason why, i.e. one that doesn't
just say I just don't see how X can be true. (Or that Bruno will come up
with a convincing reason why not. (Or maybe I'll just remain agnostic
indefinitely, which is probably best...))

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 6/25/2014 8:51 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 8:38 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 15:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 6:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 26 June 2014 09:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 6/25/2014 11:48 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

Now I know Bruno will say this is just choosing the wrong
level, but
the point is that it's not just the level which is sufficient
for
interaction with neurons, but also the level which captures
interaction with 'external' or 'environmental' variables,
especially
perceptions. Then we must contemplate not just replacing some
brain
components, but simulating some of the external world.  So it
seems
to me there is a tradeoff.

This is why Bruno often says you can assume the whole milky-way
galaxy.
Which makes no theoretical difference once you assume the laws of
physics
are computable. If you emulate a large enough volume, then it takes
some
FTL effect beyond the past light cone of the emulated volume to mess
things up.

Exactly. But that's why I don't find step 8 convincing.  If you
have to
simulate so much that you've essentially created a simulated world,
then
all you've shown is that a *simulated *consciousness can exist in a
*simulated *world and this is indpendent of the physical substrate.

Not quite. If you assume no zombies, then you've shown that an /actual/
consciousness can exist in a simulated world.

Sure, that's already implicit in assuming consciousness is produced by
certain
computational processes.

Yes, so there was no need to say simulated above. It looked as though you
were
trying to make a distinction when there isn't one.

There's not a distinction that makes one consciousness different from the
other,
except that one is conscious of the simulated world and one is conscious of
this world.

And if the simulation is good enough they have identical experiences, so - no different
at all. In fact it's hard to believe that consciousness is something that can be
simulated, regardless of how its achieved I imagine it's always actual, by definition,
whether it's experiencing a simulated world or a real one (which is also a simulation,
at least in our case, as I believe Kant pointed out).

I take Bruno (and Maudlin) to be arguing that there need not be any
physical process
to instantiate consciousness - and that is what I find unconvincing.

I realise that you find it unconvincing, of course, and I am still hopeful that you will
come up with a convincing reason why, i.e. one that doesn't just say I just don't see
how X can be true.

That isn't the reason I gave.  I pointed out that for the consciousness of the MGA to be
achieved it had to consciousness of a world and that world had to have a physics and the
consciousness then depended on events and processes in that physics.  So while the
consciousness was achieved with no physical activity in this world, the world which the
consciousness was conscious of, did have physical activity which from out point of view
was simulated.  But as you note simulated is meaningless when applied to a whole world.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 26 June 2014 16:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

That isn't the reason I gave.  I pointed out that for the consciousness of
the MGA to be achieved it had to consciousness of a world and that world
had to have a physics and the consciousness then depended on events and
processes in that physics.  So while the consciousness was achieved with no
physical activity in this world, the world which the consciousness was
conscious of, did have physical activity which from out point of view was
simulated.

I may well find that convincing once I understand the MGA. At the moment it
appears to be all smoke and mirrors so to speak -- I just can't get my
head around it, although I *can* see the previous steps, I think, up to the
point at which my consciousness may either exist in a UD running in a
robust universe, or in arithmetical realism, if such a thing exists. Those
at least seem to make sense, whether true or not. But the next step throws
me.

But as you note simulated is meaningless when applied to a whole world.

I also noted that (more importantly, IMHO) it's meaningless when applied to
consciousness however it may be instantiated.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 29 Dec 2013, at 16:12, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote.
Interleaving.

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of
state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there
will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be
what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject
to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved.

OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that
physics is a branch of arithmetic.

Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as
perceptions? Could the perceptions, however they may be define,
include some means to distinguish one entity from another within
those perceptions. A crude physics theory might be equivalent to
some method for an observer to make predictions of the content of
its perceptions, assuming some form of memory is possible...

What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,
or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.

I do not think that comp can be empirically refuted in the
experimental sense of hard science! It addresses questions that
are deeper than physics.

Yes, it addresses theological questions, like the technological
reincarnation, and the arithmetical reincarnation. It is much larger
than physics. But the point is that physics is entirely part of that
theology, making theology indirectly testable, and the physics, is
entirely testable. That's the whole point: comp makes theology into an
hard science, thanks to its relation with computer science and
mathematical logic.
Of course the physics intuitively extracted in UDA is not tractable,
but then the translation of UDA in arithmetic, using the classical
theory of knowledge (that we recover with the idea of Theaetetus in
arithmetic) gives the propositional physics, which up to now is shown
to be a quantum logic. We can test it to see if it gives a quantum
computer in the physical neighborhood of the machine. The math are
just hard, but the question is precisely formulated in purely
arithmetical terms.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:35, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be
something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very
important. In that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume
at the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because
we cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion
of nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
fundamental.  It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually
suggested by Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in,
then it is virtuously circular.

Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need
to postulate a universal base. You need at least the assumption of
the laws of addition and multiplication, or abstraction and
application (with the combinators). But then you don't need, nor
can use, anything else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can
be explained from there (even easily if comp is invoked at the
metalevel, but this is no more needed after the UDA is understood
(normally).

But you need an explanation for arithmetic.

Really?

We need to start from some non trivial agreement, and if we want
arithmetic, or a universal system, we have to assume it, as we cannot
justify it with less.

Then the explanation is usually provided in high school, and relies
without doubt to its natural implementation in our brain.

Why do we conceptualize similar things as enumerable?  Why did we
invent numbers and addition and multiplication?

To be sure we have enough meat to the family. To survive in the
arithmetical reality, relatively to our current history.

That's the advantage of the ring, you can start at any point you
think you understand and explain other things in terms of it.

Well, that is doing a theory. We can't justify the axioms, but we can
believe in them. The question you ask applies to *any* scientific
theory, if only because they assume arithmetic at the start. The
result here is that in comp, we cannot even add one axiom to very
elementary arithmetic (à-la Robinson).

Our intuitive understanding of the numbers remains quite mysterious.
In a sense comp reduces all mysteries to that only one. How can we
make sense of N = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} in a finite time is a total
mystery. But comp can explain why, for machines (even in a very weak
sense) it has to be felt as mysterious.
We can say: God creates the natural Numbers. It is way to say that
we don't know where they come from.
The new point is that with comp, God did not need to create anything
else.

That's why we don't teach children arithmetic by giving the Peano's
axioms.  First, we give them counting and examples.

That is the best way to teach. Examples first, theory after.

We're starting a science, empirical observation.

Sure, then we do a theory, and we can test it by its consequences. No
problem with this. That is how computationalist science proceeds.

Bruno

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of
multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not
convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't
like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to
be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard
problem may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over
involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things
over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution.
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving
exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than
collapse of the wave function.  But is it?  It's only better than
Bayesian interpretation.

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. No one thinks the MWI
is the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it may be a good
approximation (or it may not, of course).

?? It's an interpretation.

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-
realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from
not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE
linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a
theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-
contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some
uncertainty with some knowledge.

Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the
observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I
disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason
why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams
interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside
arithmetic.

Bruno

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the
hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy
everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem
may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the
MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get
this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so
on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of
the wave function.  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. *No one *thinks the MWI is
the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it *may* be a good
approximation (or it may not, of course).

?? It's an *interpretation*.

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that
is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities.
Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the
contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity.  The
existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is
SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the
collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some
uncertainty with some knowledge.

Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed
quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that
they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch
is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic,
developed by the numbers inside arithmetic.

Bruno

Bruno, you may take this as a joke.

But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to enter
the egg.
In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together,
And all together, like the intelligent sperm,
The states decide which state is selected
to enter the physical world..
Richard

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

Richard,

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

snip

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-
realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from
not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from
SWE linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a
theorem of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-
contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some
uncertainty with some knowledge.

Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the
observed quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I
disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason
why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams
interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside
arithmetic.

Bruno

Bruno, you may take this as a joke.
But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to
enter the egg.

In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together,
And all together, like the intelligent sperm,
The states decide which state is selected
to enter the physical world..

I know that life is hard and that spermatozoids have a lot of hard
time to convince an ovule to let it go in. But entering the physical
world does not make much sense to me as there are no such reality
in my favorite theory. What exists in arithmetic is a notion of more
probable computations/consistent extensions, and the correct
description of them must give the laws of physics, so we can test the
theory.

Thanks for letting me take your metaphor as a joke, you reassure me :)

Bruno

Richard

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
To post to this group, send email to everything-

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

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Richard,

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

snip

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that
is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities.
Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not avoiding the
contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE linearity.  The
existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM. Copenhagen is
SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the
collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some
uncertainty with some knowledge.

Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed
quantum logic. I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that
they oppose this to Everett, but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch
is made consistent in the many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic,
developed by the numbers inside arithmetic.

Bruno

Bruno, you may take this as a joke.

But I think that quantum state selection is like selected a sperm to enter
the egg.
In the dream space the most probably staets are clustered together,
And all together, like the intelligent sperm,
The states decide which state is selected
to enter the physical world..

I know that life is hard and that spermatozoids have a lot of hard time to
convince an ovule to let it go in. But entering the physical world does
not make much sense to me as there are no such reality in my favorite
theory. What exists in arithmetic is a notion of more probable
computations/consistent extensions, and the correct description of them
must give the laws of physics, so we can test the theory.
Thanks for letting me take your metaphor as a joke, you reassure me :)

Bruno

But  Bruno, do you agree that my metaphor is arithmetically and
scientifically possible?

Richard

Richard

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 1/2/2014 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote:

On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse
theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that
Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard
problem
of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy
everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me
with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been
solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need
to fuzz things over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution.
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave
function.  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What about Penrose?  And
what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation.

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word,
because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of
course).

?? It's an /*interpretation*/.

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without
collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the
Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows
from SWE linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM.
Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is
the collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with
some knowledge.

Arguably so if the comp arithmetical quantum logic fits with the observed quantum logic.
I do appreciate Pauli and Fuchs. Where I disagree, is that they oppose this to Everett,
but I see no reason why. In fact Everett+Fuch is made consistent in the many-dreams
interpretation of arithmetic, developed by the numbers inside arithmetic.

I agree.  Fuchs' approach treats the wave-function as information, which should be
consistent with 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:
That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) indicating that we can
never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.

(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)

I think that's what science has taught metaphysics.  We make up models that we can
comprehend and it they are good at explaining things and predicting things and they are
consilient with our other models then we provisionally adopt them, and that's the best we
can do.  They may be right, be we can't know that.

Brent
When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every word that
proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that truth was a provisional
reification of the most useful model.

--- Anne O'Reilly

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be
something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very
important. In that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at
the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because we
cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of
nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
fundamental.  It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually
suggested by Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in, then
it is virtuously circular.

Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need to
postulate a universal base. You need at least the assumption of the
laws of addition and multiplication, or abstraction and application
(with the combinators). But then you don't need, nor can use, anything
else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can be explained from
there (even easily if comp is invoked at the metalevel, but this is no
more needed after the UDA is understood (normally).

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:58, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math' -
Physics' - ...

That spiral too in the UD*, but the Brent's circles also. Without any
paradox involved. Note that Gödel found solution of GR with explicit
circular time loop, too.

The knowledge evolves in time.

Relatively, yes.

Bruno

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What
exactly does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be
something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very
important. In that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at
the start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to
denote what we admit to exist at the start. We need them because we
cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of
nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
fundamental.  It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually
suggested by Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I
counter that if the circle is big enough to take everything in, then
it is virtuously circular.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of
multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not
convinced that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't
like to see the hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be
fuzzed over by an easy everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard
problem may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over
involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things
over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution.
Collapse of the wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving
exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than
collapse of the wave function.  But is it?  It's only better than
Bayesian interpretation.

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. No one thinks the MWI is
the last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it may be a good
approximation (or it may not, of course).

?? It's an interpretation.

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE,
that is QM without collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-
realities. Everett is just QM, and the Everett branches comes from not
avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows from SWE
linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem
of QM. Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or
quite fuzzy (what is the collapse?).

Bruno

Interpretations are only useful in pointing to new tests or new
theories - they've not approximations.

If it's a good approximation, it solves the problem of why this
history? without resorting to any extra doodads on top of the
basic equations. Or so I'm told.

I'd say adding infinitely many worlds just to get a probability to
come out 1/pi is a lot of doodads.

AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it just comes out this
way or you have to use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you
have a third type of explanation, please tell me!

No, in science you don't always need to have an explanation.
Sometimes it's I don't know.

Otherwise you're just saying I don't like it, so it can't be true!

I didn't say I don't like it. It may point the way forward.  But I
don't like the evangelical tone of some of it's disciples.

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
indicating that we can never know the thing in itself only our
interpretation of it.

(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)

I think that's what science has taught metaphysics.  We make up models
that we can comprehend and it they are good at explaining things and
predicting things and they are consilient with our other models then we
provisionally adopt them, and that's the best we can do.

But Fuchs et al don't even adopt their model.  They say there is some
underlying system (model) that explains our experiences, but for some
reason deny there is any reality to that very model.

Jason

They may be right, be we can't know that.

Brent
When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every
word that proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that
truth was a provisional reification of the most useful model.
--- Anne O'Reilly

I don't know where Anne O'Reilly gets that quote. It was Pilate that asked

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 1/1/2014 3:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does fundamental
level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important. In that sense
physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at the start, like the
primitive symbol in a theory, intended to denote what we admit to exist at the start.
We need them because we cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something fundamental.  It is
a sort of ring of explanation (actually suggested by Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I counter that if the
circle is big enough to take everything in, then it is virtuously circular.

Such circles recur in the UD*, but to define the UD, you still need to postulate a
universal base. You need at least the assumption of the laws of addition and
multiplication, or abstraction and application (with the combinators). But then you
don't need, nor can use, anything else, in the ontology. Physics and psychology can be
explained from there (even easily if comp is invoked at the metalevel, but this is no
more needed after the UDA is understood (normally).

But you need an explanation for arithmetic.  Why do we conceptualize similar things as
enumerable?  Why did we invent numbers and addition and multiplication?  That's the
advantage of the ring, you can start at any point you think you understand and explain
other things in terms of it.  That's why we don't teach children arithmetic by giving the
Peano's axioms.  First, we give them counting and examples.  We're starting a science,
empirical observation.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 1/1/2014 4:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Jan 2014, at 01:18, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse
theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that
Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard
problem of
predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with
optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved.
There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz
things over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the
wave function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave
function.  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What about Penrose?  And
what about the subjective Bayesian interpretation.

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word,
because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of course).

?? It's an /*interpretation*/.

I disagree with this. Everett did propose a new theory. It is SWE, that is QM without
collapse. *All* interpretations of it are multi-realities. Everett is just QM, and the
Everett branches comes from not avoiding the contagion of superposition, which follows
from SWE linearity.  The existence of the relative superposition is a theorem of QM.
Copenhagen is SWE+ collapse, and this is self-contradictory or quite fuzzy (what is the
collapse?).

It is changing your knowledge of the wave-function - replacing some uncertainty with some
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 1/1/2014 11:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 3:22 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/31/2013 7:19 PM, LizR wrote:

That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?)
indicating that
we can never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.

(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)

I think that's what science has taught metaphysics.  We make up models that
we can
comprehend and it they are good at explaining things and predicting things
and they
are consilient with our other models then we provisionally adopt them, and
that's
the best we can do.

But Fuchs et al don't even adopt their model.  They say there is some underlying system
(model) that explains our experiences, but for some reason deny there is any reality to
that very model.

So far as I can see their model is that we describe our knowledge of systems by QM and
when we make observations our knowledge changes - and that's the collapse of the
wave-function.

Jason

They may be right, be we can't know that.

Brent
When Herod asked Jesus what truth was, Jesus replied that truth was every
word that
proceeded from the mouth of God. Perhaps he should have said that truth was
a
provisional reification of the most useful model.
--- Anne O'Reilly

I don't know where Anne O'Reilly gets that quote. It was Pilate that asked What is

Dunno.  She's Irish Catholic, so maybe it's a Catholic myth.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic
view that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
ontological status and the assumption that a timeless totality =
the appearance of change (and its measures) is illusory. I would
like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it!
It's a shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's
it, maybe there is just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape
descended life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the
apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.

1) everything happens is just inconsistent.
2), with comp, we have a solid notion of everything (the UD*), but it
does not explain anything, it is used on the contrary to show how to
reduce the mind-body problem into a belief problem in pure
arithmetic. And this explain the quantum aspect of nature, but not yet
the symplectic aspect of nature.

Bruno

A theory that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly
does fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something
fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important.
In that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at the
start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to denote what
we admit to exist at the start. We need them because we cannot derive
anything from nothing. Even in the nothing theories, we need the
mathematical axioms to handle some notion of nothing.

Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from
combinations of other things concept that has no need for something
fundamental.

I have a question: what would be the most simple Boolean algebra?

{0, 1}   (unless you accept the degenerate BA like {0} or {1}, but

Bruno

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic
view that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
ontological status and the assumption that a timeless totality =
the appearance of change (and its measures) is illusory. I would
like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it!
It's a shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's
it, maybe there is just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape
descended life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the
apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A
theory that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic
view that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
ontological status and the assumption that a timeless totality =
the appearance of change (and its measures) is illusory. I would
like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it!
It's a shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's
it, maybe there is just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape
descended life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the
apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A
theory that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain anything. It just says that all outcomes of the
laws of physics are instantiated.

But that is already a physicalist idea of everything. It assumes
physical laws, and it assumes things satisfying physical laws. And
it assumes often, like in tegmark, some identity between knowledge and
brain states (which might violate the constraints of comp).

Everything and nothing does not mean anything if thing is not
defined, and this needs to assume *some* thing(s).

This requires less information than saying that a specific outcome
of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one
outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being
Devil's Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of
multiverse theories?

It is not that they are useful, but we cannot escape them (with comp
or weakening, or just with QM). And they do not explain, they lead to
problem that we must solve.

Bruno

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Not at all!

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 12:11 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

...or am I???

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a
shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.

1) everything happens is just inconsistent.

Show of hands: Who agrees with this? I do!

2), with comp, we have a solid notion of everything (the UD*), but it does
not explain anything, it is used on the contrary to show how to reduce the
mind-body problem into a belief problem in pure arithmetic. And this
explain the quantum aspect of nature, but not yet the symplectic aspect
of nature.

I could agree with this as well, if an explanation of interaction is
offered for arithmetic...

Bruno

A theory that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.

Not quite, it might not explain much but at least the Everything happens
theory doesn't make the problem worse. The everything happens because God
made things that way theory is even more useless.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 31 Dec 2013, at 17:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 19:44, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a  lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic
view that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
ontological status and the assumption that a timeless totality =
the appearance of change (and its measures) is illusory. I would
like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it!
It's a shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's
it, maybe there is just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape
descended life forms like to look for explanations even beneath
the apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.

1) everything happens is just inconsistent.

Show of hands: Who agrees with this? I do!

2), with comp, we have a solid notion of everything (the UD*), but
it does not explain anything, it is used on the contrary to show how
to reduce the mind-body problem into a belief problem in pure
arithmetic. And this explain the quantum aspect of nature, but not
yet the symplectic aspect of nature.

I could agree with this as well, if an explanation of interaction is
offered for arithmetic...

There are two explanations. One conceptual and easy, and the second
one relying on the FPI.

The simple one is that the UD emulates all possible universal machine
executions but also all possible interactions between them, relatively
to all universal machine. Unless you talk about non Turing emulable
interactions, all interactions exist, trivially in arithmetic.

The question is just why the quantum tensorial braid, or some à-la
Girard Geometry of interaction GOI, or at least a quantum universal
system, emerge(s) in the limit of the global (on the UD*) FPI.

A universal machine can emulate a couple of interacting machines, if
only by dovetailing on each of them, so interactions exist in
arithmetic. The harder problem is to derive the *physical* interaction
which should be the one which win the FPI global competition.

To keep clean the separation between true (but not rationally
justifiable) and rationally justifiable, that is through G and G*, we
have to extract those tensor from the machine's interview on the
p_sigma_1 sentences. The existence of the arithmetical quantizations
gives hope that this can been done. Normally Z1*, X1*, S4Grz1 should
define a quantum computer or topology. This is currently
mathematically testable (but hard).

The technical problem? Improved the theorem prover for the Z1*, X1*,
S4Grz1. Develop the math of their quantified modal extensions. From
the Russian solutions to Boolos questions, those first order modal
logic have been shown to be, unlike the propositional level, quite
undecidable. The contrary would have been astonishing. The miracle is
that this is true for the propositional level, where we can meta-
axiomatize completely the non provable part of the machine's
theology (including the propositional physics).

To assume interaction as primitive or anything physical is a sort of
treachery with respect to the computationalist mind-body problem.
Of course you *can* do that, as some intermediary help, but for this,
as I told you, I keep an eye on Girard, and BCI extended combinatory
algebra.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does fundamental
level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important. In that sense
physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at the start, like the
primitive symbol in a theory, intended to denote what we admit to exist at the start. We
need them because we cannot derive anything from nothing. Even in the nothing
theories, we need the mathematical axioms to handle some notion of nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something fundamental.  It is a
sort of ring of explanation (actually suggested by Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I counter that if the circle
is big enough to take everything in, then it is virtuously circular.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do
you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced that Everett's
MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard problem of
predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the
hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy
everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't
fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in
fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI,
quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get
this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so
on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. *No one *thinks the MWI is the
last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it *may* be a good approximation (or
it may not, of course). *If* it's a good approximation, it solves the
problem of why this history? without resorting to any extra doodads on
top of the basic equations. Or so I'm told.

AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it just comes out this way or
you have to use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you have a third type
of explanation, please tell me! Otherwise you're just saying I don't like
it, so it can't be true!

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi Brent,

It is only vicious if there is no time. For example:
Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math'
-Physics' - ...

The knowledge evolves in time.

On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/31/2013 2:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Dec 2013, at 21:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?

Fundamental is often used in two senses. either as very important. In
that sense physics and math are fundamental.

Or is the sense of primitive, that is, what we have to assume at the
start, like the primitive symbol in a theory, intended to denote what we
admit to exist at the start. We need them because we cannot derive anything
from nothing. Even in the nothing theories, we need the mathematical
axioms to handle some notion of nothing.

There is another way that avoids assuming that there is something
fundamental.  It is a sort of ring of explanation (actually suggested by
Bruno):

Math-Physics-Biology-Evolution-Humans-Culture-Science-Math

Of course it is objected that this is viciously circular; but I counter
that if the circle is big enough to take everything in, then it is
virtuously circular.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that
Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the hard
problem of
predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position doesn't fill me with
optimism that you actually get why this hard problem may in fact have been solved. There
is no fuzzing over involved in the MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things
over if you want to get this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave
function and so on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of the wave
function.  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What about Penrose?  And what

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. /No one /thinks the MWI is the last word,
because it isn't a TOE. But it /may/ be a good approximation (or it may not, of course).

?? It's an /*interpretation*/.  Interpretations are only useful in pointing to new tests
or new theories - they've not approximations.

/If/ it's a good approximation, it solves the problem of why this history? without
resorting to any extra doodads on top of the basic equations. Or so I'm told.

I'd say adding infinitely many worlds just to get a probability to come out 1/pi is a lot

AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it just comes out this way or you have to
use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you have a third type of explanation, please
tell me!

No, in science you don't always need to have an explanation. Sometimes it's I don't
know.

Otherwise you're just saying I don't like it, so it can't be true!

I didn't say I don't like it. It may point the way forward.  But I don't like the
evangelical tone of some of it's disciples.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 1 January 2014 13:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/31/2013 1:58 PM, LizR wrote:

On 1 January 2014 10:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 31 Dec 2013, at 03:09, LizR wrote:

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Partly playing Devil's Advocate - but doing so because I'm not convinced
that Everett's MWI is the last word and because I don't like to see the
hard problem of predicting/explaining *this* to be fuzzed over by an easy
everythingism.

Your use of disparaging language to sum up the opposing position
doesn't fill me with optimism that you actually get why this hard problem
may in fact have been solved. There is no fuzzing over involved in the
MWI, quite the reverse - you need to fuzz things over if you want to get
this out of QM as a unique solution. Collapse of the wave function and so
on -- a fuzzy hand-waving exercise.

That's the usual argument of MWI advocates, It's better than collapse of
the wave function.  But is it?  It's only better than Copenhagen.  What

The MWI is better than *unexplained* collapse because it at least scores
better on one test for scientific respectability, namely Occam's Razor.

Penrose's idea is a good example of a viable collapse mechanism,
Furthermore, it suggests that superpositions can only grow so large before
they MUST collapse. And we are testing larger superpositions all the time
(didn't someone mention sending VWs through the two-slit experiment, if we
can just find a way to stop them decohering?!) So Penrose is a good example
of a theoretical collapse mechanism that can be tested. I will be
interested to know the results.

I don't know about the SBI, unless I know it under a different name -

I'm not 100% ken on the straw man, either. *No one *thinks the MWI is the
last word, because it isn't a TOE. But it *may* be a good approximation
(or it may not, of course).

?? It's an *interpretation*.  Interpretations are only useful in pointing
to new tests or new theories - they've not approximations.

Yeah, sorry, sloppy phrasing. What I meant was no one thinks QM is the last
word, and since the MWI is (I'm told) just QM with no bolt-on extras, I
conflated the two. There may of course be better interpretations of QM, and
they may point to deeper theories with testable consequences, and those
deeper theories may indicate whether one or another interpretation was
correct. So basically I was trying to say in my cack-handed way that we
can't know if the MWI is the correct interpretation without a TOE (and even
then we can't *know*, of course. But it may be the best interpretation
consistent with said TOE, or the TOE may point the way to something else,
maybe a collapse mechanism, like, say, Roger Penrose's gravity-assisted
collapse mentioned above).

*If* it's a good approximation, it solves the problem of why this
history? without resorting to any extra doodads on top of the basic
equations. Or so I'm told.

I'd say adding infinitely many worlds just to get a probability to come
out 1/pi is a lot of doodads.

Sometimes a physicist's gotta do... Adding a huge number of worlds just
to explain why the lights in the sky move around is a lot of doodads, too,
but if it makes for a simpler and more convincing explanation, well, it's
a long shot but it might just work!

AFAICS you either need to have a reason why it just comes out this way
or you have to use an Everett/comp style explanation. If you have a third
type of explanation, please tell me!

No, in science you don't always need to have an explanation.  Sometimes
it's I don't know.

No, in science it's *always* I don't know. But we are discussing rival
ontologies, and hence it isn't a scientific question, but a logical one -
how CAN we explain things coming out one way, rather than another, even in
principle? I'm actually seriously interested to know if there is another
way to explain this (so I could do without a patronising put down. If I
want those, I have Edgar.)

Otherwise you're just saying I don't like it, so it can't be true!

I didn't say I don't like it. It may point the way forward.  But I don't
like the evangelical tone of some of it's disciples.

This is my problem. Some of the time you're arguing (sensibly) about the
merits or otherwise of the MWI, but some of the time you seem to have an
agenda, and it's hard to disentangle the two. I'm not an MWI disciple,
but do I want to know what is good or bad about a particular theory or
interpretation without having to worry about any extra baggage, especially
when I don't know which part is answering the baggage and which part is
answering me, (who I hope isn't quite described the same way, at least not
yet :)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

I don't know about the SBI, unless I know it under a different name - please
explain?

The subjective Bayesian interpretation is what Jason dismisses as don't ask.  It's the
interpretation advocated by Asher Peres (who's excellent textbook is available online),
Leslie Ballentine, and Chris Fuchs. It holds that the wave-function is just a description
of the system embodying the available information about it and predicting what will
happen.  So it's not surprising that Wigner and his friend use different wave-functions to
describe the same system - they have different information.  As an information based
interpretation it may fit well with a consciousness is just information processing
model.  Scott Aaronson seems to like it too, but he's not an advocate.

I have a feeling that people don't like it because they think a *real* interpretation must
be a kind of mapping onto a Newtonian classical picture and leaving stuff abstract just
doesn't count. But mapping onto a classical picture is more likely an analogy that
necessarily distorts the theory to fit.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```That sounds a bit like multi-solipsism - and a bit like Kant (?) indicating
that we can never know the thing in itself only our interpretation of it.

(Actually isn't that also what comp says?)

On 1 January 2014 14:39, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/31/2013 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

I don't know about the SBI, unless I know it under a different name -

The subjective Bayesian interpretation is what Jason dismisses as don't
textbook is available online), Leslie Ballentine, and Chris Fuchs.  It
holds that the wave-function is just a description of the system embodying
the available information about it and predicting what will happen.  So
it's not surprising that Wigner and his friend use different wave-functions
to describe the same system - they have different information.  As an
information based interpretation it may fit well with a consciousness is
just information processing model.  Scott Aaronson seems to like it too,

I have a feeling that people don't like it because they think a *real*
interpretation must be a kind of mapping onto a Newtonian classical picture
and leaving stuff abstract just doesn't count.  But mapping onto a
classical picture is more likely an analogy that necessarily distorts the
theory to fit.

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
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status and the
assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and its
measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Liz,

Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of
random choices.

If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If
reality is physical reality, then this is the digital physics thesis, which
is self-contradictory (due to the UDA).
Also, computing and obtaining a random result is contradictory by itself,
as computing is determinated. It can make sense with a quantum computer, or
with self-duplication, (or both like in Everett), so you might clarify
here. Are you (Edgar, Brent) assuming a quantum computer? With comp this is
a sort of treachery, as far as we are concerned with the fundamental
reality.

Bruno

That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or define,
reality as computational then reality is computing random results by
definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well.

It's not Church-Turing, but it might be the way the world works.

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

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

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 29 Dec 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!

But decoherence also falsifies MW.

Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by
QM, I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two
alternative of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears,
there is collapse.

First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's
not a physical object.

QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave
equation.

Or matrix equation or path integral equations.

Right. QM has many different equivalent formulations.

Bruno

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status and the
assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and its
measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as fundamental
gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a shut up and
calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended life
forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute facts!

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:02, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers and physical realities?

Gibve me the axioms. I know the dominical categories (of Turing
morphism), but just to get the definition needs a 15h course in
actegory theory, which is more complex than anything we talk about here.

That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic
view that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in
ontological status

But that is a consequence of computationalism. Not an assumption.

and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of
change (and its measures) is illusory.

It is not an illusion, from inside. It is only an illusion from God's
view, which we have to ignore (when living on this terrestrial plane
at least).

What you do is putting your feet in God's shoes, look at the reality,
see that it is static, and then asking yourself where change can come
from. The answer is only, look closely to what the entities appearing
inside are saying, and you can see how and why they are deluded in
believing in time.

I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

Eventually it is also a sort of confusion between 1p (with time and
consciousness) and 3p, without time, and without consciousness.
Your argument against time is isomorphic to the argument that
consciousness does not exist as you can look everywhere, in all brain,
and you will not see it. You will see only 3p interaction. 1p-Time
(and with comp 3p-time) are similar. They are relative internal
realities.

Bruno

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:30, meekerdb wrote:

On 12/29/2013 5:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,

Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of
random choices.

If reality computes, then reality is a computer/universal-number. If
reality is physical reality, then this is the digital physics
thesis, which is self-contradictory (due to the UDA).
Also, computing and obtaining a random result is contradictory by
itself, as computing is determinated. It can make sense with a
quantum computer, or with self-duplication, (or both like in
Everett), so you might clarify here. Are you (Edgar, Brent) assuming
a quantum computer? With comp this is a sort of treachery, as far as
we are concerned with the fundamental reality.

Bruno

That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or
define, reality as computational then reality is computing random
results by definition. It's obviously something that reality math
does quite well.

It's not Church-Turing, but it might be the way the world works.

Brent

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--
Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can avoid
a lot of
problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the
material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status and the
assumption
that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and its measures) is
illusory.
I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as fundamental gets you no
further than assuming that God did it! It's a shut up and calculate (or shut up and
pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it, maybe there /is
/just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended life forms like to look for
explanations even beneath the apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory that can explain
anything fails to explain at all.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from combinations
of other things concept that has no need for something fundamental.
I have a question: what would be the most simple Boolean algebra?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a
shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory
that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a
shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory
that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
more than one outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from combinations
of other things concept that has no need for something fundamental.

Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be something fundamental*. Lots of
religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
eventually hit the last turtle.

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be quoted for no obvious reason...)

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from combinations
of other things concept that has no need for something fundamental.

Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be something fundamental*. Lots of
religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
eventually hit the last turtle.

Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
measurable there... Time for a new vision?

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be quoted for no obvious reason...)

No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
metaphorical and not literal way.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
measurable there... Time for a new vision?

Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental, but
if you don't you need a good explanation of why not!

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be quoted for no obvious reason...)

No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
metaphorical and not literal way.

Right, but when you say fundamental level, if you don't actually mean it
literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor,
as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to
be assumed in a theory.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Hi LizR,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:

Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
measurable there... Time for a new vision?

Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental,
but if you don't you need a good explanation of why not!

The reason is: It is not necessary! That simple. We do not need to assume
monotonicity of compositions, we just need some form of associativity and
unity for closure under compositions.

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be quoted for no obvious reason...)

No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
metaphorical and not literal way.

Right, but when you say fundamental level, if you don't actually mean it
literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor,
as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to
be assumed in a theory.

Ontology. Grundlagen. what it is all made out of, etc. Not a metaphor!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### RE: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
fundamental level mean? Does there have to be something fundamental?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice any one thing is made from combinations
of other things concept that has no need for something fundamental.

Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be something fundamental*. Lots of
religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
eventually hit the last turtle.

True, but often these dualities, are presented as aspects of something more
fundamental, which is made manifest for example in one of the examples you
provided the dark and light sides of the Force, yin/yang are also
inextricably linked. Yin or yang can make no sense unless understood in
terms of and in relation to the other. Duality crops up over and over in
many traditions; however often if you look, even in those traditions you
cited they also allude to a deeper whole (different myths/stories of course
- the Abrahamic god for example said to have cast the devil out from heaven
- whatever works I guess, but in any case even in the Abrahamic case the
dualism is underlain by a more fundamental singularity.. i.e. the omniscient
all creating God - again in the monotheist tradition -- (who when seen in
this light is the ultimate source of all that is evil in the universe. as I
love pointing out to unlucky evangelicals who come knocking on my door to
give me the good news and to save my sinning soul)

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be quoted for no obvious reason...)

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we can
avoid a
lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the
material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status and the
assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and its
measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as fundamental
gets you
no further than assuming that God did it! It's a shut up and calculate
(or shut
up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there
/is /just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended life forms like
to look
for explanations even beneath the apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory that
can
explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain /anything/. It just says that all outcomes of the laws of physics are
instantiated. This requires less information than saying that a specific outcome of the
LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's Advocate, or do
you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's talking about an
immaterialist theory, a timeless Platonic totality, which I can only suppose consists of
everything not self-contradictory or some such.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Dear Brent,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a
shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory
that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
more than one outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's
talking about an immaterialist theory, a timeless Platonic totality,
which I can only suppose consists of everything not self-contradictory or
some such.

Geee, it is that hard for you to parse what I right and make sense of it?
How many times have I claimed that both materialism and immaterialism have
severe problems and that I reject them. Sheesh, learn to read.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

http://www.provensecure.us/

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

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```
On 12/30/2013 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Brent,

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category
ofcomputer/universal-numbers and physical realities? That way we
can avoid
a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and
the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change
(and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this
presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets
you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a shut up and
calculate
(or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe
there /is /just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended life
forms
like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory
that can
explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain /anything/. It just says that all outcomes of the laws of
physics
are instantiated. This requires less information than saying that a specific
outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one
outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's
an immaterialist theory, a timeless Platonic totality, which I can only
suppose
consists of everything not self-contradictory or some such.

Geee, it is that hard for you to parse what I right and make sense of it? How many times
have I claimed that both materialism and immaterialism have severe problems and that I
reject them. Sheesh, learn to read.

Sorry, my mistake.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 31 December 2013 16:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of
computer/universal-numbers
and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!

The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
fundamental gets you no further than assuming that God did it! It's a
shut up and calculate (or shut up and pray) ontology.

With materialism you just have a brute fact - well, maybe that's it,
maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
facts!

But Everything happens is just as useless as God did it.  A theory
that can explain anything fails to explain at all.

It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
more than one outcome.

But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?

Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's
talking about an immaterialist theory, a timeless Platonic totality,
which I can only suppose consists of everything not self-contradictory or
some such.

Sorry. I was replying to this:

I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status

If I'm in the wrong discussion I will bow 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```...or am I???

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Brent,

No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
probabilities of choices.

Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't.

How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation?

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Oops apologies to Jason - great minds etc!

I should have read to the end of the thread before I posted... but the
question stands, regardless.

On 29 December 2013 23:34, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Brent,

No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
probabilities of choices.

Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't.

How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation?

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider
interactions between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a
low level where the many are only one and thus the superposition of
state remains. It can be shown that at the separation level there
will also be one but it will not be in superposition, it will be
what decoherence describes. But this high level version is subject
to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and well behaved.

OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that
physics is a branch of arithmetic.
What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR,
or whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.

Bruno

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the
Dirac equation, not Shrodinger's equation

This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse
is many-world.
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that
if I decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and
base my choice on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I
(3-1 view) end up being superposed in both South and North, and the
unicity of my experience can be considered as equivalent with the
computationalist first person indeterminacy. With comp used here,
the physical universe is not duplicated, as it simply does not exist
in any primitive way, so it can be seen as a differentiation of the
consciousness flux in arithmetic.
With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a
local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make
any sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as
there is no world at all, only computations already defined in a
tiny part of the arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic
is quite small compared to the whole arithmetical truth, but still
something very big compared to a unique local physical cosmos.

Bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but
you don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are
saying what you are saying.

As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
experience

Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist,
to the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
self-evident.

whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,

I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to
presume past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we
are not in them? It seems to be a needless addition to the theory
(just like wave function collapse), to keep our concept of what is
real, limited to that which we are aware of from our particular
vantage point.

To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the
equations of quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for
measurements, they suppose that those other possibilities simply
disappear, because we (from our vantage point in one branch) did
not experience those other vantage points in other branches. Hence
they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion of all others.
This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says that
only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.

or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual
equations (e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to
collapse) that you can hope to restrict quantum mechanics to a
single world. All attempts at this which I have seen seem ad hoc
and completely unnecessary.

Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest
long ago

You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
collapse happens (without needing observers). Hence, collapse is
still treated as a real phenomenon (just one not triggered by
observation). Others, use decoherence in the context of many-worlds
to justify the appearance of collapse, while maintaining that the
wave function  never collapses.

If you are saying collapse doesn't happen or is not real, then that
is de facto many-worlds.

but the self-evident experience

As I said a few posts ago, you cannot use your experience to rule
out that more than one present exists, and therefore you cannot use
your experience to rule out that all points in time exist.

of the present moment cannot be falsified by any theory.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:32, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote
How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?

At last

No, I just quoted myself there. It was my previous answer.

... a straight answer, the answer is 1. So there is only one unique
1-view from the 1-view on planet Earth right now;

In the 1-view, yes.
in the 3-view, no. There are 7 billions (assuming a mono-universe, to
simplified).

that is to say if a one to one correspondence was attempted between
the infinite set of UNIQUE integers and the set of all the UNIQUE 1-
views from the 1-view on planet Earth right now only ONE such

From each 1-view. That's right.

So the set of all UNIQUE one views of the one view has only 1
element in it. Well who is this one, who is he, what's his name?
I'd love to meet him (or her), can you introduce me?

Look in a mirror. You know better your 1-view than anything else. I
don't need to present it!

infinitely many 1-views are all unique from their 1-view.

unfortunately it's a very different answer to the exact same
7 billion?

It is 1 from the personal point of view.
It is 7 billions, in the 3-view of those 1-view.

That explains the 1-indeterminacy, but in a misleading way, as it
seems to use the ASSA, where comp needs the RSSA. The probability
makes sense only in term of relative self-duplication, and here we
might think we give sense to what is the probablity that I am myself
among all humans, which does not make sense, or at least not in the
non controversial way when self-duplication is taken into account.

OK?

No, that is very far from OK.

?

I don't see why anybody should read step 7 of your proof when it
has already been demonstrated that you throw around terms like the
1-view from the 1-view that you can't put a number to.

I did it often. You have to read the posts.

If you can't put a number to it you have no clear understanding of it.

I have, so please, proceed, or explain what is wrong. You seem annoyed
by the fact that I provides always two answer (1 and è billions), but
that is just because I make clear the need to distinguish the 1p from
the 3p views, as the indeterminacy bears on the 1p views. If there is
no indeterminacy, provide the prediction algorithm, and show me that
it will convince everyone, which includes all possible self-copies.
Only then you can say that step 3 is refuted.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.

?

That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.

Decoherence falsifies many worlds.

Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/
environment. It vindicates the many-worlds.

Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the
linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product.

That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a
new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum
mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the
physicists obeys to physical laws.

With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.

The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never
disappeared, and spread at light speed.

QM-without-collapse = MW.

Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear.

Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the
digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math
confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less
plausible.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Bruno,

Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!

But decoherence also falsifies MW. First of all you have to understand what
a wavefunction is. It's not a physical object. It's a description of a
physical object in human math. Basically in QM its formulated as the

Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction. The
correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a physical
object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background space
common to all events, it's a description of how space can dimensionally
emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle, in other words
it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional relationship that would
occur if it interacted with another particle's wavefunction.

Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational
space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with
each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a
point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces
emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events.

So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical
computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes,
because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and
align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of
classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational
space.

That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM and
resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the
source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent model. You really need
to understand it.

Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime emerges
from, is actually created by, quantum events in computational information
space, he followed it off into never never land...

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.

?

That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.

Decoherence falsifies many worlds.

Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the observer/
environment. It vindicates the many-worlds.

Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the
linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product.

That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a
new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum
mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the
physicists obeys to physical laws.

With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.

The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never
disappeared, and spread at light speed.

QM-without-collapse = MW.

Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear.

Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the
digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math
confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less
plausible.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Liz,

Reality doesn't seem to have any difficulty computing the results of random
choices. That's how practically all computations occur. If we assume, or
define, reality as computational then reality is computing random results
by definition. It's obviously something that reality math does quite well.

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 5:34:45 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

On 29 December 2013 16:23, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

Brent,

No, reality just makes a random choice, that's the computation made. But
the difference between reality math and human QM math is that reality
actually makes an actual choice, whereas human QM math just gives us the
probabilities of choices.

Big difference. Reality does the computation, human math doesn't.

How is making a random choice the same as doing a computation?

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Jason,

O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was supposed to
be a scientific forum!

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:

Richard and Stephen,

ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!

Edgar

How do you know it doesn't exist?

Jason

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

2013/12/131205142218.htm#!

Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests that
ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of all
time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as it was
proposed. Do

Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to humans, or
we would never have realised that there is anything except the Earth and
some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far from the most outlandishly
improbable theory of all time, I can name a dozen ontological theories that
are more outlandish without even asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that
the world was created by the shenannigans of various gods.

you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that every
quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe spawns an
entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every event in every
one of those new universes does the same. This immediately exponentially
escalates in the first few minutes of the universe into uncountable new
universes and has been expanding exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion
years! Just try to calculate the

The MWI is a straight interpretation of

...

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:40, John Mikes wrote:

Dear Bruno, when you wrote:

...arithmetic  number's dreams = physics

OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one.
And experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science...

for the 'unbiased reader ' you started to seem (pardon me!)
incoherent.
That entire unfinishable series 'how an adult person can be atheist'
seems

overgrown and I wanted to put down my opinion, when Edgar cut me short
with his remark that first: we need an identification for whatever
we call: god.

He is right. We need some definition, or some semi-axiomatic.  I have
often explained what I mean by the term God. It is the
transcendental reality responsible for our consciousness, and
experiences. I can add typical axioms, like the fact that is has no
name, and that shit happens when we invoke it, etc.
The point of the discussion is that we might change the definition, in
different ways possible.

Our semantics is premature and insufficient, based on that PARTIAL
stuff we

may know at all and formulating FINAL conclusions upon them.

Well, in science, no conclusion is ever final, be it on God, the moon,
the boson or even the numbers. We can just hope people agrees enough
with a theory to be interested in its theorems.

Ifelt some remark of yours agreeing with me (agnosticism).

Yes, I think that science is agnostic on all ontological commitment,
beyond the terms it assumes for the need of solving a problem.

My idrentification for what many people call god is known to this
list:
infinite complexity - not better than anyone else's: it is MY
belief.

OK. No problem. Arithmetical truth is already infinitely complex, for
any machines, so with comp, your definition can satisfy the axioms
above, and the machines!

Just to continue MY opinion: whatever we experienc (think?) is HUMAN
stuff,

Even Mammal stuff. Even Earthly creature. I fact, I am afraid we
borrow already all prejudices and limitations of the Löbian entities,
in fact of all finite (locally) machines ...

humanly experienced and thought within human logic, even if we refer
to some
universal machine 'logic' and 'experience': those are adjusted to
our human ways

of thinking.

This might be just  adjusted for John-Mikean thinking.

In fact it is because we adjust our theories that they can be shown
wrong, and then we change them.

You cannot use human to limit our knowledge a priori, or you just
show a prejudice against all humans.

All we, or any creature, can do, is to make clear the theory, and the
means to test it. If wrong we change it.
Only bad philosophers pretend to know the truth, or to have final
conclusion or solution.

Then I like to quote Chardin, saying that we are not human beings
having from time to time divine experiences, but we are divine beings
having from time to time human experiences.

Bruno

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 27 Dec 2013, at 16:34, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Bruno,

I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience
(or whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.

I agree with you, but I don't do that. The fundamental theory is
elementary arithmetic. Experiences are explained by computer science
(mainly machine's self-reference and the modal nuances existing by
incompleteness).

True: the physical reality comes from the experience, but this is
based on the FPI which relies on an objective domain, which comes
from arithmetic, not experience. So we have, roughly put:

arithmetic  number's dreams = physics

OK? Physics is based on experience, but not on human one. And
experiences are based on arithmetic/computer-science.

Bruno

Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this
list.

Richard

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

He did answer and did it correctly,

I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?

I quote myself:
about  the 3p view, it was never mentioned. So John Clark will
repeat the question for a fifth time: how many first person
experiences viewed from their first person points of view does
Bruno Marchal believe exists on planet Earth right now?

No you did not.

from the 1-view, the 1-view is always unique.

That's real nice, but it wasn't the question.

How many unique integers are there in the first 7 billion integers?

How many unique 1-views from 1-view are there on planet Earth
right now?

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 29 Dec 2013, at 02:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Stephen,

In a sense that's correct, they are actions and the actions are the
computations, but they aren't physical, at least in the usual sense.

Computations are not physical. I agree. They are arithmetical notion.

But I can't understand what is meant by actions are computation, or
reality computes, etc.

I have the feeling that you are using the term computation in some
non standard sense.

This is closely related to the idea that 'everything is its
information only' which I cover in Part V of my book. We could
equally say that 'everything is its computation only, and the
computation is the thing'.

I have no problem with that, it's a good way to express it.

I am not sure. Stephen has already defended the idea that a physical
object simulates itself, based on a similar confusion. That does not
make sense if we use the terms computation or emulations (exact
simulations)  with their standard definition in math.

The notion of physical computation is worse. It is easy to believe
that it exists, like physical computer and brains exist, but it is a
hell of a difficulty to define them, and even more so if we want
physical computation to be defined without using the mathematical
notion of computation.

Bruno

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 8:03:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
wrote:

Dear Edgar,

Have you considered the possibility that the physical actions of
matter and energy in the universe *ARE* the computations? If so,
what problem did you have with this idea?

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
wrote:

Brent,

What we need to understand here is that the actual equations of
reality math that compute reality DO produce exact results. They
have to because events actually happen. But the human math equations
of decoherence etc. only produce probabilistic results. This is a
good example of how reality math and human math are different. The
Omnes/Everett interpretations mistakenly apply only to the human
equations which are just descriptions, not actuators. E.g. Everett
assumes that the human quantum equations somehow calculate reality
but they don't, and therefore he falsely assumes an interpretation
of the human math equations has something to do with reality but it
doesn't. Therefore they have nothing to do with actual reality and
in particular MWI doesn't apply to the actual math of reality and
thus doesn't apply to actual reality.

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:33:20 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,

You are implying there is some difficulty in calculating specific
decoherence results
yet the people who are performing experiments in decoherence have
no such problem in
calculating them with no reference at all to either of your
interpretations or choosing
between them... The math works just fine in our single world and
produces predictable

results...

But it produces probabilities.  And the experiments confirm that the
measured values are
random with the distribution predicted.  But each measurement only
produces one of the
probable values.  So the question is how do you get from the
probabilities, which is what
QM+decoherence predicts, to actual realized unique values?  Omnes
just says what do you
expect QM is a probabilistic theory.  Everett says they all happen
every time with
different values and we 'happen' every time as observers with
correlated experiences.

What do you say?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups Everything List group.
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups
...

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Dear Bruno,

I think that you are reading too much into what I wrote. Interleaving.

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:07, Stephen Paul King wrote:

I agree with what you wrote to Richard. If we then consider interactions
between multiple separate QM systems, there will be a low level where the
many are only one and thus the superposition of state remains. It can be
shown that at the separation level there will also be one but it will not
be in superposition, it will be what decoherence describes. But this high
level version is subject to GR adjustments and so will not be nice and
well behaved.

OK, but I do not assume any physical theory in the derivation that
physics is a branch of arithmetic.

Can we safely assume anything about what one observer may have as
perceptions? Could the perceptions, however they may be define, include
some means to distinguish one entity from another within those
perceptions. A crude physics theory might be equivalent to some method
for an observer to make predictions of the content of its perceptions,
assuming some form of memory is possible...

What you say can make sense in the study of the question that QM/GR, or
whatever empirically inferred, confirms or refutes comp.

I do not think that comp can be empirically refuted in the experimental
sense of hard science! It addresses questions that are deeper than
physics.

Bruno

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 27 Dec 2013, at 19:52, Richard Ruquist wrote:

I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac
equation, not Shrodinger's equation

This indeed change nothing. I agree with Jason. QM without collapse is
many-world.
If there is no collapse, QM (classical or relativistic) entails that if I
decide if I go to the North or to the South for Holiday and base my choice
on he usual spin superposition of some electron, I (3-1 view) end up being
superposed in both South and North, and the unicity of my experience can be
considered as equivalent with the computationalist first person
indeterminacy. With comp used here, the physical universe is not
duplicated, as it simply does not exist in any primitive way, so it can be
seen as a differentiation of the consciousness flux in arithmetic.
With EPR, or better Bell's theorem indeed, it is very hard to keep a
local physical reality unique in QM. The collapse does not make any
sense. But there is no need to be realist on many world, as there is no
world at all, only computations already defined in a tiny part of the
arithmetical reality. That tiny part of arithmetic is quite small compared
to the whole arithmetical truth, but still something very big compared to a
unique local physical cosmos.

Bruno

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.netwrote:

Jason,

Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
you are saying.

As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct
experience

Do you think the present moment is the only point in time to exist, to
the exclusion of all others?  If so, please explain how this is
self-evident.

whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish interpretation of
quantum equations which has no basis at all in direct experience,

I agree with this.  But then why isn't it also outlandish to presume
past moment's in time must cease to exist, just because we are not in them?
It seems to be a needless addition to the theory (just like wave function
collapse), to keep our concept of what is real, limited to that which we
are aware of from our particular vantage point.

To be clear, the collapse theories say that even though the equations of
quantum mechanics predict multiple outcomes for measurements, they suppose
that those other possibilities simply disappear, because we (from our
vantage point in one branch) did not experience those other vantage points
in other branches. Hence they presume only one is reified, to the exclusion
of all others. This us-centered thinking is how I see presentism. It says
that only one point in time is reified, to the exclusion of all others.

or in quantum theory = the actual equations.

If you believe quantum theory is based entirely on the actual equations
(e.g. the Schrodinger equation), this leads naturally to many-worlds. It is
only by added additional postulates (such as collapse) that you can hope to
restrict quantum mechanics to a single world. All attempts at this which I
have seen seem ad hoc and completely unnecessary.

Anyway the theory of decoherence put wave function collapse to rest
long ago

You need to clarify here. Decoherence is used by some to say when
collapse happens (without ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

With Quantum Mechanics NOTHING is a wave function, that is to say no
observable quantity is. The wave function is a calculation device of no
more reality than lines of longitude and latitude. If you want to talk
about reality you've got to SQUARE the wave function, and even then all you
get is a probability not a certainty; not only that but the wave function
contains imaginary numbers so 2 different wave functions can yield the
exact same probability when you square it.

Sure, I agree if you want to define 'things' as decoherence

I define a thing as anything observable; it's what most people mean when
they say something like concrete reality.

rather than the wave functions that decohere to produce them. That's
standard QM. I'm just using common parlance.

Quantum Mechanics can be formulated in a way that makes no use of wave
functions whatsoever, in fact that was the way  Heisenberg originally did
it. It was only 6 months later that Schrodinger came up with his wave
equation. Both methods come up with the exact same probability prediction
and which method used in the calculation is entirely a matter of personal
taste. And there is no arguing in matters of taste.

But this is irrelevant to my points.

far from the truth as it's possible to get.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

Jason,

O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist?

I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest
that the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has
that feels and experiences, it is immaterial, it transcends the
physics of this universe, in that it can travel between universes,
it is immortal, eternal, and it can even experience reincarnation,
ressurection to realms of unlimited freedom (heavens, paradises,
nirvana), and can even unite with a superior being (divine union,
moksha).

In short, many of the mystics and various religious ideas appear to be
correct given our current sciebtific understanding, and purely
atheistic and materialistic views of science are, as a consequence,
wrong.

I don't expect you to take all these claims at face value, as each
requires substantial explanation. I am, however, in the process of
writing a book that explains each of these concepts in more detail and
shows exactly how each idea follows durectly from different well-
established scientific theories.

I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum!

Who is to say that souls are not amendble to scientific investigation?

Why must all scientific theories necessarily be silent on such matters?

Jason

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
wrote:

Richard and Stephen,

ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!

Edgar

How do you know it doesn't exist?

Jason

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
step...@provensecure.com wrote:
!
Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests
that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of
all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as
it was proposed. Do

Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to
humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything
except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far
from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name
a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even
asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the
shenannigans of various gods.

you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that
every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe
spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every
event in every one of those new universes does the same. This
immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the
universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding
exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to
calculate the

The MWI is a straight interpretation of
...
--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Jason,

O, for God's sakes. No wonder you believe in block time, MW, the
nonexistence of the present moment and the tooth fairy!;-)

Just wait till I present my theory of consciousness!

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:04:31 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Dec 29, 2013, at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:

Jason,

O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist?

I do. I think many accepted and leading theories in science suggest that
the soul for lack of a better word. It is that each of us has that feels
and experiences, it is immaterial, it transcends the physics of this
universe, in that it can travel between universes, it is immortal,
eternal, and it can even experience reincarnation, ressurection to realms
of unlimited freedom (heavens, paradises, nirvana), and can even unite with
a superior being (divine union, moksha).

In short, many of the mystics and various religious ideas appear to be
correct given our current sciebtific understanding, and purely atheistic
and materialistic views of science are, as a consequence, wrong.

I don't expect you to take all these claims at face value, as each
requires substantial explanation. I am, however, in the process of writing
a book that explains each of these concepts in more detail and shows
exactly how each idea follows durectly from different well-established
scientific theories.

I thought this was supposed to be a scientific forum!

Who is to say that souls are not amendble to scientific investigation?

Why must all scientific theories necessarily be silent on such matters?

Jason

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

Richard and Stephen,

ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!

Edgar

How do you know it doesn't exist?

Jason

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
step...@provensecure.com wrote:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131205142218.htm#!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/r

...

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

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good
start!

But decoherence also falsifies MW.

Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM,
I will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative
of the experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is
collapse.

First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not
a physical object.

QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave
equation. If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the
wave, you doubt QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation
of QM.

It's a description of a physical object in human math.

You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for.

Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that

That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable
of analysing it.

Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what
you assume.

Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a
wavefunction.

Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a
quantum decision?

The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of
a physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing
background space common to all events, it's a description of how
space can dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some
other particle, in other words it's the range of possibilities for
the dimensional relationship that would occur if it interacted with
another particle's wavefunction.

That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like
explaining gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this.
In physics (which I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the
mind-body problem).

In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion.

Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical
computational space. It is only when wavefunctions actually
interfere and decohere with each other that actual dimensional
relationships arise, and therefore a point in a dimensional space is
created. This is how dimensional spaces emerge piecewise from
quantum decoherence events.

So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of
logical computational space by this process, but they are not
separate universes, because they in turn continually merge via
common events that connect and align them. The result of googles of
these processes is the simulacrum of classical spacetime. It is the
origin of physicality from computational space.

That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM
and resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as
explaining the source of quantum randomness, so it's an excellent
model. You really need to understand it.

Everett had an insight but since he didn't understand how spacetime
emerges from, is actually created by, quantum events in
computational information space, he followed it off into never never
land...

Bruno

Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:31:38 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Dec 2013, at 19:30, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Not at all. Decoherence falsifies collapse.

?

That is my point. Decoherence falsifies collapse. Exactly.

Decoherence falsifies many worlds.

Decoherence is just the contagion of superposed states to the
observer/

environment. It vindicates the many-worlds.

Many-worlds is not an interpretation, but an easy consequence of the
linearity of the wave, and the linearity of the tensor product.

That is so true, than when the founders got this, they introduces a
new axiom for the measurement which basically says that quantum
mechanics is wrong for the observer, to avoid the spreading of the
physicists obeys to physical laws.

With decoherence everything is a wavefunction and those wave
functions just keep on going and interacting in this single world.

The waves don't interact, and the superposition, by linearity, never
disappeared, and spread at light speed.

QM-without-collapse = MW.

Explain me with only QM how a branch of the wave could ever disappear.

Then with comp, arithmetic contains all dreams, and QM becomes the
digital seen from a first person plural points of view. the math
confirms this up to now. This makes mono-universe still less
plausible.

Bruno

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

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email ```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```

On 29 Dec 2013, at 15:19, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Jason,

O, for God's sakes! You believe souls exist? I thought this was
supposed to be a scientific forum!

I guess *you* take seriously some theory of soul, to be so sure that
it does not exist, or could not have any sense.

soul is often used to denote the first person part of the person
(owning body (and bodies)).

With computationalism, you can somehow save your soul on a disk. Of
course, in term of the first person, you only save the abstract
ability to manifest yourself in the local environment.

The soul is the mental private subjective space.

It is also, arguably, the knower.

Bruno

Edgar

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:24:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
wrote:

Richard and Stephen,

ER=EPR will have a hell of a time explaining the soul since the soul
doesn't exist!

Edgar

How do you know it doesn't exist?

Jason

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 9:58:22 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Stephen Paul King
step...@provensecure.com wrote:
!
Yes. String theory is the great white hope. Lubos Motl even suggests
that ER=EPR may explain the concept of the soul.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/12/quantum-gravity-and-afterlife.html

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Liz R liz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 28 December 2013 06:18:26 UTC+13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Many worlds is probably the most outlandishly improbable theory of
all time, and should have been laughed out of existence as soon as
it was proposed. Do

Fortunately, science is not decided on what seems probable to
humans, or we would never have realised that there is anything
except the Earth and some lights in the sky. The MWI is very far
from the most outlandishly improbable theory of all time, I can name
a dozen ontological theories that are more outlandish without even
asking WIkipedia, such as the idea that the world was created by the
shenannigans of various gods.

you actually understand what it says or implies? Basically that
every quantum event that ever occured in the history of the universe
spawns an entire new universe of all its possible outcomes and every
event in every one of those new universes does the same. This
immediately exponentially escalates in the first few minutes of the
universe into uncountable new universes and has been expanding
exponentially ever since over 14.7 billion years! Just try to
calculate the

The MWI is a straight interpretation of
...

--
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.

```

### Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

```Bruno,

Another stab at how spacetime emergences computationally or something
like that. I forget exactly how I titled it...

Best,
Edgar

On Sunday, December 29, 2013 12:36:05 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Dec 2013, at 14:52, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Bruno,

Glad we agree that decoherence falsifies collapse. That's a good start!

But decoherence also falsifies MW.

Non collapse = many-worlds, to me. If I make a quantum choice, by QM, I
will put myself in a superposition and execute the two alternative of the
experience. If one of the two terms disappears, there is collapse.

First of all you have to understand what a wavefunction is. It's not a
physical object.

QM is the assumption that particles and fields follows some wave equation.
If you doubt that the physical reality is described by the wave, you doubt
QM. And this has nothing to do with the interpretation of QM.

It's a description of a physical object in human math.

You confuse the theories and what the theory are intended for.

Basically in QM its formulated as the 'answer' to a question that can be

That's like defining an atom by the set of experimental set up capable of
analysing it.

Then you refer all the times to a reality, and I still don't know what you
assume.

Second, properly understood, there are no 'branches' to a wavefunction.

Relatively to some observable, there are. What is your semantic of a
quantum decision?

The correct interpretation of a wavefunction is not a description of a
physical object (electron) smeared out in a fixed pre-existing background
space common to all events, it's a description of how space can
dimensionally emerge if that particle decoheres with some other particle,
in other words it's the range of possibilities for the dimensional
relationship that would occur if it interacted with another particle's
wavefunction.

That's not so bad way to see the things, perhaps. It looks like explaining
gravity through quantum entanglements. I am OK with this. In physics (which
I don't assume any theory, as a constraints in the mind-body problem).
In no way this makes alternate realities in oblivion.

Thus all this occurs not in physical space, but in logical computational
space. It is only when wavefunctions actually interfere and decohere with
each other that actual dimensional relationships arise, and therefore a
point in a dimensional space is created. This is how dimensional spaces
emerge piecewise from quantum decoherence events.

So you do get many individual spacetime fragments emerging out of logical
computational space by this process, but they are not separate universes,
because they in turn continually merge via common events that connect and
align them. The result of googles of these processes is the simulacrum of
classical spacetime. It is the origin of physicality from computational
space.

That's the way it works And this model also unifies GR and QM and
resolves all quantum 'paradox' at the same time, as well as explaining the
source of quantum randomness, so i

...

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