Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Jan 2009, at 02:26, Kim Jones wrote:



 On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 I admire too. Kim is courageous.
 Well, for the tenacity we will see :)



 Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am
 devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my
 ability to sit and cogitate on Correct Machine Theology will be
 severely curtailed if I don't find a job soon.


Life is not easy. Wish you the best.




 In the meantime, is there any chance of a bus slogan campaign: There
 Probably Is a Universal Dovetailer Computing All of Reality.

Too much technical and ambiguous imo. The danger with comp is that a  
slight misunderstanding of it can transform it into a reductionism or  
even a nihilism.




 Now, All
 Of You Theologians, Start Worrying and Start Studying Quantum Physics,
 Computationalism and Modal Logic.

Modal logic is generally considered as an invention of theologian. It  
has been a practical tool for religious metaphysics among Middle-Age  
theologians, especially in Middle East.
You could as well have said Scientists, Start Worrying to have to  
ReStart the Study of Plato's Theology.
But I am not sure we should start worry people with a subject which  
can so easily give too much metaphysical vertigo.

Take it easy,

Bruno




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




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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-10 Thread John Mikes
Brent,
there are misunderstood phenomena and epistemologically underdeveloped
explanations over the past 10,000 years - plus conclusion (upon
conlusions)^n - quantizations with and without zero (14th c. AD) to develop
in our conventional scientific view the figment Bruno puts into  -  called
The Physical World (view). Within this there is 'physics' as a
conventional science. Never mind that beyond its 101 there are included QM
etc. considered 'less' conventional - still within the figment.
Clicking in your kind post on the *DrChinese.com* ref, you may find more
formulated trains than I care to follow, with a
---
*Conclusion

*QM predicts an expectation value for cases [2] and [7] of -.1036, which is
less than 0 and seemingly absurd. However, this is born out by actual
experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments, in
defiance of common sense! This result means that the seemingly reasonable
assumption (the Realistic view) that we started with in *c.* above is
invalid. This is easily explained in QM because cases [2] and [7] are *not*
real, they are literally imaginary. (Note that X, Y and Z can be separately
tested anywhere in the world at any time and you still end up with the same
conclusion once you combine the results per *h.* above.)
---
you may follow the critical ways what I did not.

Many of the posts on this list are transcending limitations of the *
conventionally* *physical world* figment (although many still use elements
taken from there). Just try to roll back how many levels of concludings you
have to pass into arriving  at a 'pair of entangled photons diverted into
opposite dir.' or other conditions of 'experiments' and you will not deny
the Gedankenexperiment status of EPR with its conclusions, all experiments
with supportive (Aspect?) and criticizing (Bell? Dr.Chinese?) ideas in spite
of the success in our present technology based on such conventional science
and human ingenuity.
I read Bell and Aspect 2 decades ago and thanks for the
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf
for a refresher.

John M





On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:


 John Mikes wrote:
  Brent wrote:
 
  ...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the
  influence of  the rest of the world is non-local
  (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity...
 
  EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How
  can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that shows...?

 Because it has been performed in various ways and is not just a thought
 experiment.

 http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

 Brent

  Furthermore: relativity is a (genius) human idea, based on the figment
  of the 'physical world' (assumption). Whether something is consistent or
  inconsistent with it, is also no 'proof' to be considered in dubious
  theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics).
  (Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
  the focus of my post.)
 
  John M
 
 
  On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com
   mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 
 
  John Mikes wrote:
Dear Bruno,
   
I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and
  probabilistics.
*
Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
*
...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
experience with a probability measure
HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2
   
Wrong.
A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL.
 It
is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in
 the
outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the
starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.
 
  Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so
 that
  it lands heads or tails as he chooses.   Many professional magicians
 can
  do it to.
   
To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how
 you
identify 'probability'. (I don't).
To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
That makes my point.
*
The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above
 my
head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even
  a big
genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming
  AFTER his
time.
(Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)
   
...Einstein missed 

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi John,


 I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi  
 assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations  
 beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.


It is as you wish, but it is my way to question the humans, through UDA.
Then the number is my way to question the machine, through AUDA.

You seem to have a problem with thought experiences and with numbers,  
which prevent you to follow both path.

Don't worry, because perhaps you have your own path and interest and I  
know we agree on some fundamental issue.

The only thing which sometimes worries me is when it looks you are  
sure that machine or number are dumb, which for me illustrates a  
common human prejudice (the feeling superior ...)




 Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and  
 probabilistics.
 *
 Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
 It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
 *
 ...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
 experience with a probability measure
 HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2

 Wrong.
 A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL.  
 It is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in  
 the outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the  
 starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.


It seems to me that I agree with you. Let me give you my precise  
definition of a perfect throw of a dice. You know, as Brent Meeker  
recall nowadays there are magician which can cheat on those things  
in extreme brilliant ways.
So I will accept that a thrown of coin is perfect (relatively to the  
Probability 1/2) if the coin is enclosed in a velvet box and the box  
is shaken during 5 days by 500 monkeys themselves taken randomly among  
10 monkeys, and this when God is not looking (to prevent God for  
being the magician accomplice, who knows ...).





 To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you  
 identify 'probability'. (I don't).
 To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
 That makes my point.
 *
 The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above  
 my head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even  
 a big genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming  
 AFTER his time.


Einstein was alas still a bit brainwashed by Aristotle, imo. You know  
that I think that the Platonists, and especially Plotinus, has well  
coped with the epistemic enrichment coming after him, and I believe,  
after us  (Lewis Carroll too I think, actually).

And I would so much be pleased to let you guess that the little Lobian  
machine can cope a so big epistemic enrichment too...

Theology has to come back in Academy, I think, if only we want some  
human human science ... I'm afraid that  science has been interrupted  
in 529.

The enlightnment period has only aggravated the gap between human  
science and exact science. This could explain in part the inhuman mess  
on the planet.



 (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)

 ...Einstein missed comp by its conventionalist math blindness  
 perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in  
 computer science. ...

 I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to  
 the level of asking resonable questions.


I admire too. Kim is courageous.
Well, for the tenacity we will see :)



 I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am  
 further away from your domain to do so.


My domain is theology. scientific and thus agnostic theology.  I  
specialized my self in Machine's theology. Or Human's theology once  
assuming comp. The UDA shows (or should show) that physics is a branch  
of theology, so that the AUDA makes Machine's theology experimentally  
refutable.

Will machines go to paradise?

As a scientist I *know* nothing, but I can appreciate some theories.  
Theories are always hypotheses, waiting to be changed or reinterpreted.



 Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.

 One word of how I feel about probability:
 In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains  
 for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the  
 item in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences  
 beyond the boundaries of that domain. The next occurrence in the  
 future history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past  
 history in our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited  
 into our model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world',  
 so we cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all.
 Ominscient is different. I am not.

I am not sure I understand, given that probability is a measure of  
our ignorance (from us to God, depending on the domain indeed).
In deterministic theories like comp or Everett QM (the Many-World),  
all computable probabilities 

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread John Mikes
Brent wrote:

...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the influence of
 the rest of the world is non-local
(i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity...

EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How can
one use such artifact as 'evidence' that shows...?
Furthermore: relativity is a (genius) human idea, based on the figment of
the 'physical world' (assumption). Whether something is consistent or
inconsistent with it, is also no 'proof' to be considered in dubious
theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics).
(Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
the focus of my post.)

John M


On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.comwrote:


 John Mikes wrote:
  Dear Bruno,
 
  I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
  assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
  beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
  Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
  *
  Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
  It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
  *
  ...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
  experience with a probability measure
  HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2
 
  Wrong.
  A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It
  is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the
  outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the
  starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.

 Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so that
 it lands heads or tails as he chooses.   Many professional magicians can
 do it to.
  
  To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you
  identify 'probability'. (I don't).
  To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
  That makes my point.
  *
  The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above my
  head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even a big
  genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming AFTER his
  time.
  (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)
 
  ...Einstein missed comp by its conventionalist math blindness
  perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in computer
  science. ...
 
  I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to
  the level of asking resonable questions.
  I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am
  further away from your domain to do so.
 
  Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.
 
  One word of how I feel about probability:
  In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains
  for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the item
  in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond
  the boundaries of that domain. The next occurrence in the future
  history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past history in
  our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited into our
  model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world', so we
  cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all.
  Ominscient is different. I am not.
 I think it is an open question whether there is inherent randomness in
 quantum mechanics.  In Bohmian QM the randomness comes from ignorance of
 the rest of the world.  But the EPR experiments show that this can
 only hold if the influence of  the rest of the world is non-local
 (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity.

 Brent

 


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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Günther Greindl

John, Brent,

John said:
  EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. 
 How can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that shows...?


Aspect Et Al tested it ages ago, see for instance here:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~kono/ELEC565/Aspect_Nature.pdf

Brent said:
  But the EPR experiments show that this can
 only hold if the influence of  the rest of the world is non-local
 (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity.


QM lives well with special relativity (the physics community speaks of 
peaceful coexistence) due to the fact that non-local effects can not 
be used for signalling.

QM and Relativity only clash at the level of General Relativity 
(gravity)- at Black Holes and other Singularities (Big Bang).

Cheers,
Günther

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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Kim Jones


On 10/01/2009, at 5:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 I admire too. Kim is courageous.
 Well, for the tenacity we will see :)



Gee thanks Doctor! I'll try not disappoint you. At the moment I am  
devoting an egregious amount of time to searching for employment as my  
ability to sit and cogitate on Correct Machine Theology will be  
severely curtailed if I don't find a job soon.

In the meantime, is there any chance of a bus slogan campaign: There  
Probably Is a Universal Dovetailer Computing All of Reality. Now, All  
Of You Theologians, Start Worrying and Start Studying Quantum Physics,  
Computationalism and Modal Logic.

Perhaps we can get it down to something a bit shorter?

cheers,

Kim



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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-09 Thread Brent Meeker

John Mikes wrote:
 Brent wrote:
  
 ...But the EPR experiments show that this can only hold if the 
 influence of  the rest of the world is non-local
 (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity...
  
 EPR is a thought-experiment, constructed (designed) to make a point. How 
 can one use such artifact as 'evidence' that shows...?

Because it has been performed in various ways and is not just a thought 
experiment.

http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR_Bell_Aspect.htm

Brent

 Furthermore: relativity is a (genius) human idea, based on the figment 
 of the 'physical world' (assumption). Whether something is consistent or 
 inconsistent with it, is also no 'proof' to be considered in dubious 
 theories (like the conventional - or not so conventional - physics).
 (Anyway this side-line was far from 'random' or 'probabiliyt'
 the focus of my post.)
  
 John M
 
  
 On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com 
 mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com wrote:
 
 
 John Mikes wrote:
   Dear Bruno,
  
   I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi
   assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations
   beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
   Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and
 probabilistics.
   *
   Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
   It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
   *
   ...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
   experience with a probability measure
   HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2
  
   Wrong.
   A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It
   is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the
   outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the
   starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.
 
 Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so that
 it lands heads or tails as he chooses.   Many professional magicians can
 do it to.
  
   To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you
   identify 'probability'. (I don't).
   To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
   That makes my point.
   *
   The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above my
   head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even
 a big
   genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming
 AFTER his
   time.
   (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)
  
   ...Einstein missed comp by its conventionalist math blindness
   perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in
 computer
   science. ...
  
   I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to
   the level of asking resonable questions.
   I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am
   further away from your domain to do so.
  
   Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.
  
   One word of how I feel about probability:
   In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains
   for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the
 item
   in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond
   the boundaries of that domain. The next occurrence in the future
   history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past history in
   our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited into our
   model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world', so we
   cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all.
   Ominscient is different. I am not.
 I think it is an open question whether there is inherent randomness in
 quantum mechanics.  In Bohmian QM the randomness comes from ignorance of
 the rest of the world.  But the EPR experiments show that this can
 only hold if the influence of  the rest of the world is non-local
 (i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity.
 
 Brent
 
 
  


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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-08 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno,

I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi assumptions
(thought experiments?) on this list - about situations beyond common sense,
their use as templates for consequences.
Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
*
Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
*
...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
experience with a probability measure
HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2

Wrong.
A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It is
those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the outcome
to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the starting condition -
whether it is thrown head or tail UP.

To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you
identify 'probability'. (I don't).
To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
That makes my point.
*
The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above my head
(=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even a big genius
like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming AFTER his time.
(Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)

...Einstein missed comp by its conventionalist math blindness perhaps,
togethet with the fact that he was not interested in computer science. ...

I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to the
level of asking resonable questions.
I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am further
away from your domain to do so.

Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.

One word of how I feel about probability:
In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains for our
observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the item in question
(that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond the boundaries of
that domain. The next occurrence in the future history is undecided from a
knowledge of the domain's past history in our best effort: we can consider
only the 'stuff' limited into our model, cannot include effects from 'the
rest of the world', so we cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next'
occurrence at all.
Ominscient is different. I am not.

Thanks for an interesting reading.

John M




On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 On 03 Jan 2009, at 12:59, Kim Jones wrote:
 
  Bruno,
 
  In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience)
  the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that
  I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary
  transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and
  reconstitution on Mars. The same thing will now happen to one of me
  in the duplication-plus-delay in Step 4. Essentially, Step 4 is
  identical to Step 2 with duplication as the only added feature. We
  cannot attribute a measure to my 1-pov in either step because the
  outcome is truly random.

 It is because an event can be random or probabilistic that we have to
 put a measure on it (like a distribution of probabilities, or of
 credibilities).

 Example: the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
 experience with a probability measure HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2.

 I will ask you questions, if you don't mind. I prefer to ask question
 and illustrate the use of the word in place of teaching you the
 probability theory.

 - Do you agree that if you throw a coin, you have a probability of 1/2
 to get HEAD?
 - Do you agree that if you throw a dice, you have a probability of 1/6
 to get six?
 - Do you agree that if you play lottery, you will win the biggest
 price with a probability like 1/big number

 In most discrete case, we can infer equivalence of the elementary
 events on the base of symmetry (like in the old Pascal probability
 calculus).
 
  Here I would merely like to ask, random to whom?

 *Fair enough.* In all situation which will interest us: it means random
 for the subject who performs the (first person) experience.
 You are the one throwing the dice? Then it will be random for you
 (despite it will be random for your friend too, but perhaps not for God).

  Doesn't random mean  that no conscious mind (mine or yours) can see the
 determinism behind it?

 I could agree, although it is not necessary to dig on such detailed
 analysis, imo.

  We are tempted to say probability 1/2 but that is only a comp-style
 bet.

 I am not sure I understand. There is just one comp bet: the yes doctor,
 which we can be paraphrased in step 1by I survive (or I go to Mars) with
 probability 1. (and idem in step 2)
 But in step 3, ASSUMING comp, it is hard for me to see any difference with
 the throwing of a coin, *for the subject of the experience*.

 Suppose I propose the following two type of experiences/experiments.
 The ROOM ZERO and the ROOM ONE are NOT distinguishable from inside
 (but are of 

Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-08 Thread Brent Meeker

John Mikes wrote:
 Dear Bruno,
  
 I decided so many times not to reflect to the esoteric sci-fi 
 assumptions (thought experiments?) on this list - about situations 
 beyond common sense, their use as templates for consequences.
 Now, however, I can't control my 'mouse' - in random and probabilistics.
 *
 Bruno quotes in   --   lines, like the starting proposition:
 It is because an event can be random or probabilistic...
 *
 ...the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random
 experience with a probability measure
 HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2
  
 Wrong.
 A PERFECT coin PERFECTLY thrown gives ALWAYS either HEAD or TAIL. It 
 is those imperfections unobserved(?) that makes the difference in the 
 outcome to 50-50. The only difference that really counts is the 
 starting condition - whether it is thrown head or tail UP.

Interestingly, the statistician Persis Diaconis can flip a coin so that 
it lands heads or tails as he chooses.   Many professional magicians can 
do it to.
  
 To your subsequent 3 questions the answer is YES - depending how you 
 identify 'probability'. (I don't).
 To your evaluating paragraph Fair Enough: fair enough.
 That makes my point.
 *
 The experiments with sleeping in the room with whiskey are above my 
 head (=my common sense). The Einstein conclusions show that even a big 
 genius like him cannot cope with epistemic enrichment coming AFTER his 
 time.  
 (Which extends into the contemporary novelties as well?!)
  
 ...Einstein missed comp by its conventionalist math blindness 
 perhaps, togethet with the fact that he was not interested in computer 
 science. ...
  
 I admire Kim's scientific tenacity to absorb your 'explanations' to 
 the level of asking resonable questions.
 I could not spend so much time to submerge myself - and - maybe I am 
 further away from your domain to do so.
  
 Thanks for the (*) added post scriptum, I missed it so far.
  
 One word of how I feel about probability:
 In the conventional (scientific/math) view we consider model domains 
 for our observation (interest). Within such domain we 'count' the item 
 in question (that is statistical) irrespective of occurrences beyond 
 the boundaries of that domain. The next occurrence in the future 
 history is undecided from a knowledge of the domain's past history in 
 our best effort: we can consider only the 'stuff' limited into our 
 model, cannot include effects from 'the rest of the world', so we 
 cannot tell a 'probability' of the 'next' occurrence at all.
 Ominscient is different. I am not.
I think it is an open question whether there is inherent randomness in 
quantum mechanics.  In Bohmian QM the randomness comes from ignorance of 
the rest of the world.  But the EPR experiments show that this can 
only hold if the influence of  the rest of the world is non-local 
(i.e. faster than light) and hence inconsistent with relativity.

Brent

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



Re: Kim 2.4 - 2.5

2009-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Jan 2009, at 12:59, Kim Jones wrote:


 Bruno,

 In this step, one of me experiences (or actually does not experience)
 the delay prior to reconstitution. In Step 2, it was proven to me that
 I cannot know that any extra time (other than the 4 minutes necessary
 transmission interval) has elapsed between my annihilation and
 reconstitution on Mars. The same thing will now happen to one of me
 in the duplication-plus-delay in Step 4. Essentially, Step 4 is
 identical to Step 2 with duplication as the only added feature. We
 cannot attribute a measure to my 1-pov in either step because the
 outcome is truly random.


It is because an event can be random or probabilistic that we have to  
put a measure on it (like a distribution of probabilities, or of  
credibilities).

Example: the perfect throwing of the perfect coin gives an random  
experience with a probability measure HEAD = 1/2, TAIL = 1/2.

I will ask you questions, if you don't mind. I prefer to ask question  
and illustrate the use of the word in place of teaching you the  
probability theory.

- Do you agree that if you throw a coin, you have a probability of 1/2  
to get HEAD?
- Do you agree that if you throw a dice, you have a probability of 1/6  
to get six?
- Do you agree that if you play lottery, you will win the biggest  
price with a probability like 1/big number

In most discrete case, we can infer equivalence of the elementary  
events on the base of symmetry (like in the old Pascal probability  
calculus).






 Here I would merely like to ask, random to whom?


Fair enough. In all situation which will interest us: it means random  
for the subject who performs the (first person) experience.
You are the one throwing the dice? Then it will be random for you  
(despite it will be random for your friend too, but perhaps not for  
God).




 Doesn't random mean
 that no conscious mind (mine or yours) can see the determinism behind
 it?



I could agree, although it is not necessary to dig on such detailed  
analysis, imo.







 We are tempted to say probability 1/2 but that is only a comp-
 style bet.


I am not sure I understand. There is just one comp bet: the yes  
doctor, which we can be paraphrased in step 1by I survive (or I go  
to Mars) with probability 1. (and idem in step 2)
But in step 3, ASSUMING comp, it is hard for me to see any difference  
with the throwing of a coin, *for the subject of the experience*.

Suppose I propose the following two type of experiences/experiments.  
The ROOM ZERO and the ROOM ONE are NOT distinguishable from inside  
(but are of course distinguishable from outside). In particular, to  
make things 100% clear later, i add in both room a close box with a  
bottle of whisky inside. And you know this fact about the rooms.

Type 1 experience: I make you asleep, then I throw a coin, if the  
outcome is HEAD I put you in the ROOM ZERO, if I get TAIL, I put you  
in the ROOM ONE. In the room, I wake you up, and I ask you to evaluate  
the chance of finding whisky in the box, and then the chance  
(probability) of being in room ZERO.

Type 2 experience: I make you asleep, then I scan you and annihilate  
you, and I reconstitute you in both rooms ZERO and ONE.  I wake you up  
in both room. In both rooms, you have to evaluate the chance  
(probability) of being in room ZERO or ONE,  and the chance of
finding whisky in the box.

 From the first person points of view, sequences of such experience  
will seem equivalent, except for the Harry Potter or white rabbit  
youS, which will believe in special computable sequences. OK?

Now the question can be asked BEFORE you undergo the experience. You  
can predict you will have whisky with probability 1. So you can  
predict that you will NOT know in which room you are with probability  
one. So you can predict with certainty that you *will be* uncertain of  
which room you are. So you are now not knowing in which room you will  
be. So the 1/2 can be lifted in your past. You could not have known!  
(This I sum up by the drawing: Y = II, bifurcation of futures  
differentiates the pasts)


 You explained on this in Step 2:


 We see that the MEC hypothesis, generally considered as imposing a
 strong determinacy in nature, introduces on the contrary a form of
 strong indeterminacy. Even a God, or whatever possible Omniscient
 Being, cannot predict to you, before a duplication (of you)
 experiment, where you will feel to be after. If he told you you will
 feel to be the one in room A, the Kim in room A will say that such
 God was right, but the one in room B will know or believe that that
 God was wrong, and the point of MEC is that we have no reason to
 listen more to one Kim than to the other Kim. In particular the Kim of
 room A will not convince the Kim of room B, that God was right. No
 Kim will ever be able to convince its counterpart about any possible
 method of prediction for the particular future.


 I want to grok this more. At this stage I can