Re: Free will in MWI
On 24 May 2012, at 22:27, John Clark wrote: On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Reason is not nominating anyone by itself. I am doing the nominating Are you doing the nominations for a reason? There are only two possible answers. Reasons don't care what I nominate, but I do. And if you were constructed differently you would care about different reasons. In the sense that I make determinations, but if that's true than being deterministic means having free will, and so the word loses all meaning. Finely! I thought this day would never come but at last you start to get the point, at least for a instant. who can *generate new reasons themselves*. Did you generate new reasons for a reason? There are only two possible answers. rigid logic is not sufficient the phenomenological reality of the actual universe we inhabit. You don't know any science and now you admit you believe even logic is unimportant, and yet you still expect to unlock the secrets of the universe just by sitting in your armchair and thinking, and you don't even have to think very hard because the colloquial terms that are key to your ideas don't need to be put under a microscope. Well good luck with that little endeavor, you're going to need it. There is no such thing as winning or losing an argument without free will. I knew it could not last, for a instant you understood that the noise had no meaning but now you're right back to saying free will, and cows still say moo and ducks still say quack. You can say you had no reason for writing that but I know it isn't true Interesting, you may not think my reasons are good but you think they are reasons nevertheless; so you think I'm deterministic. I have free will to decide [...] Did you decide for a reason? There are only two possible answers. That sounds like you are making a free will choice A choice made for a reason or a choice made for no reason. There is no third alternative. out of a personal preference The reason I have that personal preference is because that's the way my brain is wired, or perhaps there was no reason at all and thus random. What reason do you have for wanting to take credit for 'personally thinking'? So you think I'm deterministic, you want to know what caused me to do what I did. Well, if there was a reason it was because that is the way my brain is wired, of course there may not have been a reason at all, it could have been random. What is this 'personally think' ASCII noise? From this and other things you have said I gather that you believe that thinking and the fact that things happen for a reason or the don't is contradictory, but I'll be damned if I understand why that is supposed to be true. I don't see the connection. What reason do you have to believe that? Once again you demand to know the cause of my belief, you want to know the reason behind it. Once again you assume I am deterministic, and no doubt in your next breath you will insist that I am not deterministic, and not random either! Don't you see that you are using free will to choose to deny free will? The idea is not good enough to deny, free will is so bad it's not even wrong. And I choose to say that free will is gibberish for a reason or I say free will is gibberish for no reason, there is no third alternative. The argument ended as soon as you said I don't want... I don't want for a reason or I don't want for no reason, there is no third alternative. I have reasons. Then you are deterministic. Reasons do not have me. I don't know what that means so this is a case where there may actually be a third alternative. Reasons do not have you for a reason, or reasons do not have you for no reason, or reasons do not have you is gibberish. You take consciousness for granted and then deny that it exists. What the hell are you talking about?? Consciousness is the one thing I'm absolutely certain of, my consciousness anyway, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of eggs, I thought we were discussing determinism and randomness. In the first place illusion is a perfectly real subjective phenomena and in the second place it's true, we really do want to do some things and not do other things. So then we agree, the feeling is real. Certainly. Do you imagine that meaning and intelligence are not part of the universe? No. We made the laws out of our own free will Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means. Whatever happens, happens. I think that's probably true, the alternative, whatever happens doesn't happen just does not ring true to me somehow. Why or how could anything try to interfere with that in a deterministic universe? The question is moot, the universe is not deterministic, some things happen for no reason. Then we are deterministic. Sure, but we also
Re: The limit of all computations
On 24 May 2012, at 19:48, meekerdb wrote: On 5/24/2012 6:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 May 2012, at 09:07, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: To be sure I usually use - for the material implication, that is a - b is indeed not a or b (or not(a and not b)). The IF ... THEN used in math is generally of that type. I use a = b for from a I can derive b, in the theory I am currently considering. Actually, thinking about your thesis, I don't recall you ever once using the symbol =. Instead, you tend to write a - b I do appreciate the distinction, though! For any theory having the modus ponens rule, we have that a - b entails (yet at another meta-level) a = b. This should be trivial. For many quite standard logics, the reciprocal is correct too, that is: a = b entails a - b. This is usually rather hard to prove (Herbrand or deduction theorem). It is typically false in modal logic or in many weak logics. For example the normal modal logics (those having Kripke semantics, like G, S4, ...) are all close for the rule a = Ba, but virtually none can prove the formula a - Ba. This is a source of many errors. Simple Exercises (for those remembering Kripke semantics): 1) find a Kripke model falsifying a - Ba. 2) explain to yourself why a = Ba is always the case in all Kripke models. Isn't a=Ba trivially true since every axiom is a theorem? a alone can be read as a is true. If a = Ba was a valid rule, and reading B as provable, it would mean that if a is true then a is provable. Incompleteness provide a counter-example. Dt is true (for PA), but not provable (by PA). So a = Ba is not a valid rule, and a - Ba is not always a true proposition (Dt - BDt is false). Note that a - Ba is true if a is a sigma_1 proposition, and B is the provability modality of any sigma_1 complete theory. x - Bx asserts a form of completeness, like Bx - x asserts a form of correctness or soundness. I recall that a Kripke model is a set (of worlds) with a binary relation (accessibility relation). The key is that Ba is true in a world Alpha is a is true in all worlds Beta such that (Alpha, Beta) is in the accessibility relation. Why is a = Ba true in Kripke models? Surely, it is possible for a to be true, yet false in some successor world? You are right, but this shows only that a - Ba is false in the world you are in. I'm confused. ~[a-Ba] means a is true but not provable (i.e. Ba is false) in the world you are in? Why is proof relative to the world you are in? By definition of the Kripke semantics. Truth is relativized to worlds. Then, for the Gödelian provability, it just happens, by Solovay theorem, that it obeys a normal modal logic, (G), which means it has a Kripke semantics. You can interpret a world by a model (in the sense of model theory). it means that a is supposed to be valid (for example you have already prove it), so a, like any theorem, will be true in all worlds, so a will be in particular true in all worlds accessible from anywhere in the model, so Ba will be true in all worlds of the model, so Ba is also a theorem. - is the implication, but = concerns deduction. In fact a = Ba should not be said true, or false, only valid, or non valid. It is a rule of inference. It means for example that from a proof of a, you can deduce a proof of Ba. Doesn't that last sentence say Ba=BBa? It does imply it, but if B is self-referential, it is equivalent with Ba - BBa. And this is correct in the Kripke model, because a proof of a makes a true in *all* worlds (of the appropriate Kripke structure). So Ba-a but ~[(a=Ba)-a]? This is meaningless, as you can't mix = and -. ~[(a=Ba)-a] is neither a formula, nor a rule. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Einstein and Socratus.
Einstein and Socratus. =. Einstein, you was mistaken using your Gravitation theory to the all Universe as a whole. The Gravitation theory doesn’t work in the Universe as a whole. The Gravitation theory is a local theory. Why? Because the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe ( the cosmological constant / the critical density) is so small ( the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately p=10^-30 g/sm^3 ) that it cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe as whole must be ‘open’, endless, infinite. The Universe as a whole is an Infinite Pure Vacuum: T=0K. More concrete: § 1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= ∞ , p = 0, t =∞ . =. We have two (2) Worlds: Vacuum and Material and we need to understand their interaction. ==. Socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Free will in MWI
On Thu, May 24, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: My doing the nomination is the reason for the reasons. And the reason for the reasons that you nominated in the way you did had a reason or it did not. That doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't continue to enjoy free will. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means. I have said from the start that we make determinations. Good. We make them with our free will. I don't know what free will means but I do know that determinations are determined, and it they are determined they are deterministic. there is always the third answer when it comes to free will. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means. It's like this. If you are the color yellow, and all yellow is you, then your universe will consist only of shades of blue and red. You can't see yourself so you say 'yellow is nonsense'. I see. Perhaps I could summarize your above statement this way: T was brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. No, I actually have already unlocked the secrets of the universe. I could care less if anyone else knows it. I am sharing what I have found as a service to others who are interested. That is remarkable, you really believe you are the first one to generate reams of untestable self-contradictory useless downright silly words about the free will noise. Why does the wiring of your brain want you to take credit for 'personally thinking'? If there are reasons your brain is wired the way it is they are heredity and environment, if there were no reasons then it was random. I want you to admit that your reasons are your own Why are they just my reasons? Other people (not you certainly) have used those very same reasons, some used them before I did and some used them to greater effect than I did. and not determined for you exclusively by foreign elements. I admit that without hesitation, I admit that some things happen for no reason, some things are random. You are certainly deterministic in part, and you certainly have free will. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means. It may be the case that nothing is random in an absolute sense. I doubt it but if true then everything is deterministic, although even then you wouldn't know what you are going to do next until you do it, and the only way to know what some Turing Machines will do is watch it and see. Don't you see that you are using free will right now? No I don't see because I don't know what the ASCII string free will means and neither do you. What do you mean by 'I don't want'? I will take action to try to ensure that the event does not take place. What is the reason for I? What is the reason for want? It doesn't matter what the reason is. If there really is a reason then it's deterministic if there is no reason then it's random. am I a car? No. Reasons don't have me because they don't exist independently of experience. And the reason a raindrop hit that specific spot on the ground is the complex experiences it had falling from the cloud to the earth. My free will is their reason. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string free will means. I buy you flowers and the reason for you getting flowers is my will to send them to you. Yes, you sent me flowers because of your will, you wanted to send me flowers and nothing prevented you from doing so thus you could act as your will ordered you to do. As to the question as to why you wanted to send me flowers, why your will was in that state it was in, there was a reason for that or there was not. They were beautiful by the way, thank you. The reason is my free will. Then whatever free will is it's deterministic. We are discussing free will. Which is the sole purpose of your consciousness. I don't know what the purpose of your consciousness is even supposed to mean, and I never knew what free will meant, so your statement is gibberish squared. So you don't deny that I am absolutely right. I couldn't fail to disagree with you less. Only a clear coherent non-contradictory idea can be right or wrong, you are neither. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
A Computable Universe: Understanding and Exploring Nature As Computation
http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html Overview This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the foundations of computation in relation to nature. It focuses on two main questions: What is computation? How does nature compute? The contributors are world-renowned experts who have helped shape a cutting-edge computational understanding of the universe. They discuss computation in the world from a variety of perspectives, ranging from foundational concepts to pragmatic models to ontological conceptions and philosophical implications. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: A Computable Universe: Understanding and Exploring Nature As Computation
On 5/26/2012 1:50 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/en/Files/Entries/2012/5/23_A_Computable_Universe.html Overview This volume, with a foreword by Sir Roger Penrose, discusses the foundations of computation in relation to nature. It focuses on two main questions: What is computation? How does nature compute? The contributors are world-renowned experts who have helped shape a cutting-edge computational understanding of the universe. They discuss computation in the world from a variety of perspectives, ranging from foundational concepts to pragmatic models to ontological conceptions and philosophical implications. Alas, it cost $138.00 US. That is too much. :_( -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
