Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 27 Sep 2013, at 20:58, meekerdb wrote: On 9/27/2013 10:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Sep 2013, at 04:50, meekerdb wrote: On 9/26/2013 7:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 September 2013 14:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/26/2013 6:47 PM, LizR wrote: On 27 September 2013 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/26/2013 6:05 PM, Russell Standish wrote: This is a sort of cul de sac experience, which has to be impossible to create if QTI is true. The existence of a universal dovetailer entails the lack of all cul de sac experiences (Comp immortality). So does it make loss of consciousness impossible? under anesthesia?...forever? Surely not, because from a first person perspective one just goes to sleep and wakes up again (or experiences dreams). No cul de sac implies there's no way to stop consciousness permanently. I know it implies that, but I see no reason to believe it. The question isn't whether consciousness continues, but whether *your* consciousness, a particular consciousness continues. To say otherwise is like saying youcan't kill the guy in Moscow because he has a duplicate in Washington. This is the Haraclitus problem (or observation, if you don't consider it a problem). The man can't step into the same river because he isn't the same man. The consciousness that continues after any given moment is, presumably, the next moment of consciousness which is the best continuation of the last one. This seems similar to the view in FOR that the multiverse is made of snapshots which give the appearance of forming continuous histories (ignoring whether you can slice up space-time into snapshots...) But I think this is a confusion. Because computations have states and nothing corresponding to transition times between states people are tempted to identify those states with states of consciousness and make an analogy with frames of film in a movie (hence 'the movie graph argument'). But there's a huge mismatch here. A conscious thought has a lot of duration, I'd estimate around 0.02sec. The underlying computation that sustains the quasi-classical brain at the quantum level has a time constant on the order of the Planck time 10^-43sec. And even if it isn't the quantum level that's relevant, it's obvious that most thinking is unconscious and a computer emulating your brain would have to go through many billions or trillions of states to instantiate one moment of consciousness. That means that at the fundamental level (of say the UD) there can be huge overlap between one conscious thought and the next and so they can form a chain, a stream of consciousness. So there's a certain amount of mini-death-and-mini-rebirth going on every second in the normal process of consciousness (in this view). Deciding what counts as a continuation and what doesn't seems a bit ... problematic. (And of course there are many continuations from any given moment.) Not if there's nothing to overlap. Sure there is, by some measure, a closest next continuation. But when you're eighty years old and fading out on the operating table, it's going to be another eighty year old fading out on some other operating table. I think someone has suggested that if you fade out completely then the next closest continuation could be a newborn infant who is just 'fading in'. Which is a nice thought - but is it you? That happens each time you smoke salvia, you fade into your baby state (which makes you look like a retard, which you are, in some sense, or, on higher dose, well beyond the baby states (which actually knows already a lot, from the beyond perspective)). Then you fade back into the actual you, at least that is what you thought, but you can doubt it also. Deep enough (in the amnesia/disconnection) you can experience a consciousness state which is experienced as time independent. Perhaps the consciousness of all simple virgin universal machine/ loop/numbers. It would be the roots of the consciousness flux; the set of all universal numbers (a non recursively enumerable set). So what do you suppose is the physical effect of salvia in your brain? Difficult question, but my current theory is that it simply shut down part of the brain. The shut down of the corpus callosum would explain the feminine presence, which would be how the left (analytical brain, [] p) perceive the right (intuitive, [] p p) brain, for example. In that case the right brain is also the one specialized with our connection to truth (the ultimate platonic goddess!). Other connecting parts of the brain might be shut down, making us disconnected from the long term memory, and eventually we would live the galois connection effect, and consciousness would be related to our possible extensions, in some direct way (linking consciousness with its logical ancestor: consistency).
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 27 Sep 2013, at 20:10, David Nyman wrote: On 27 September 2013 17:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The NDAA bill is equivalent with If you fear me, I will put you indefinitely in jail. I confess that I hadn't been giving this issue much attention. However, I now read the following: Section 1021 of the NDAA bill of 2012 allowed for the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process at the discretion of the President. When David Frost challenged Richard Nixon on his illegal activities in the 1970's, Nixon replied, in all seriousness apparently, if the President does it, it's not illegal. Well, 40-odd years later, it looks like he was right. My current speculation on this is that the departure from the US constitution started after JFK assassination. This introduced the prohibitionists into power, and the making of marijuana prohibition could have been used as Trojan Horse to get full power. Prohibition is only a technic to sell a lot of drugs, without quality control, nor price control, + the ability to directly target all kids on all streets, making huge black markets, and leading to important corruption so that prohibition is continued, and the fear selling business can be pursued. Nixon, Reagan, but also Chirac and people in the UK, are known having ordered studies on marijuana, and put the result in the trash (as *all* independent studies have shown marijuana far less toxic and addictive than alcohol, etc.). The society A partnership for a drug free America is financed by the industries of alcohol, tobacco, guns and scientology. Which says a lot. It explains why the legal drugs are the dangerous one (oil, alcohol, tobacco, ...), and the illegal drugs are mostly innocuous (french cheese, cannabis, ...). Prohibition makes the state into a drug dealer, and transforms the planet into a big Chicago. Pollution and climate change comes from there too, as Henry Ford already asked why to use non sustainable oil, when hemp guarantied atmospheric equilibrium. The green should invest in antiprohibitionism. After the NDAA 2012, the war on terror seems to me to be like the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. It is a quasi-confession. Obama could have said simply we are the terrorist. Since them, I have few doubt that 9/11 is an inside job, and the evidences are rather big that this is the case, especially when you look at the NIST report, which is technically as convincing than the papers on the danger of cannabis. Bruno David On 26 Sep 2013, at 12:34, David Nyman wrote: On 26 September 2013 08:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You argue, I think, that computationalism escapes this by showing how computation and logic emerge naturally from arithmetic. And how this explains the appearance of discourse on consciousness and matter Yes, ISTM that this is where identity theories break down finally; the explanation of the self-referential discourses is perhaps the most persuasive aspect of comp. I was reflecting recently on panpsychist matter theories such as those proposed by Galen Strawson (or Chalmers in certain moods). ISTM that ideas like these run foul of the problem of how to attribute consciousness to some intrinsic aspect of matter whilst simultaneously justifying our ability to discourse about it. Since the discourse part is rather obviously relational in nature it is rather difficult to see how this could refer to any supposedly intrinsic aspect of the relata. Any such aspect, even if it existed, would be inaccessible to the relational level. After all, we don't expect the characters in TV dramas to start discussing the intrinsic qualities of the TV screen on which they are displayed! Then I think there is a genuine concern due to the opposition between life and afterlife. may be theology is not for everybody, a bit like salvia: it asks for a genuine curiosity, and it can have some morbid aspect. I try to understand why some machines indeed want to hold a contradictory metaphysics, even up to the point of hiding obvious fact, like personal consciousness. Yes, ISTM that there's also often a kind of reflexive self- abnegation, or a shrinking back from any idea that consciousness could have a role to play in the story, let alone a central one. This is perhaps understandable in the light of historically mistaken attempts to place humanity at the centre of the cosmos. Science is therefore seen as having finally defeated religion and superstition by taking the human perspective entirely out of the equation. But ironically, taken to extremes, such a one-eyed (or no-eyed) perspective may have the effect of leaving us even more blind to our true nature than we ever were before. Very well said. I think that this is due in part to the fact that many humans want to control other humans. It is simpler to do that with fairy tales and
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 27 Sep 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I do remember a conversation you had with Bruno about 5 years ago when you were discussing what a man in Helsinki would experience when undergoing the duplicator experiment. Yes. I seem to recall you thought the man would experience being in both places at once, No, that is NOT what I said! I said that if Russell Standish were duplicated then Russell Standish would be in Moscow and Washington. I also said the vague and sloppy use of words like youand he and I and the man is at the root of Bruno's intense confusion, and apparently yours as well. which does violence to the notion of survival after copying assumption of COMP. Bullshit. And this beautifully illustrates why I am reluctant to go back to square one and list all the blunders Bruno made in just the first few pages that I read, I have already written about 6.02*10^23 posts that covers the subjects in this post and most are in far far greater detail. Just provide one link. We have answered them all. You kept repeating the same confusion between different person points of view, or, in some post, you confuse the phenomenology of the indeterminacy with all their different logical origins. In many, you just change the definitions given. I have come to the conclusion that logical arguments will not convince anybody if it is their policy to first decide what they want to believe and only then look for evidence to support it. I have never met a scientist not convinced by the first person indeterminacy, accepting to discuss this privately or publicly. You try to avoid the debate, and that's the only strategy used by philosophers to hide the (quite simple) discovery. You act like a pseudo-religious dogmatic pseudo-philosopher, it seems to me. If you would have a real argument, you would take a pleasure to explain it calmly, and without using insults and mocking hand waving. So, provide an argument, answer the questions, or try to admit that you lost your point. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 27 Sep 2013, at 21:54, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought experiment should logically have the same problem with the MWI. No, you are entirely incorrect. The Many World's Interpretation is about what you can expect to see, and although it may seem strange to us Everett's ideas are 100% logically self consistent. Bruno's proof is about a feeling of identity, Not at all. It is about a result that I can expect in an experiment. Like Liz and Quentin said, the situation is isomorphic with Everett QM. Everett mention what you call feeling of identity, which is a consequence of modeling the observer by a machine with personal memory. about who you can expect to be; but you do not think you're the same person you were yesterday because yesterday you made a prediction about today that turned out to be correct, you think you are the same person you were yesterday for one reason and one reason only, you remember being Liz yesterday. It's a good thing too because I make incorrect predictions all the time and when I do I don't feel that I've entered oblivion, instead I feel like I am the same person I was before because I can remember being the guy who made that prediction that turned out to be wrong. Bruno thinks you can trace personal identity from the present to the future, I insist, on the contrary, that we don't need any identity theory to get the FPI. but that is like pushing on a string. You can only pull a string and you can only trace identity from the past to the present. A feeling of self has nothing to do with predictions, successful ones or otherwise, and in fact you might not even have a future, but you certainly have a past. With comp, in all cases we have one future, in the first person pov (and infinitely many in the third person pov), bith in comp, and in Everett QM. I have explained this with many examples. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 06:27, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: Teleportation thought experiments are also about what you can expect to see. And I have no objection to thought experiments of that sort, but Bruno is not talking about assigning the probability you will see Moscow or Washington, Yes, it is. You invent thing. he's talking about the probability you will become the Washington Man or the Moscow Man, No, it is not. Please read the posts or papers, and don't make opportunist changes. and the two things are not the same. He claims that if personal diaries were kept and predictions about the future were made in them it would be concrete evidence on who is who and have a bearing on the nature of personal identity, but that is nonsense. Yes, I insist on that. But see above. If yesterday I wrote in my diary that there is a 100% chance I would make money in the stock market tomorrow but today I lost my shirt my failed prediction would not destroy my identity, I would not enter oblivion I'd just be broke. Personal identity can only be traced from the past to the present, the future is unknown. UDA is constructed in a way which avoid any concern with personal identity. Like all (rare) opponents, you put in my mouth things I never said or write. Easy. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 06:33, chris peck wrote: Hi Russel Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent does too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this and then offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which were certainties rather than indeterminacies. He didn't get back to me on that, but I think he has doubts or should have. If that is not what you said, what do you think that man would experience? a) Nothing b) being in Moscow xor being in Washington c) being in Moscow and Washington d) being in neither Moscow nor Washington Logically, these four possibilities exhaust the situation. Only b) is compatible with COMP. You have to remember that the question is asked before the man is duplicated and consequently only c is compatible with comp. I hope Bruno's ideas are not too dependent on b being compatible with comp, because b is incompatible. If the scan of the man successfully copies the 'I'ness, then that 'I'ness must be sent to washington AND moscow. And, given comp, prior to duplication he should expect to experience both moscow and washington. But do you see that none of the copy will experience both cities? Both will experience only one city, and by comp, they know this in advance. Russell is talking on the first person experience, not on the third person bodies. Bruno All the best. From: stath...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 14:02:44 +1000 Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 28 September 2013 05:54, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:37 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone who has a problem with Bruno's teleportation thought experiment should logically have the same problem with the MWI. No, you are entirely incorrect. The Many World's Interpretation is about what you can expect to see, and although it may seem strange to us Everett's ideas are 100% logically self consistent. Bruno's proof is about a feeling of identity, about who you can expect to be; but you do not think you're the same person you were yesterday because yesterday you made a prediction about today that turned out to be correct, you think you are the same person you were yesterday for one reason and one reason only, you remember being Liz yesterday. It's a good thing too because I make incorrect predictions all the time and when I do I don't feel that I've entered oblivion, instead I feel like I am the same person I was before because I can remember being the guy who made that prediction that turned out to be wrong. Bruno thinks you can trace personal identity from the present to the future, but that is like pushing on a string. You can only pull a string and you can only trace identity from the past to the present. A feeling of self has nothing to do with predictions, successful ones or otherwise, and in fact you might not even have a future, but you certainly have a past. Teleportation thought experiments are also about what you can expect to see. If you toss a coin and teleport to either Washington or Moscow that is like a single world interpretationof QM. If teleport to both Washington and Moscow that is like the MWI. It is generally accepted that you can't tell which is the case from experience. If you think they are different then you would have a proof or disproof of the MWI. Is that what you claim? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 07:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 04:33:15AM +, chris peck wrote: Hi Russel Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent does too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this and then offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which were certainties rather than indeterminacies. He didn't get back to me on that, but I think he has doubts or should have. If that is not what you said, what do you think that man would experience? a) Nothing b) being in Moscow xor being in Washington c) being in Moscow and Washington d) being in neither Moscow nor Washington Logically, these four possibilities exhaust the situation. Only b) is compatible with COMP. You have to remember that the question is asked before the man is duplicated and consequently only c is compatible with comp. I hope Bruno's ideas are not too dependent on b being compatible with comp, because b is incompatible. If the scan of the man successfully copies the 'I'ness, then that 'I'ness must be sent to washington AND moscow. And, given comp, prior to duplication he should expect to experience both moscow and washington. All the best. Experiencing both Washington and Moscow at the same time would be a sort of madness, a schizophrenic experience. That is why I said it did violence to the notion of surviving the duplication. With b) on the other hand, it matters not whether you experience Washington, or you experience Moscow, you have survived the experience. That is why b) is compatible. I suppose in retrospect, strictly speaking, d) is also compatible with COMP, but a bit of a strange choice. One wonders what you possibly could be experiencing in this case, given the protocol. I don't see how d) can be compatible with comp. Both sees one city, W or M. Only b is compatible, like you said. Bruno -- 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Sep 2013, at 07:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 04:33:15AM +, chris peck wrote: Hi Russel Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent does too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this and then offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which were certainties rather than indeterminacies. He didn't get back to me on that, but I think he has doubts or should have. If that is not what you said, what do you think that man would experience? a) Nothing b) being in Moscow xor being in Washington c) being in Moscow and Washington d) being in neither Moscow nor Washington Logically, these four possibilities exhaust the situation. Only b) is compatible with COMP. You have to remember that the question is asked before the man is duplicated and consequently only c is compatible with comp. I hope Bruno's ideas are not too dependent on b being compatible with comp, because b is incompatible. If the scan of the man successfully copies the 'I'ness, then that 'I'ness must be sent to washington AND moscow. And, given comp, prior to duplication he should expect to experience both moscow and washington. All the best. Experiencing both Washington and Moscow at the same time would be a sort of madness, a schizophrenic experience. That is why I said it did violence to the notion of surviving the duplication. With b) on the other hand, it matters not whether you experience Washington, or you experience Moscow, you have survived the experience. That is why b) is compatible. I suppose in retrospect, strictly speaking, d) is also compatible with COMP, but a bit of a strange choice. One wonders what you possibly could be experiencing in this case, given the protocol. I don't see how d) can be compatible with comp. Both sees one city, W or M. Only b is compatible, like you said. Bruno You survive the experience, but it is not the experience you expect. Maybe you end up dreaming that you are on Mars, for example. Its an odd choice, as I said, but I can't see how the COMP postulates rule it out. -- 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 06:02, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: I said that if Russell Standish were duplicated then Russell Standish would be in Moscow and Washington. This is only true from the POV of an external observer which is not Russell Standish Don't give me that pee pee POV bullshit, Russell Standish will see Moscow and Washington PERIOD. You say I is ambiguous, and then you call pov bs the nuances which are given. To say here that Russell will see W and M, is a 3-pov view on the 1- pov, not the 1-pov views, on which the question was bearing. It is really mysterious why you act like that. both Russell will only feel from their *own* POV to be in one and only one place (either washington or moscow). How in the world does that conflict with my statement that Russell Standish would be in Moscow and Washington? It says so plain as day but for some reason people just keep ignoring the fact that RUSSELL STANDISH HAS BEEN DUPLICATED and keep on using pronouns like I and he just as they always have as if nothing unusual has happened. Good, but that makes our point, not your's. that's the *main* point. Yes, and I realized very early that if Bruno's main point was as worthless as that then there was no reason to keep reading his proof. Why? If you see it, just proceed in the proof. You oscillate again between too much simple and wrong. This seems to illustrate also that your goal is not in understanding a point, but demolishing a person. Why? Have you bet your entire fortune that I am a crackpot or what? Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours then say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous. John K Clark John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first three steps. I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR (on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just missed it. I'm sceptical of the hundreds of posts claim, though. For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all into a comprehensible document. I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which is one of those rare works in that topic that is not gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that later when I finish it. Bruno, I think you would be interested in this (if you haven't already read it) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf I am working my way through it slowly, and I just came upon this delightful statement: Thus, the idea that we can “escape all that philosophical crazy-talk” by declaring that the human mind is a computer program running on the hardware of the brain, and that’s all there is to it, strikes me as ironically backwards. Yes, we can say that, and we might even be right. But far from bypassing all philosophical perplexities, such a move lands in a swamp of them! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 10:17, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours then say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous. John K Clark John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first three steps. I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR (on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just missed it. I'm sceptical of the hundreds of posts claim, though. For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all into a comprehensible document. I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which is one of those rare works in that topic that is not gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that later when I finish it. Bruno, I think you would be interested in this (if you haven't already read it) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0159v2.pdf I am working my way through it slowly, and I just came upon this delightful statement: Thus, the idea that we can “escape all that philosophical crazy- talk” by declaring that the human mind is a computer program running on the hardware of the brain, and that’s all there is to it, strikes me as ironically backwards. Yes, we can say that, and we might even be right. But far from bypassing all philosophical perplexities, such a move lands in a swamp of them! Good remark. It is my main meta-point. Comp makes possible to formulate philosophical theological questions. But materialists indeed use comp to push the question under the rug, and that might explain why such work makes them nervous (so much to ignore it completely, or defame, etc.). But Scott is still unaware of the FPI, the reversal, the logical coming back of Plato and Plotinus, etc. He does not really push the logic far enough. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 26 September 2013 17:27, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz Interesting. There's another thought experiment, or gambit, MWIers raise involving quantum immortality. In this, some quantum event at time t triggers a gun to shoot (or not shoot) the MWIer. Traditionally, MWIers argue the only reason they would not take the gambit is because they would leave behind grieving family in one MWI branch. They are not in any doubt over whether they would survive in the other branch. Thus, in this case the probabilities are governed by a conjunction. They are both convinced they will be killed and convinced they will survive. There is no 1-p indeterminacy about either prior to the quantum event. Now the logic of q-immortality and your MWI analog of Bruno's thought experiment seem to me to be the same. But, the MWIers apparently treat the two inconsistently. How can one be uncertain about whether one will be in Moscow in one experiment but certain about surviving in the other? Do you see my problem? Hi Chris Yes, I think I see the problem. I have other problems with the QI gambit anyway - decoherence probably happens far faster than the time it takes a bullet to reach you, so maybe you need a nuclear bomb to do this properly (as first suggested by Fred Hoyle when he came up with the idea, I believe). Plus the QTI suggests that you will survive being shot anyway, so you might just end up horribly disfigured, but alive... ditto for a nuclear bomb, come to think of it. Actually, that might answer your point. The QI gambit doesn't work as MWIers believe, even assuming QTI is true. Hence the probability of finding yourself experiencing either branch is 50-50 (in a sense. Actually, assuming the MWI you experience both branches, but you have split in the meantime). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:29:17AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Sep 2013, at 07:46, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 04:33:15AM +, chris peck wrote: Hi Russel Thank goodness Clarcky has the same/similar complaint as me. I think Brent does too, because he said he had an initial reaction to the step like this and then offered an analysis of the probabilities to me all of which were certainties rather than indeterminacies. He didn't get back to me on that, but I think he has doubts or should have. If that is not what you said, what do you think that man would experience? a) Nothing b) being in Moscow xor being in Washington c) being in Moscow and Washington d) being in neither Moscow nor Washington Logically, these four possibilities exhaust the situation. Only b) is compatible with COMP. You have to remember that the question is asked before the man is duplicated and consequently only c is compatible with comp. I hope Bruno's ideas are not too dependent on b being compatible with comp, because b is incompatible. If the scan of the man successfully copies the 'I'ness, then that 'I'ness must be sent to washington AND moscow. And, given comp, prior to duplication he should expect to experience both moscow and washington. All the best. Experiencing both Washington and Moscow at the same time would be a sort of madness, a schizophrenic experience. That is why I said it did violence to the notion of surviving the duplication. With b) on the other hand, it matters not whether you experience Washington, or you experience Moscow, you have survived the experience. That is why b) is compatible. I suppose in retrospect, strictly speaking, d) is also compatible with COMP, but a bit of a strange choice. One wonders what you possibly could be experiencing in this case, given the protocol. I don't see how d) can be compatible with comp. Both sees one city, W or M. Only b is compatible, like you said. Bruno You survive the experience, but it is not the experience you expect. Maybe you end up dreaming that you are on Mars, for example. Its an odd choice, as I said, but I can't see how the COMP postulates rule it out. By the default hypothesis that your brain has been copied at the right level, in the you Helsinki-state, and that it is that state which is copied in the cities. Dreaming that you are in mars cannot be instantiated in the copies, nor more than for *any* experimental procedure. You can also track the Higgs boson with the LARC, and end up dreaming on pink elephants, but the probability of this is throw out by the usual default hypothesizing. Bruno -- 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 Sep 2013, at 08:29, freqflyer07281972 wrote: So it seems to me that all of us are situated within a spectacular confluence of cosmological and biological factors. The cosmological factors include the fact that dark energy hasn't gotten strong enough to rip the whole works apart, that the moon just so happens to be just as big as it is to provide us a perfect occlusion of the sun during an eclipse, that we are just around the right time of our sun's evolution that we can rely on it to be stable for the next billion years or so, that the moon is already properly tidally locked to our planet, such that it won't have any future effect on our rotation period (good for life!) The biological factors include the fact that some self replicating molecule was able to find purchase on a home (DNA), that it had enough time to evolve (it's home star was 'kind' and didn't burp ionizing radiation one or two or dozens of times the way we know other stars do) that it had a kind substrate (i.e. earth) that provided the kind of atmospheric protection for life required in case the home star did burp that we have come from a long line of survivors, and therefore we are almost automatically very robust, both physically and mentally And yet we talk about whether we are made from numbers and their inexorable arithmetic relations(Bruno), And we talk about whether sensation is ultimately primary, and perhaps the only thing (Craig), But it really all comes down to the confluence of these various factors that allows us to have this conversation in the first place, comp be damned, do I assume primitive physical reality? well, look at the sky and the moon and the time it's taken for this arbitrary contingent thing to evolve, how could it be computational? ? I don't see your point freq. Comp has no problem with long, deep (in Bennett sense) irreductible computations. It provides non avoidable role for big numbers. On the contrary, the FPI gives a role for all numbers, and it is more the role of the little number which are an a priori threat for comp. What is your alternative, beyond assuming non-comp and mind or sense as primary, like Craig? Like Maudlin said for QM, we have only a choice between different poisonous gifts! multisense realism be damned, look at how things are conditioned by their structure and function as we find them objectively... there's a reason why hex wrenches open hex bolts, and it has nothing to do with sensation Best, Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, What does that mean? as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? Can you give a reference? Thanks, Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 28 September 2013 14:27, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: Teleportation thought experiments are also about what you can expect to see. And I have no objection to thought experiments of that sort, but Bruno is not talking about assigning the probability you will see Moscow or Washington, he's talking about the probability you will become the Washington Man or the Moscow Man, and the two things are not the same. He claims that if personal diaries were kept and predictions about the future were made in them it would be concrete evidence on who is who and have a bearing on the nature of personal identity, but that is nonsense. If yesterday I wrote in my diary that there is a 100% chance I would make money in the stock market tomorrow but today I lost my shirt my failed prediction would not destroy my identity, I would not enter oblivion I'd just be broke. Personal identity can only be traced from the past to the present, the future is unknown. We have evolved to believe at a gut level that we are a single entity travelling forward through time, and when faced with a situation where this is not the case, like duplication, our minds adjust by assigning probabilities. The objective truth is that there is a version of me in Washington, a version in Moscow, and the original version destroyed; but that is not what we are asking when we want to know what to expect when we step into the teleporter. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 3:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Everett mention what you call feeling of identity, which is a consequence of modeling the observer by a machine It doesn't matter if modeling the observer by a machine is valid or not, if tomorrow somebody remembers being Bruno Marchal today then Bruno Marchal has a future, if not then Bruno Marchal has no future, and Quantum Mechanics or a understanding of Everett's Many Worlds is not needed for any of it. Period. However in a completely different unrelated matter, if you want to assign a probability that tomorrow Bruno Marchal will observe a electron move left or right then you will need Quantum Mechanics, and some (including me) feel that Everett's interpretation is a convenient way to think about it, although there are other ways. With comp [...] Does comp mean every event must have a cause? That question has a simple yes or no answer, and you made up the word so you must know the answer, what is it? If it's yes then I don't believe in this thing you call comp. in all cases we have one future, in the first person pov It is revealing that in explaining the theory of personal identity Bruno Marchal must always insert vague undefined personal pronouns like we or you or I at key points despite the fact that if it were already clear what those pronouns referred to then the entire matter would already be settled. Thus regardless of what comp means it is certain that if Everett is correct then Bruno Marchal has more than one future; as to the question does he have more than one future?, well, that has the same answer as the question how long is a piece of string?. But no doubt I am confusing the first person view of the second person view of the third person view with the second person view of the first person view of the third person view once removed on my mother's side. By the way, exactly when does this first person pov occur in a given experiment and how long does it last? If it's what I'm feeling right now then it's not going to last for long because right now doesn't last for long. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/28/2013 12:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Prohibition is only a technic to sell a lot of drugs, without quality control, nor price control, + the ability to directly target all kids on all streets, making huge black markets, and leading to important corruption so that prohibition is continued, and the fear selling business can be pursued. Nixon, Reagan, but also Chirac and people in the UK, are known having ordered studies on marijuana, and put the result in the trash (as *all* independent studies have shown marijuana far less toxic and addictive than alcohol, etc.). The society A partnership for a drug free America is financed by the industries of alcohol, tobacco, guns and scientology. Which says a lot. It explains why the legal drugs are the dangerous one (oil, alcohol, tobacco, ...), and the illegal drugs are mostly innocuous (french cheese, cannabis, ...). Prohibition makes the state into a drug dealer, and transforms the planet into a big Chicago. Pollution and climate change comes from there too, as Henry Ford already asked why to use non sustainable oil, when hemp guarantied atmospheric equilibrium. The green should invest in antiprohibitionism. After the NDAA 2012, the war on terror seems to me to be like the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. It is a quasi-confession. Obama could have said simply we are the terrorist. Since them, I have few doubt that 9/11 is an inside job, and the evidences are rather big that this is the case, especially when you look at the NIST report, which is technically as convincing than the papers on the danger of cannabis. I agree with most of what you wrote above, but that last is nonsense. There is no way the government could have engineered the 9/11 attacks without it being leaked even before it happened. Remember Occam, you need to take the simplest explanation. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/28/2013 12:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Sep 2013, at 19:55, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: I do remember a conversation you had with Bruno about 5 years ago when you were discussing what a man in Helsinki would experience when undergoing the duplicator experiment. Yes. I seem to recall you thought the man would experience being in both places at once, No, that is NOT what I said! I said that if Russell Standish were duplicated then Russell Standish would be in Moscow and Washington. I also said the vague and sloppy use of words like youand he and I and the man is at the root of Bruno's intense confusion, and apparently yours as well. which does violence to the notion of survival after copying assumption of COMP. Bullshit. And this beautifully illustrates why I am reluctant to go back to square one and list all the blunders Bruno made in just the first few pages that I read, I have already written about 6.02*10^23 posts that covers the subjects in this post and most are in far far greater detail. Just provide one link. We have answered them all. You kept repeating the same confusion between different person points of view, or, in some post, you confuse the phenomenology of the indeterminacy with all their different logical origins. In many, you just change the definitions given. I have come to the conclusion that logical arguments will not convince anybody if it is their policy to first decide what they want to believe and only then look for evidence to support it. I have never met a scientist not convinced by the first person indeterminacy, accepting to discuss this privately or publicly. You try to avoid the debate, and that's the only strategy used by philosophers to hide the (quite simple) discovery. You act like a pseudo-religious dogmatic pseudo-philosopher, it seems to me. If you would have a real argument, you would take a pleasure to explain it calmly, and without using insults and mocking hand waving. So, provide an argument, answer the questions, or try to admit that you lost your point. I'm not sure you even need to convince JC of the FPI due to duplication. He already believes there is uncertainty due to MWI of QM. Isn't that enough for your argument to proceed. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/28/2013 7:58 AM, John Clark wrote: Does comp mean every event must have a cause? That question has a simple yes or no answer, and you made up the word so you must know the answer, what is it? If it's yes then I don't believe in this thing you call comp. But the answer is yes in Everett's MWI (if you take 'event' to be something you can measure, record, or experience). Yet you seem to like MWI. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
I agree with most of what you wrote above, but that last is nonsense. There is no way the government could have engineered the 9/11 attacks without it being leaked even before it happened. Remember Occam, you need to take the simplest explanation. Brent I agree that logically it would seem so, but recent history has shown that, in fact, very large scale conspiracies CAN be kept hidden operate in the occult worlds, over long duration periods spanning many decades, with any leaks and discoveries – and they did happen from time to time -- being successfully managed (by simply ignoring them, sowing a plethora of misinformation, misdirection, and alternate false “theories”, and of course by the time honored practice of bald faced lying) I suggest you read up on the now more widely known history of Operation Gladio. It is a morbidly fascinating subject matter. Gladio (and its sister paramilitaries) was a secret stay behind clandestine CIA/NATA founded and run multi-national paramilitary organization that was successfully hidden away from public knowledge for many decades and would in all likelihood still be a hidden part of history -- unknown to all, but the inner circles of conspirators -- where it not for the testimony provided by the Italian prime minister and perennial post war political figure in Italy -- Giulio Andreotti -- during his trial in the Italian Parliament in the 1990. According to former CIA director William Colby, Operation Gladio was 'a major program'; this was not some small fringe operation (it was a large multinational paramilitary organization with active branches in several European countries, operating under different code names). From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio : Belgium, the secret NATO army was code-named SDRA8, in Denmark Absalon, in Germany TD BJD, in Greece LOK, in Luxemburg Stay-Behind, in the Netherlands IO, in Norway ROC, in Portugal Aginter, in Switzerland P26, in Turkey Özel Harp Dairesi, In Sweden AGAG (Aktions Gruppen Arla Gryning), and in Austria OWSGV. However, the code names of the secret armies in France, Finland and Spain remain unknown. Operation Gladio has been linked to many terrorist operations conducted during the 1980s, especially in Germany and Italy. Perhaps the most damning terrorist operation, it has been implicated in, is the Bologna train station massacre of 1980 (in which 85 Italian civilians waiting in the Bologna station were brutally murdered and another 200 seriously wounded, and that was, by many measures, the most deadly mass terrorist attack in the post WWII Western world -- up until 911) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio#1980_Bologna_massacre The makings of the bomb... came from an arsenal used by Gladio... according to a parliamentary commission on terrorism... The suggested link with the Bologna massacre is potentially the most serious of all the accusations levelled against Gladio, and comes just two days after the Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, cleared Gladio's name in a speech to parliament, saying that the secret army did not drift from its formal Nato military brief. Brent – the facts basically speak for themselves. The government (or rather occult elements in the government) DID engineer the creation and maintenance of a clandestine secret paramilitary force, complete with large arms caches and an organizational command structure and thousands of members, across many European nations (and in the US – from where it was largely run out of Langley Virginia). Invoking the principle of Occam’s razor, while usually valid, does not always mean that the actual reality is more complex and convoluted than the simple (but perhaps naïve ) explanation suggested by applying this principle. -Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, What does that mean? Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something like a game of life? as suggested by, say, Max Tegmark? Can you give a reference? Thanks, Well for Max T it would be the mathematical universe hypothesis paper but I imagine you know of that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/28/2013 12:37 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: I agree with most of what you wrote above, but that last is nonsense. There is no way the government could have engineered the 9/11 attacks without it being leaked even before it happened. Remember Occam, you need to take the simplest explanation. Brent I agree that logically it would seem so, but recent history has shown that, in fact, very large scale conspiracies CAN be kept hidden operate in the occult worlds, over long duration periods spanning many decades, with any leaks and discoveries -- and they did happen from time to time -- being successfully managed (by simply ignoring them, sowing a plethora of misinformation, misdirection, and alternate false theories, and of course by the time honored practice of bald faced lying) I suggest you read up on the now more widely known history of Operation Gladio. It is a morbidly fascinating subject matter. Gladio (and its sister paramilitaries) was a secret stay behind clandestine CIA/NATA founded and run multi-national paramilitary organization that was successfully hidden away from public knowledge Not in the newspapers, doesn't mean it was unknown. Obviously many thousands of people knew of the organizations intended to form an underground resistance if Europe were overrun by Soviet forces. for many decades and would in all likelihood still be a hidden part of history -- unknown to all, but the inner circles of conspirators -- where it not for the testimony provided by the Italian prime minister and perennial post war political figure in Italy -- Giulio Andreotti -- during his trial in the Italian Parliament in the 1990. According to former CIA director William Colby, Operation Gladio was 'a major program'; this was not some small fringe operation (it was a large multinational paramilitary organization with active branches in several European countries, operating under different code names). From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio: Belgium, the secret NATO army was code-named SDRA8, in Denmark Absalon, in Germany TD BJD, in Greece LOK, in Luxemburg Stay-Behind, in the Netherlands IO, in Norway ROC, in Portugal Aginter, in Switzerland P26, in Turkey Özel Harp Dairesi, In Sweden AGAG (Aktions Gruppen Arla Gryning), and in Austria OWSGV. However, the code names of the secret armies in France, Finland and Spain remain unknown. Operation Gladio has been linked to many terrorist operations conducted during the 1980s, Linked is the weakest from of innuendo. Bruno's post claiming the 9/11 acts were false flag attacks can be read as linking the Bush administration to the attack. especially in Germany and Italy. Perhaps the most damning terrorist operation, it has been implicated in, is the Bologna train station massacre of 1980 (in which 85 Italian civilians waiting in the Bologna station were brutally murdered and another 200 seriously wounded, and that was, by many measures, the most deadly mass terrorist attack in the post WWII Western world -- up until 911) The attack has been materially attributed to the neo-fascist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-fascism terrorist organization /Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclei_Armati_Rivoluzionari/. Suspicions of the Italian secret service's involvement emerged shortly after, due to the explosives used for the bomb and the political climate in which the massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre occurred (the strategy of tension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension), but have never been proven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio#1980_Bologna_massacre The makings of the bomb... came from an arsenal used by Gladio... according to a parliamentary commission on terrorism... The suggested link with the Bologna massacre is potentially the most serious of all the accusations levelled against Gladio, and comes just two days after the Italian Prime Minister, Giulio Andreotti, cleared Gladio's name in a speech to parliament, saying that the secret army did not drift from its formal Nato military brief._^_ Brent -- the facts basically speak for themselves. The government (or rather occult elements in the government) DID engineer the creation and maintenance of a clandestine secret paramilitary force, complete with large arms caches and an organizational command structure and thousands of members, across many European nations (and in the US -- from where it was largely run out of Langley Virginia). Invoking the principle of Occam's razor, while usually valid, does not always mean that the actual reality is more complex and convoluted than the simple (but perhaps naïve ) explanation suggested by applying this principle. But supposing this giant and very loosely organized group is, as a group, responsible for a bombing because some of it's explosives were used, is a very big stretch. It's much simpler and more likely that a
RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
But supposing this giant and very loosely organized group is, as a group, responsible for a bombing because some of it's explosives were used, is a very big stretch. It's much simpler and more likely that a rouge element in one small group, maybe even one man, stole the explosive for use in the attack. Just as it is much more plausible that 19 Saudi's, inspired by Bin Laden, carried out an attack on the World Trade Center by hijacking airliners after a previous attack by Bin Laden's followers using a truck bomb on the same building had failed. Come on man be serious – the explosive material used to blow 85 people to pieces and shred the lives of 200 more people has been linked to this occult secret paramilitary force that has deep -- and now -- well-known ties to the far right fascist fringe in Italy directly implicated in the bombing. But the evidence does not just stop there – and the fact that the explosive material used in this mass terror atrocity comes from a secret Operation Gladio explosive cache is really damning hard physical evidence – in any court of law -- no matter what you may say to the contrary. If you have evidence that it was some non-sanctioned rogue operation and that the shadowy secret group was mostly unaware and innocent then by all means make it known. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the bombing was NOT a rogue act – as you imply of possibly just one man acting on their own. Instead it was the end result of a cohesive and premeditated strategy of tension that was adopted at the very highest levels of operation Gladio, and this strategy was sanctioned by the CIA (which did not want the “compromesso storico” with the Italian Communist Party that Aldo Moro – leader of a powerful wing in the Christian Democratic Party -- was considering) Conveniently, as things “happened” to turn out -- Aldo Moro was quite soon kidnapped and then later murdered by the brigate rosse, solving that particular problem. Intriguingly a few short weeks before his kidnap he had said – in a television interview -- were infiltrated by the Mossad and the CIA. Aldo Moro’s widow has publicly alleged that Henry Kissinger himself warned Aldo Moro, again shortly before he was kidnapped and then murdered, that he would be severely punished if he continued to consider the compromesso storico (though “trustworthy” Kissinger himself denies he ever said that) What I am telling you is that this was not just one single act…. Horrible as the Bologna terrorist act was. It was an entire series of serious acts orchestrated through penetrated organizations on the right AND on the left… the P2 (and analogous secretive organizations in Germany, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe) were pulling the levers in all the dark occult corners. In fact there are quite a number of other circumstances linking operation Gladio – and crucially the people now known to have been at the vertices of this shadowy paramilitary terror network -- to the strategy of terrorism and to the attempted military coup de tat in 1972 as well, which came closer than most people are aware to happening. This was debated internally and the pre-meditated decision to this path -- known as the strategy of tension – was taken at the very highest levels. It was based on cold blooded, cold war driven, political calculus. http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/vinciguerra.p2.etc_graun_5dec 1990.html Links between Gladio, Italian secret service bosses and the notorious P2 masonic lodge are manifold. The chiefs of all three secret services - Generals Santovito (SISMI), Grassini (SISDE) and Cellosi (CESSIS) - were members of the lodge. In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio's existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces. And from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio And even in 1990, Testimonies collected by the two men (judges Felice Casson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felice_Casson and Carlo Mastelloni investigating the 1972 Peteano fascist car bomb) and by the Commission on Terrorism on Rome, and inquiries by The Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian , indicate that Gladio was involved in activities which do not square with Andreotti's account. Links between Gladio, Italian secret services bosses and the notorious P2 Masonic lodge are manifold (...) In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio’s existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of 'a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces' There are also overlaps between senior Gladio personnel and the committee of military men, Rosa dei Venti http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_dei_Ventiaction=editredlin k=1 (Wind Rose), which tried to stage a coup in 1970.”[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio#cite_note-Vulliamy-5 When taken all together
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 9/28/2013 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: But supposing this giant and very loosely organized group is, as a group, responsible for a bombing because some of it's explosives were used, is a very big stretch. It's much simpler and more likely that a rouge element in one small group, maybe even one man, stole the explosive for use in the attack. Just as it is much more plausible that 19 Saudi's, inspired by Bin Laden, carried out an attack on the World Trade Center by hijacking airliners after a previous attack by Bin Laden's followers using a truck bomb on the same building had failed. Come on man be serious -- the explosive material used to blow 85 people to pieces and shred the lives of 200 more people has been linked to this occult secret paramilitary force that has deep -- and now -- well-known ties to the far right fascist fringe in Italy directly implicated in the bombing. But the evidence does not just stop there -- and the fact that the explosive material used in this mass terror atrocity comes from a secret Operation Gladio explosive cache is really damning hard physical evidence -- in any court of law -- no matter what you may say to the contrary. If you have evidence that it was some non-sanctioned rogue operation and that the shadowy secret group was mostly unaware and innocent then by all means make it known. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the bombing was NOT a rogue act -- as you imply of possibly just one man acting on their own. Instead it was the end result of a cohesive and premeditated strategy of tension that was adopted at the very highest levels of operation Gladio, and this strategy was sanctioned by the CIA (which did not want the compromesso storico with the Italian Communist Party that Aldo Moro -- leader of a powerful wing in the Christian Democratic Party -- was considering) Conveniently, as things happened to turn out -- Aldo Moro was quite soon kidnapped and then later murdered by the brigate rosse, solving that particular problem. Intriguingly a few short weeks before his kidnap he had said -- in a television interview -- were infiltrated by the Mossad and the CIA. Aldo Moro's widow has publicly alleged that Henry Kissinger himself warned Aldo Moro, again shortly before he was kidnapped and then murdered, that he would be severely punished if he continued to consider the compromesso storico (though trustworthy Kissinger himself denies he ever said that) What I am telling you is that this was not just one single act Horrible as the Bologna terrorist act was. It was an entire series of serious acts orchestrated through penetrated organizations on the right AND on the left... the P2 (and analogous secretive organizations in Germany, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe) were pulling the levers in all the dark occult corners. In fact there are quite a number of other circumstances linking operation Gladio -- and crucially the people now known to have been at the vertices of this shadowy paramilitary terror network -- to the strategy of terrorism and to the attempted military coup de tat in 1972 as well, which came closer than most people are aware to happening. This was debated internally and the pre-meditated decision to this path -- known as the strategy of tension -- was taken at the very highest levels. It was based on cold blooded, cold war driven, political calculus. http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/vinciguerra.p2.etc_graun_5dec1990.html Links between Gladio, Italian secret service bosses and the notorious P2 masonic lodge are manifold. The chiefs of all three secret services - Generals Santovito (SISMI), Grassini (SISDE) and Cellosi (CESSIS) - were members of the lodge. In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio's existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces. And fromwiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio And even in 1990, Testimonies collected by the two men (judges Felice Casson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felice_Casson and Carlo Mastelloni investigating the 1972 Peteano fascist car bomb) and by the Commission on Terrorism on Rome, and inquiries by /The Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian/, indicate that Gladio was involved in activities which do not square with Andreotti's account. Links between Gladio, Italian secret services bosses and the notorious P2 Masonic lodge are manifold (...) In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio's existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of 'a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces' There are also overlaps between senior Gladio personnel and the committee of military men, Rosa dei Venti http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_dei_Ventiaction=editredlink=1 (Wind Rose), which tried to stage a coup in 1970.^[5]
Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:29:30PM -0400, John Clark wrote: Bruno, if you have something new to say about this proof of yours then say it, but don't pretend that 2 years of correspondence and hundreds of posts in which I list things that I didn't understand about the first 3 steps didn't exist. If you can repair the blunders made in the first 3 steps then I'll read step 4, until then doing so would be ridiculous. John K Clark John, for the sake of the rest of us, it would be useful for you to summarise just what the problems were that you found with the first three steps. I have been on everything list since almost the beginning, and on FoR (on and off) most of the time of its existence, too. I don't ever remember a post from you along those lines, although I do recall several references to it by Bruno, so no doubt it exists, and I just missed it. I'm sceptical of the hundreds of posts claim, though. For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all into a comprehensible document. I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which is one of those rare works in that topic that is not gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that later when I finish it. I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:45 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On 9/28/2013 4:28 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: But supposing this giant and very loosely organized group is, as a group, responsible for a bombing because some of it's explosives were used, is a very big stretch. It's much simpler and more likely that a rouge element in one small group, maybe even one man, stole the explosive for use in the attack. Just as it is much more plausible that 19 Saudi's, inspired by Bin Laden, carried out an attack on the World Trade Center by hijacking airliners after a previous attack by Bin Laden's followers using a truck bomb on the same building had failed. Come on man be serious - the explosive material used to blow 85 people to pieces and shred the lives of 200 more people has been linked to this occult secret paramilitary force that has deep -- and now -- well-known ties to the far right fascist fringe in Italy directly implicated in the bombing. But the evidence does not just stop there - and the fact that the explosive material used in this mass terror atrocity comes from a secret Operation Gladio explosive cache is really damning hard physical evidence - in any court of law -- no matter what you may say to the contrary. If you have evidence that it was some non-sanctioned rogue operation and that the shadowy secret group was mostly unaware and innocent then by all means make it known. What I am trying to demonstrate is that the bombing was NOT a rogue act - as you imply of possibly just one man acting on their own. Instead it was the end result of a cohesive and premeditated strategy of tension that was adopted at the very highest levels of operation Gladio, and this strategy was sanctioned by the CIA (which did not want the compromesso storico with the Italian Communist Party that Aldo Moro - leader of a powerful wing in the Christian Democratic Party -- was considering) Conveniently, as things happened to turn out -- Aldo Moro was quite soon kidnapped and then later murdered by the brigate rosse, solving that particular problem. Intriguingly a few short weeks before his kidnap he had said - in a television interview -- were infiltrated by the Mossad and the CIA. Aldo Moro's widow has publicly alleged that Henry Kissinger himself warned Aldo Moro, again shortly before he was kidnapped and then murdered, that he would be severely punished if he continued to consider the compromesso storico (though trustworthy Kissinger himself denies he ever said that) What I am telling you is that this was not just one single act.. Horrible as the Bologna terrorist act was. It was an entire series of serious acts orchestrated through penetrated organizations on the right AND on the left. the P2 (and analogous secretive organizations in Germany, Belgium and elsewhere in Europe) were pulling the levers in all the dark occult corners. In fact there are quite a number of other circumstances linking operation Gladio - and crucially the people now known to have been at the vertices of this shadowy paramilitary terror network -- to the strategy of terrorism and to the attempted military coup de tat in 1972 as well, which came closer than most people are aware to happening. This was debated internally and the pre-meditated decision to this path -- known as the strategy of tension - was taken at the very highest levels. It was based on cold blooded, cold war driven, political calculus. http://www.cambridgeclarion.org/press_cuttings/vinciguerra.p2.etc_graun_5dec 1990.html Links between Gladio, Italian secret service bosses and the notorious P2 masonic lodge are manifold. The chiefs of all three secret services - Generals Santovito (SISMI), Grassini (SISDE) and Cellosi (CESSIS) - were members of the lodge. In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio's existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces. And from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio And even in 1990, Testimonies collected by the two men (judges Felice Casson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felice_Casson and Carlo Mastelloni investigating the 1972 Peteano fascist car bomb) and by the Commission on Terrorism on Rome, and inquiries by The Guardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian , indicate that Gladio was involved in activities which do not square with Andreotti's account. Links between Gladio, Italian secret services bosses and the notorious P2 Masonic lodge are manifold (...) In the year that Andreotti denied Gladio's existence, the P2 treasurer, General Siro Rosetti, gave a generous account of 'a secret security structure made up of civilians, parallel to the armed forces' There are also overlaps between senior Gladio
Aaronson's paper
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all into a comprehensible document. I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which is one of those rare works in that topic that is not gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that later when I finish it. I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed. I have just now finished Aaronson's paper. I would thoroughly recommend the read, and it is definitely a challenge to John Clark's assertion that only rubbish has ever been written about free will. However it is a long paper (more of a short book), so for those of us it is TL;DR, I'll try to summarise the paper, where I agree with it, and more importantly where I depart from it. Aaronson argues that lack of predictability is a necessary part of free will (though not sufficient), much as I do in my book (where I go so far as to define FW as the ability to do something stupid). He does so far more eloquently, and with better contact to philosophical literature than I do. Where he starts to differ from my approach is that he draws a distinction between ordinary statistical uncertainty and what he calls Knightian uncertainty. To use concepts of the great philospher of our time, Donald Rumsfeld :v), Knightian uncertainty corresponds to the unknown unknowns, as compared to the known unknowns of statistical uncertainty. Nasim Taleb's black swan is a similar sort of concept. Aaronson accepts the criticism that ordinary statistical uncertainty is not enough for free will. If I have a choice of three paths to drive to work, with a certain probability of choosing each one, then choosing one of the paths on any given morning is not an exercise in free will. However, ringing work and chucking a sickie that day is an example of Knightian uncertainty, and is an exercise in free will. I accept this distinction between Knightian uncertainty and statistical uncertainty, but fail to see why this distinction is relevant to free will. I was never particular convinced by those who argue that subjecting your will to a random generator does not make it free (that is quite true, but irrelevant, as it is the will which is random, not deterministic and subject to an external generator). Aaronson accepts the criticism, without much comment, or explanation why, alas, even though he gives a perfect example in the form of a gerbil-powered AI that cannot have free will. Accepting Knightian uncertainty as necessary, he goes looking for sources of Knightian uncertainty in the physical universe, and identifies the initial conditions of the big bang as a source of freebits, as a source of Knightian information. He also argues that the requirement for Knightian uncertainty prevents the ability for copying a consciousness. As I understand it, the objection is along the lines of - if I can copy you, the I can use the copy to make perfect predictions of what you do, thus negating any free will you might have. He then points out the no-cloning theorem of quantum mechanics as supporting his freebits picture that consciousnesses cannot be cloned. This, then, would be the basis of Aaronson rejecting COMP, right at step 0 of Bruno's UDA. Personally, I'm not convinced. I could believe that someone makes a very good physical copy of me, looks exactly like me, behaves like I do statistically, and I would believe to be just as conscious as me, yet when it comes down to a free choice, simply chooses to do a different course of action than I do simply by random happenstance. Over time, these differences cause a divergence such that the two copies are quite distinct people. Having a copy of me, does not make me predictable, and this consideration is quite independent of whether you think the no-cloning theorem has anything to do
Re: The confluence of cosmology and biology
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 28 September 2013 21:15, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Sep 2013, at 09:44, LizR wrote: So not an ongoing computation performed by the universe, What does that mean? Actually I think I got confused, it isn't Max T who suggested that, but didn't someone like John Conway suggest the universe could be something like a game of life? I hate to say it, but probably Stephen Wolfram is the biggest proponent of this. -- 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 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Could quantum of light be the original source of life forming atoms ?
Could quantum of light be the original source of life forming atoms ? . Lukin said. What we have done is create a special type of medium in which photons interact with each other so strongly that they begin to act as though they have mass, and they bind together to form molecules. This type of photonic bound state has been discussed theoretically for quite a while, but until now it hadn't been observed. / *http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html*http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html/ =. I think they didn't create a new special type of medium The cloud of rubidium atoms just a few degrees above absolute zero can be only in superconductivity state . . . . . then fired single photons into the cloud of superconductivity area .. . . . . . . . . something was happened . . . . they are binding together to form atoms. . . . What kind of atoms can they be? In my opinion: only atoms of helium II . . . . ? ! ? ! In my opinion: Light Quanta can be the original source of life forming atoms. # The behavior of photons in vacuum is deferent than in superconductivity state. ==…. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Aaronson's paper
On 9/28/2013 7:20 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:47:28PM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 September 2013 13:16, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: For me, my stopping point is step 8. I do mean to summarise the intense discussion we had earlier this year on this topic, but that will require an uninterrupted period of a day or two, just to pull it all into a comprehensible document. I'm just now reading a reading a very long paper (more of a short book, actually) by Scott Aaronson, on the subject of free will, which is one of those rare works in that topic that is not gibberish. Suffice it to say, that if he is ultimately convincing, he would get me to stop at step 0 (ie COMP is false), but more on that later when I finish it. I am still reading this, but I am a little disappointed that as far as I can see he hasn't mentioned Huw Price and John Bell's alternative formulation of Bell's Inequality, namely that it can be explained using microscopic time-symmetry. (This is despite mentioning Huw Price in the acknowledgements.) Maybe I will come across a mention somewhere as I continue, but I've been reading the section on Bell's Inequality and it doesn't seem that this potentially highly fruitful explanation - all the more so in that it doesn't require any new physics or even any new interpretations of existing physics - doesn't merit a mention, which is a shame because without taking account of that potential explanation, any subsequent reasoning that relies on Bell's Inequality is potentially flawed. I have just now finished Aaronson's paper. I would thoroughly recommend the read, and it is definitely a challenge to John Clark's assertion that only rubbish has ever been written about free will. However it is a long paper (more of a short book), so for those of us it is TL;DR, I'll try to summarise the paper, where I agree with it, and more importantly where I depart from it. Aaronson argues that lack of predictability is a necessary part of free will (though not sufficient), much as I do in my book (where I go so far as to define FW as the ability to do something stupid). He does so far more eloquently, and with better contact to philosophical literature than I do. Where he starts to differ from my approach is that he draws a distinction between ordinary statistical uncertainty and what he calls Knightian uncertainty. To use concepts of the great philospher of our time, Donald Rumsfeld :v), Knightian uncertainty corresponds to the unknown unknowns, as compared to the known unknowns of statistical uncertainty. Nasim Taleb's black swan is a similar sort of concept. Aaronson accepts the criticism that ordinary statistical uncertainty is not enough for free will. If I have a choice of three paths to drive to work, with a certain probability of choosing each one, then choosing one of the paths on any given morning is not an exercise in free will. However, ringing work and chucking a sickie that day is an example of Knightian uncertainty, and is an exercise in free will. I accept this distinction between Knightian uncertainty and statistical uncertainty, but fail to see why this distinction is relevant to free will. I was never particular convinced by those who argue that subjecting your will to a random generator does not make it free (that is quite true, but irrelevant, as it is the will which is random, not deterministic and subject to an external generator). Aaronson accepts the criticism, without much comment, or explanation why, alas, even though he gives a perfect example in the form of a gerbil-powered AI that cannot have free will. I agree. I also agree with JC that the 'free' is so ill defined that 'free will' is virtually meaningless. I think the idea that randomness is incompatible with will arises because people think of random as meaning 'anything possible'. It's clear to me that randomness can be very useful in selecting actions and, since it's hard to get rid of anyway, evolution has undoubtedly kept some. Whether it's inherent quantum randomness or just FAPP randomness from the environment doesn't really matter. Accepting Knightian uncertainty as necessary, he goes looking for sources of Knightian uncertainty in the physical universe, and identifies the initial conditions of the big bang as a source of freebits, as a source of Knightian information. Aaronson seems hung up on the critereon of predictablity. That's why he wants 'freebits' to underwrite his Knightian uncertainty. But I don't see that this unpredictable even by God standard adds anything to unpredictable because of QM, because of deterministic chaos, because of event horizons, Holevo's theorem,... There are plenty of barriers to perfect predictability. He also argues that the requirement for Knightian uncertainty prevents the ability for copying a consciousness. As I understand it, the objection is along the lines of - if I can copy you, the I can use the copy to make
