date:20131230

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>
> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the
> computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
> universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
> cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
> course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
> no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
> reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
> the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
> realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.
>
>

Edgar,

I am particularly curious to hear what you think of the above reasoning. It
seems that it applies to your theory which I believe at some level holds
that  the right computations can produce consciousness.

Thanks,

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

...or am I???

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 December 2013 16:20, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Bruno,
>>>
>>>Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of 
>>> computer/universal-numbers
>>> and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
>>>I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
>>> that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
>>> and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
>>> its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!
>>>
>>>  The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
>> fundamental gets you no further than assuming that "God did it!" It's a
>> "shut up and calculate" (or shut up and pray) ontology.
>>
>>  With materialism you just have a "brute fact" - well, maybe that's it,
>> maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
>> life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
>> facts!
>>
>>
>>  But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".  A theory
>> that can explain anything fails to explain at all.
>>
>>  It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
> of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
> that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
> more than one outcome.
>
>  But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
> Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
>
>
> Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's
> talking about an immaterialist theory, a "timeless Platonic totality",
> which I can only suppose consists of everything not self-contradictory or
> some such.
>

Sorry. I was replying to this:

   I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view that
the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status

If I'm in the wrong discussion I will bow out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Something everyone should see :-)

Thanks for that Liz, very beautiful.

Jason


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:54 PM, LizR  wrote:

> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131229.html
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 12/30/2013 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Dear Brent,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

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

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:

Dear Bruno,

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

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

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


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

It can't explain /anything/. It just says that all outcomes of the laws of 
physics
are instantiated. This requires less information than saying that a specific
outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one 
outcome.

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


Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's 
talking about
an immaterialist theory, a "timeless Platonic totality", which I can only 
suppose
consists of everything not self-contradictory or some such.


Geee, it is that hard for you to parse what I right and make sense of it? How many times 
have I claimed that both materialism and immaterialism have severe problems and that I 
reject them. Sheesh, learn to read.


Sorry, my mistake.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear Brent,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:20 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Bruno,
>>>
>>>Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of 
>>> computer/universal-numbers
>>> and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
>>>I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
>>> that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
>>> and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
>>> its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!
>>>
>>>  The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
>> fundamental gets you no further than assuming that "God did it!" It's a
>> "shut up and calculate" (or shut up and pray) ontology.
>>
>>  With materialism you just have a "brute fact" - well, maybe that's it,
>> maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
>> life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
>> facts!
>>
>>
>>  But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".  A theory
>> that can explain anything fails to explain at all.
>>
>>  It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
> of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
> that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
> more than one outcome.
>
>  But I feel that you must already know this. Are you just being Devil's
> Advocate, or do you honestly not see the usefulness of multiverse theories?
>
>
> Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's
> talking about an immaterialist theory, a "timeless Platonic totality",
> which I can only suppose consists of everything not self-contradictory or
> some such.
>
>
Geee, it is that hard for you to parse what I right and make sense of it?
How many times have I claimed that both materialism and immaterialism have
severe problems and that I reject them. Sheesh, learn to read.



> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 12/30/2013 6:09 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

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

On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:

Dear Bruno,

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

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

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

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

It can't explain /anything/. It just says that all outcomes of the laws of physics are
instantiated. This requires less information than saying that a specific outcome of the
LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow more than one outcome.

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

Stephen isn't talking about a multiverse as implied by physics, he's talking about an
immaterialist theory, a "timeless Platonic totality", which I can only suppose consists of
everything not self-contradictory or some such.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

2013-12-30 Thread Chris de Morsella

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 6:19 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

 

On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King 
wrote:

Dear LizR and Brent,

 

  I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
"fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be "something fundamental"?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice "any one thing is made from combinations
of other things" concept that has no need for something fundamental. 

 

>> Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be "something fundamental"*. Lots of
religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
eventually hit the last turtle.

 

True, but often these dualities, are presented as aspects of something more
fundamental, which is made manifest for example in one of the examples you
provided "the dark and light sides of the Force", yin/yang are also
inextricably linked. Yin or yang can make no sense unless understood in
terms of and in relation to the other. Duality crops up over and over in
many traditions; however often if you look, even in those traditions you
cited they also allude to a deeper whole (different myths/stories of course
- the Abrahamic god for example said to have cast the devil out from heaven
- whatever works I guess, but in any case even in the Abrahamic case the
dualism is underlain by a more fundamental singularity.. i.e. the omniscient
all creating God - again in the monotheist tradition -- (who when seen in
this light is the ultimate source of all that is evil in the universe. as I
love pointing out to unlucky evangelicals who come knocking on my door to
give me the good news and to save my sinning soul)

 

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...)

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:53 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
>> and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
>> thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
>> measurable there... Time for a new vision?
>>
>
> Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental,
> but if you don't you need a good explanation of why not!
>

The reason is: It is not necessary! That simple. We do not need to assume
monotonicity of compositions, we just need some form of associativity and
unity for closure under compositions.



>
>>> * (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
>>> unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
>>> pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
>>> discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...)
>>>
>>
>> No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
>> metaphorical and not literal way.
>>
>
> Right, but when you say "fundamental level", if you don't actually mean it
> literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor,
> as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to
> be assumed in a theory.
>

Ontology. Grundlagen. "what it is all made out of", etc. Not a metaphor!

>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

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

Something everyone should see :-)

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap131229.html

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 December 2013 15:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:

>
> Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
> and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
> thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
> measurable there... Time for a new vision?
>

Well, perhaps. No one is saying you have to have something fundamental, but
if you don't you need a good explanation of why not!

>
>> * (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
>> unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
>> pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
>> discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...)
>>
>
> No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
> metaphorical and not literal way.
>

Right, but when you say "fundamental level", if you don't actually mean it
literally then we're talking about different things. It isn't a metaphor,
as far as I know it has a rigorous definition - the thing(s) that have to
be assumed in a theory.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Hi LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:19 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear LizR and Brent,
>>
>>   I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
>> "fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be "something fundamental"?
>> Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
>> religiosity and one obtains a nice "any one thing is made from combinations
>> of other things" concept that has no need for something fundamental.
>>
>
> Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be "something fundamental"*. Lots of
> religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
> God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
> However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
> reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
> something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
> mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
> indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
> aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
> eventually hit the last turtle.
>

Why is this necessary? Sure, physics has come a long way since Democritus
and his Atoms in a void. But we have reached a point where that way of
thinking fails. Look at Superstrings, no empirical evidence of anything
measurable there... Time for a new vision?



>
> * (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
> unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
> pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
> discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...)
>

No, I don't mind being pinned down. I just often have to use words in a
metaphorical and not literal way.



>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 December 2013 09:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear LizR and Brent,
>
>   I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
> "fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be "something fundamental"?
> Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
> religiosity and one obtains a nice "any one thing is made from combinations
> of other things" concept that has no need for something fundamental.
>

Obviously there doesn't HAVE to be "something fundamental"*. Lots of
religions, for example, posit two almost-fundamental things - Yin and Yang,
God and the Devil, the dark and light sides of the Force, and so on.
However, physical theories have been extremely successful at using
reductionism, which tends to lead one, ultimately, towards there being
something fundamental. All the unifications - electricity and magnetism,
mass and energy, space and time, the four forces merging into one - all
indicate an explanatory arrow in which two or more things turning out to be
aspects of one simpler thing. Continue this long enough, and you should
eventually hit the last turtle.

* (By the way, I'd feel happier replying if you'd miss out all the
unnecessary quote marks. It looks like you're trying to hedge against being
pinned down into actually taking a viewpoint when everything under
discussion has to be "quoted" for no obvious reason...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

On 31 December 2013 07:44, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Bruno,
>>
>>Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of 
>> computer/universal-numbers
>> and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
>>I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
>> that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
>> and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
>> its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!
>>
>>  The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
> fundamental gets you no further than assuming that "God did it!" It's a
> "shut up and calculate" (or shut up and pray) ontology.
>
>  With materialism you just have a "brute fact" - well, maybe that's it,
> maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
> life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
> facts!
>
>
> But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".  A theory
> that can explain anything fails to explain at all.
>
> It can't explain *anything*. It just says that all outcomes of the laws
of physics are instantiated. This requires less information than saying
that a specific outcome of the LOP is instantiated, assuming the LOP allow
more than one outcome.

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

-- 
You received this message because 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

2013-12-30 Thread Pierz



On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 7:40:02 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz > wrote:
>
>> I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from 
>> this debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though 
>> "anodyne" means "pain-relieving", which is not how I would describe Roger's 
>> theories. I would choose the word "jejune" instead. 
>>
>
> Thank you :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  
>
> (Although like any good writer, I only come here to avoid having to work 
> on my novel... :-(
>

Me too Liz!
 

>
>> Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're wrong mate. Has some tiny skerrick of 
>> the possibility of this osmosed through the blood-brain barrier yet? Take 
>> your long "proof" of the common present moment. Once again the flaw is 
>> clear to everyone but you. You describe a graph with lines describing the 
>> two separated travellers. Now you draw a vertical line from one to the 
>> other and thus "prove" they share the same moment at all times. The problem 
>> is your privileging of the vertical line - ie the one orthogonal to 
>> traveller 'a'. There are many lines that could be used to connect the two 
>> travellers' moments from other frames of reference. There is no single 
>> "vertical" line that can be privileged above others. 
>>
>> Sure, when two people shake hands they share a common moment so to speak, 
>> because the event is a single point in space time. The problem is proving 
>> simultaneity while the observers are apart.
>>
>> I'm going to give you a challenge here. Take two spatially separated 
>> events. How do you know if these two events occur at the same time (ie, in 
>> the same common present moment)? I presume you think they either shared a 
>> CPM or didn't, that the universal line of time either passed through the 
>> two events together or in sequence. Please show how you will prove one or 
>> the other. If you can suggest an experiment to prove this, I'll give you 
>> $100. If your experiment involves clocks, however, well we know that 
>> simultaneity will be relative to inertial frame of reference, so that won't 
>> do.
>>
>> Brent, you seem to be both highly knowledgeable on physics and relativity 
>> and impartial on the subject of Edgar, so you can decide if he has met the 
>> challenge. i.e., if you say cough up, I cough up. Hope you don't mind the 
>> burden of responsibility!
>>
>> BUT, if I don't have to cough up, then I submit that it is established 
>> that we only share a unique common present moment at exact points of 
>> coincidence in space-time, e.g., the handshake, and that your theory is 
>> worthless for all practical purposes (and therefore wrong).
>>
>
> I will throw in a bottle of wine if my other half hasn't polished off the 
> 16 I got him for Xmas before then (OK, technically it was a present from 
> work, but he's the main wine drinker, so it saved a lot of thought 
> about socks!)
>
>>  
>>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because 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 are wavefunctions?

2013-12-30 Thread Jesse Mazer

Even if this connection between entanglement and wormholes holds up, I
don't think it automatically means quantum physics is nonlocal and we must
discard the many-worlds claim to preserve locality. Keep in mind that in
general relativity nothing can actually pass from one end of an
Einstein-Rosen bridge to the other, everything that falls in is annihilated
in the central singularity, though things falling in from either side can
meet in the interior region before they hit the singularity (to get a
"traversable" wormhole that actually can be crossed, you need exotic matter
to hold it open). But apparently the authors of the paper you cite are
suggesting a connection between entanglement and the idea known as "black
hole complementarity" which says that two seemingly contradictory claims
about what happens to information falling into the black hole (one which
says that anything approaching the horizon is destroyed by intense heat and
converted to thermal radiation, and another which says it passes smoothly
into the interior region) can both be correct from the perspectives of
different observers inside and outside the horizon who can never
communicate (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity). There's a
discussion of the connection at
http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/07/entanglement-wormholes/ which I
don't understand very well, but it does say both "That wormholes are not
traversable is important for the consistency of ER = EPR: just as Alice
cannot use their shared entanglement to send a message to Bob
instantaneously, so she is unable to send Bob a message through their
shared wormhole" and also "The ER = EPR conjecture seems to allow us to
view the early radiation with which the black hole is entangled as a
complementary description of the black hole interior."

Jesse

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>  >> That means you think things are realistic, and that means  I know
> for a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from
> experiment that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that 
> locality
> or realism or both MUST be wrong.
>

 > Or measurements are multi-valued.  MWI has both locality and realism.

>>>
>>> If the many World's Theory was local AND realistic we'd know with
>>> certainty that it's wrong because any theory that is consistent with
>>> experimental results can NOT be both.
>>>
>>
>> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
>> 1. Nonlocal influences
>> 2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
>>
>
> It appears that string theory (quantum gravity) is chosing 1. The claim of
> Maldacens and Susskind is that EPR
> happens because of tunneling or Einstein Rosen ER bridges resulting in the
> (bumper sticker or T shirt) ER=EPR.
> Ref: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0533v2.pdf
>
>>
>> If you choose 2, then you don't need 1. You can have multiple outcomes
>> for a measurement and realism. You just can't have only one definite real
>> value, without FTL influences.
>>
>>
>>>  But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not local.
>>>
>>
>> It is local, all QM effects under MW propagate at c or slower.  See the
>> "many worlds FAQ" or the wikipedia table comparing various interpretations.
>>
>>
>>> A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go to or
>>> even see is about as far from being local as you can get.
>>>
>>
>> Locality has a specific definition in physics, that things are only
>> affected by other things (fields or particles) in direct proximity to each
>> other. It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   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.
>>>
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because 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 unsub

Re: What are wavefunctions?

...yrtemmys emit rO

-- 
You received this message because 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 are wavefunctions?

2013-12-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> >> That means you think things are realistic, and that means  I know for
 a fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment
 that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism
 or both MUST be wrong.

>>>
>>> > Or measurements are multi-valued.  MWI has both locality and realism.
>>>
>>
>> If the many World's Theory was local AND realistic we'd know with
>> certainty that it's wrong because any theory that is consistent with
>> experimental results can NOT be both.
>>
>
> There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
> 1. Nonlocal influences
> 2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement
>

It appears that string theory (quantum gravity) is chosing 1. The claim of
Maldacens and Susskind is that EPR
happens because of tunneling or Einstein Rosen ER bridges resulting in the
(bumper sticker or T shirt) ER=EPR.
Ref: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0533v2.pdf

>
> If you choose 2, then you don't need 1. You can have multiple outcomes for
> a measurement and realism. You just can't have only one definite real
> value, without FTL influences.
>
>
>>  But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not local.
>>
>
> It is local, all QM effects under MW propagate at c or slower.  See the
> "many worlds FAQ" or the wikipedia table comparing various interpretations.
>
>
>> A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go to or
>> even see is about as far from being local as you can get.
>>
>
> Locality has a specific definition in physics, that things are only
> affected by other things (fields or particles) in direct proximity to each
> other. It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to.
>
> Jason
>
>
>>
>>   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.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 31 December 2013 00:24, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
>
> For immaterial Newtonian-like point. If not we can't hardly breath. Our
> bodies do have volume. OK?
>
> This reminds me of one of the stories in Italo Calvino's "Cosmicomics" -
it starts in the Big Bang. "There were 27 of us living in the singularity.
It was quite crowded..."

OK that isn't verbatim it's a long time since I read it!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The background to Edgar's book

2013-12-30 Thread Telmo Menezes

Hi John,

> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes) I
> know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review approval
> on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific fabric of
> college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for several new ideas
> that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and debate').

It's interesting to read this. I agree that the current model of
peer-review leads to too much conservatism, and "me-too" papers are
much more likely to get approved than the ones with novel ideas. On
the other hand, there's only so much time to keep up with the
literature, so some amount of filtering is required.

Maybe the internet will eventually allow for better models, but then I
fear that it will turn into another form of a popularity contest.
Collective moderation tends to reward sensationalism and form over
substance

> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
> known inventory of science etc.

I love to read the negative reviews that famous computer science
papers received:
http://www.fang.ece.ufl.edu/reject.html

Since we've been talking about Turing:
"On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungs
Problem." This is a bizarre paper. It begins by defining a computing
device absolutely unlike anything I have seen, then proceeds to show—I
haven't quite followed the needlessly complicated formalism—that there
are numbers that it can't compute. As I see it, there are two
alternatives that apply to any machine that will ever be built: Either
these numbers are too big to be represented in the machine, in which
case the conclusion is obvious, or they are not; in that case, a
machine that can't compute them is simply broken!
Any tabulating machine worth its rent can compute all the values in
the range it represents, and any number computable by a function—that
is, by applying the four operations a number of times—can be computed
by any modern tabulating machine since these machines—unlike the one
proposed here with its bizarre mechanism——have the four operations
hardwired. It seems that the "improvement" proposed by Turing is not
an improvement over current technology at all, and I strongly suspect
the machine is too simple to be of any use.
If the article is accepted, Turing should remember that the language
of this journal is English and change the title accordingly."

I'm sure there are equivalents in every field.

> While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by
> itself, either.
>
> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness Sci)
> and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
> ever since.

Would you share that paper with us?

Cheers
Telmo.

> John Mikes
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
>> popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
>> mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the
>> product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
>> philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
>> substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
>> Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
>> imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because
>> having done this myself I know that it's very hard not to solicit feedback,
>> and not to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear in mind this
>> advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you something's wrong
>> or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you
>> exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always
>> wrong.").
>>
>> I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
>> fall into.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because 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 htt

Re: The background to Edgar's book

On 31 December 2013 11:19, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Liz,
>
> You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your
> complete lack of understanding of the theory...
>

It's just the simplest way to describe it. A common present moment is
exactly how Newton envsiaged time.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The Simplest Complete Model of Everything

2013-12-30 Thread Craig Weinberg



Law (-∞) :: Presence +∞
Logic (-3)  :: Imagination +3
Matter (-2) :: Mind +2
Energy (-1) :: Impulse +1
Information (-0) :: Entropy +0


(More complicated version: 
http://multisenserealism.com/thesis/8-matter-energy/schemas-and-frames/colorball-diagram-explained/)

-- 
You received this message because 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 are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>   On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




 On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
> quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
> qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only
> retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it
> doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.
>
>
>
>  OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
> depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
> results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
> computations have to occur in *some* sense.
>
>
>  But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot
> exist in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and
> therefore there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number 
> of
> bits.  What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those
> interference terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs
> to N bit outputs.
>

  Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the
 real question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least
 many minds).


  Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies
 that a classical computer can support consciousness.

>>>
>>>  Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the
>>> computations that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious
>>> states, and first person views.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.
>>>
>>>
>>  No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing
>> "fictional" about these computations. They would have very bit the same
>> power to yield consciousness as the computations of a classical computer.
>>  Do you disagree with this?
>>
>>
>>  I'm not sure what you mean by "power";
>>
>
>  "ability"
>
>
>>  whether it means effectively or potentially?  I don't think
>> consciousness (at least like ours) can occur except in the context of a
>> quasi-classical world.
>>
>
>  Each of the myriad of computations executed in the quantum computer can
> be seen as separate classical computations. I agree classical computation
> is what is behind consciousness, so if quantum computation is the
> superposition of many classical computations,
>
>
> But that's a very questionable assumption.  If it were literally true then
> N qubits could do as much a 2^N classical computers, but they can't.
>

It's not questionable, because it is explained by many-worlds.  When you
measure any of the particles, you get entangled and see only one of its
states (not all the states the particle really carries).


>   The "quantum computations" are not just classical computations being
> done in parallel because they have to interfere to produce an answer.
>

Yes, but I am starting to think you believe quantum computations are more
than mere "fictions", since you keep avoiding the question of whether or
not multiple conscious states might be supported by a quantum computation.

Jason


>
> Brent
>
>
>   and if these classical computations instantiate minds, then the
> emulation of a mind on a quantum computer gives you many different
> conscious states existing at once.
>
>  Our own classical world, is based on the quantum, so really, we don't
> even need to run a brain simulation in a quantum computer (that is already
> what is happening to us today, right now).
>
>
>>  So it depends on whether the computations are sufficient to instantiate
>> such a world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>   That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is
>>> irrelevant, as all the conscious states exist in the intermediate states,
>>>
>>>
>>>  That's your story and you're sticking to it.
>>>
>>
>>
>>  Do you disagree?
>>
>>
>>  It is certainly relevant that we can only access N-bits of an N-qubit
>> computer.  But what it shows is not certain.
>>
>> 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.goog

Re: What are wavefunctions?


On 12/30/2013 2:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that's essentially everything, since everything is 
(presumably)
quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it 
has
N qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT 
you
can only retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's
theorem).  So it doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N 
bits
depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom 
on all
results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 
2^N
computations have to occur in *some* sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot 
exist
in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and
therefore there must be other worlds which contain these 
enormous
number of bits.  What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can 
regard
all those interference terms as mere calculation fictions in 
going
from N bit inputs to N bit outputs.


Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the 
real
question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at 
least
many minds).


Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies 
that a
classical computer can support consciousness.


Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the 
computations
that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious states, 
and first
person views.


Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.


No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing 
"fictional"
about these computations. They would have very bit the same power to yield
consciousness as the computations of a classical computer.  Do you disagree 
with this?


I'm not sure what you mean by "power";


"ability"

whether it means effectively or potentially?  I don't think consciousness 
(at least
like ours) can occur except in the context of a quasi-classical world.


Each of the myriad of computations executed in the quantum computer can be seen as 
separate classical computations. I agree classical computation is what is behind 
consciousness, so if quantum computation is the superposition of many classical 
computations,


But that's a very questionable assumption.  If it were literally true then N qubits could 
do as much a 2^N classical computers, but they can't.  The "quantum computations" are not 
just classical computations being done in parallel because they have to interfere to 
produce an answer.


Brent

and if these classical computations instantiate minds, then the emulation of a mind on a 
quantum computer gives you many different conscious states existing at once.


Our own classical world, is based on the quantum, so really, we don't even need to run a 
brain simulation in a quantum computer (that is already what is happening to us today, 
right now).


So it depends on whether the computations are sufficient to instantiate 
such a world.





That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is 
irrelevant, as
all the conscious states exist in the intermediate states,


That's your story and you're sticking to it.



Do you disagree?


It is certainly relevant that we can only access N-bits of an N-qubit 
computer.  But
what it shows is not certain.

Brent
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscri

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:19 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>>   But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
>> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
>> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>>
>>  Yeah, it's the WAP.
>
>  Seems quite reasonable to me.
>
>  It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions
> about the nature of reality.
>
>
> How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an
> explanation of *this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some
> world* with people.
>

Because observers do something, they Observe. That is an action. Don't
separate observers from their observations. Simple rule linking observers
to observations. X can only experience worlds (collections of observations)
whose existence is consistent with the observer's existence.

Let me drill down a bit more into this.

  We can take for granted that when we observe some X, we are also
observing ourselves in the act of observing X. It is a Lob theorem kinda
thing. Prof. Standish was right about ants! There is no consciousness
without self-awareness! Also, disallowing ghost prohibits the possibility
of observing a world "from the outside".

Is this helping?

>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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 Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread John Mikes

Dear Edgar: allow me not to copy your post the 8th time, just marking the
#s of your par-s into my short remarks.

#1
As long as we don't "know" ALL of the (external?) complexity-stuff we
cannot claim 'knowledge' of any 'reality', only quote the so far received
part and that, too, as adjusted into our contemporary mental ways.
Compare such stuff of today with a similar 'analysis' 3000 years ago...
Is 'today' different in the continuing course of past to future? (cf: #5)

#2
I would not mix the (final?) *theoretical* conclusion with our
*practical*ways of today. We live and so did our forefathers '3000
years ago' (or
whenever).

#3
I would not mix the 'final (theoretical?) conclusion' about the entire
world into a contemporary human-mind product (our logic).

#4
You (I?) cannot compare the today available portion - and that transformed
into human belief - with the entirety of the infinite complexity so I would
not mention "truth". Again: compare your contemporary 'truth' concepts with
a similar stance - say - of 3000 years ago. Did Ishtarians have the same
'truth'?

#5
Right you are. What was 'true' for UGGH the caveman is different from what
you described as 'true' for today. Do you think that 5000 years into the
future - if humanity survives that long - our descendants will find the
SAME truth as we may identify today?

And one more thing: (last par) I would not be so firm that 'our' internal
model of reality is representing the 'external' reality at all. We just
don't know about that 'external' stuff and our present internal ideas about
it are our human fabrications. I do not believe it is time to think of a
"Final" Theory.

John Mikes

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> All,
>
> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
> separate issue from previous discussions.
>
>
> 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we
> know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own
> minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external reality
> which is provably very very different than actual external reality.
>
> 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
> reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
> within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external reality
> we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very
> existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of
> it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
> than the physical world we believe it to be.)
>
> 3. External reality is a consistent logical structure. It is computed, and
> for it to be computed it must follow consistent logical rules.
>
> 4. Therefore the only real test of truth is its internal logical
> consistency over the entire scope of knowledge. We can not directly compare
> our knowledge to the external world because it is filtered through the
> structures of our own senses and minds, but we do know that our knowledge
> is truth to the extent it is internally self-consistent over maximum scope.
>
> 5. In fact this is the actual working basis of scientific method,
> forensics, our successful functioning in daily life and in all human
> endeavors that seek truth. Namely is the body of knowledge in question
> internally consistent. If it is not then something is UNtrue.
>
> This is the Consistency Theory of Knowledge. Consistency over maximum
> scope IS truth, the only truth possible to know.
>
> There is and can be no direct knowledge of truth, there is only
> consistency.
>
> This applies to all types of truth, from the logical structures in daily
> life moment to moment, as well as to knowledge of a "Final Theory".
>
>
> There is however one important exception. Our mental model of reality is
> part of the actual external reality, and we do have direct knowledge of
> that. The truth of that is the thing itself. But its truth is an internal
> mental model of external reality, not the external reality it pretends to
> be.
>
> Edgar
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because 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://group

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:08 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
>> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
>> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>>
>> Yeah, it's the WAP.
>
> Seems quite reasonable to me.
>
> It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about
> the nature of reality.
>

Yeah, we start with what we know to be true: I am experiencing something.
That leads, via Descartes skeptical analysis for example, to: I think
therefore I am. We correct this to: "I think therefore I was" as the
"state" that one "is" is the one that was computed by the look back. It is
not sitting there like a husk waiting to be possessed momentarily by a
disembodied mind...

  In this way of thinking there can be no zombies and no ghosts. If there
is no possibility of a body, there cannot be a mind either and vice versa.

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear LizR,
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <
 stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

>  Hi LizR,
>
 Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I
>> can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
>> levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
>> thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
>> a pair of things...
>>
>
> That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
> and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.
>

No, that doesn't work as it ignores the "cause" of the transition. I
understand the confusion on this concept. We are used to thinking that
state transitions is a one to one map. A ->B. But think for a second: What
if I have multiple and different possible next states?

A -> B or A-> B' or A->B''

What then?

Vaughan Pratt figured out a way to do this! One allows for all possible
future states, given some current state A, then looks at each of those Bs
and asks: Which of these preserves the "truths" of A and yet is a different
state. If B' is the most logical consequence of A, given A's "facts, then
B' obtains and not B or B''. It is a local selection mechanism. We repeat
this over and over and obtain the appearance of a "dimension of time": a
sequence of events that can be mapped to the integers. We notice that this
time as a constructive process generates worlds that have a difference
between their past and future, in the sense that "I can remember by past,
but I cannot recall my future". Why? Because it wasn't computed yet.

Logic looks backwards from the future, physics moves forward from the past.

>
> However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
> no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
> obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
> anything simpler.
>

Yes! There is no need for anything simpler! It does the job. 

>
>>   I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
>>
>
> Hope you get well soon!
>

Thank you!  I really enjoy these back and forths...

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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 are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
  On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
 quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
 qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only
 retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it
 doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.

  OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
 depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
 results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
 computations have to occur in *some* sense.

  But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist
 in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore
 there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.
 What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference
 terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit
 outputs.

>>>
>>>  Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real
>>> question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many
>>> minds).
>>>
>>>
>>>  Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that
>>> a classical computer can support consciousness.
>>>
>>
>>  Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the
>> computations that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious
>> states, and first person views.
>>
>>
>>  Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.
>>
>>
>  No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing
> "fictional" about these computations. They would have very bit the same
> power to yield consciousness as the computations of a classical computer.
>  Do you disagree with this?
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "power";
>

"ability"

> whether it means effectively or potentially?  I don't think consciousness
> (at least like ours) can occur except in the context of a quasi-classical
> world.
>

Each of the myriad of computations executed in the quantum computer can be
seen as separate classical computations. I agree classical computation is
what is behind consciousness, so if quantum computation is the
superposition of many classical computations, and if these classical
computations instantiate minds, then the emulation of a mind on a quantum
computer gives you many different conscious states existing at once.

Our own classical world, is based on the quantum, so really, we don't even
need to run a brain simulation in a quantum computer (that is already what
is happening to us today, right now).

> So it depends on whether the computations are sufficient to instantiate
> such a world.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>   That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is
>> irrelevant, as all the conscious states exist in the intermediate states,
>>
>>
>>  That's your story and you're sticking to it.
>>
>
>
>  Do you disagree?
>
>
> It is certainly relevant that we can only access N-bits of an N-qubit
> computer.  But what it shows is not certain.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 2:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:



But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we 
happen to
exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings 
happen at
random and they led to here.

Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about the nature of 
reality.


How so?  They seem of similar magnitude to me.  Remember I'm asking for an explanation of 
*this*.  Not just an explanation of why there is *some world* with people.


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: The background to Edgar's book

2013-12-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Liz,

You claim my theory of time is Newtonian but that just demonstrates your 
complete lack of understanding of the theory...

Edgar

On Monday, December 30, 2013 5:02:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes >wrote:
>
>> Dear Liz,
>> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and 
>> Membranes) I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get 
>> peer-review approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional 
>> scientific fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space 
>> for several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide 
>> and debate').
>>
>
> There are two things being presented here. One is an idea which is fine in 
> itself - reality is computed. It isn't obviously self-contradictory, and 
> has I think been suggested quite a few times in various flavours (I'm sure 
> Conway must have come up with this, as have Russell Standish, I think, and 
> Bruno of course, plus probably some other people). It's a fairly obvious 
> idea for the age - "it steam-engines when it comes steam engine time" or 
> whatever.
>
> The other is a Newtonian theory of time. This contradicts special 
> relativity, and hence is an "extraordinary claim". This claim has not yet 
> had any support that shows its author understands what the problems with it 
> are. Hence it not only "doesn't fit into the scientific fabric of college 
> courses", it flatly contradicts everything we've learned about reality 
> since 1905 - all the experimental confirmation of SR, the whole lot. That 
> should require extraordinary evidence before it is worth considering.
>
>>
>> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic' 
>> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already 
>> known inventory of science etc. While it does not support the 'new' ideas, 
>> it does not prove them wrong by itself, either. 
>>
>
> There is no contradiction between Edgar's theory and reductionism, it is a 
> reductionist theory. What proves (or comes very close to proving) Edgar's 
> theory of time wrong is that it contradicts most of 20th century physics, 
> both theoretical and experimental. His theory of computational reality 
> isn't itself rendered wrong by the "known inventory of science" of course. 
> (By the way, your use of these buzz phrases does rather suggest that you 
> are pushing an agenda here. Science is far more than you are trying to make 
> out - it isn't all conventional, blinkered fuddy-duddies dismissing 
> crackpot ideas, but has room for plenty of outrageous speculation - as long 
> as it is properly grounded, doesn't flat-out contradict a century of 
> experimentation, etc.)
>
>>
>> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness 
>> Sci) and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a 
>> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly 
>> ever since. 
>>
>> Always easiest to think your opponents have dismissed your ideas because 
> they are "conservative" (or "bourgeois", or "heretics" or whatever 
> epitheton you wish to apply) -- rather than because just maybe they knew 
> more about the subject, and could see where your ideas were wrong.
>
> PS "epitheton" is itself an "ornamental epitheton", I'd say. I do hope it 
> wasn't just a typo!
>

-- 
You received this message because 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 background to Edgar's book

2013-12-30 Thread Edgar L. Owen

John, and Liz,

Yes John is correct here. Without a current academic affiliation it's well 
nigh impossible to be accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal...

Sad but true...

Edgar



On Monday, December 30, 2013 4:38:40 PM UTC-5, JohnM wrote:
>
> Dear Liz,
> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes) 
> I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review 
> approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific 
> fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for 
> several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and 
> debate').
>
> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic' 
> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already 
> known inventory of science etc. 
> While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by 
> itself, either. 
>
> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness 
> Sci) and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a 
> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly 
> ever since. 
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific 
>> popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out 
>> mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the 
>> product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and 
>> philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved 
>> substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell 
>> Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
>>
>> Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's 
>> imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because 
>> having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit 
>> feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to 
>> bear in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you 
>> something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. 
>> When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they 
>> are almost always wrong.").
>>
>> I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might 
>> fall into.
>>  
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  Hi Brent,
>
>  "But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here."
>
>  No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not
> "random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with
> our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us
> (communicating/interacting observers).
>
>
> Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must
> be one suitable for our existence too.
>
> Brent
>

But we don't need to assume "randomness" in the acausal sense. As I see
things, the "reality" in which we find ourselves is one that evolved, but
the "one" was selected as being the one at least compatible with our
experience in it.
  I reject pre-ordained harmonies as unnecessary! We don't have to "impose"
order and consistency. All we need are local rules that allow consistency
and then notice that we only experience ourselves in those worlds that are
consistent with us "in them".

>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 December 2013 10:33, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>
> Yeah, it's the WAP.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

It's superior to the random one because that makes more assumptions about
the nature of reality.

-- 
You received this message because 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Dear LizR,
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
  Hi LizR,

>>> Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
> buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
> levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
> thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
> a pair of things...
>

That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.

However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
anything simpler.

>
>   I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
>

Hope you get well soon!

-- 
You received this message because 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 background to Edgar's book

On 31 December 2013 10:38, John Mikes  wrote:

> Dear Liz,
> as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes)
> I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
> approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific
> fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for
> several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and
> debate').
>

There are two things being presented here. One is an idea which is fine in
itself - reality is computed. It isn't obviously self-contradictory, and
has I think been suggested quite a few times in various flavours (I'm sure
Conway must have come up with this, as have Russell Standish, I think, and
Bruno of course, plus probably some other people). It's a fairly obvious
idea for the age - "it steam-engines when it comes steam engine time" or
whatever.

The other is a Newtonian theory of time. This contradicts special
relativity, and hence is an "extraordinary claim". This claim has not yet
had any support that shows its author understands what the problems with it
are. Hence it not only "doesn't fit into the scientific fabric of college
courses", it flatly contradicts everything we've learned about reality
since 1905 - all the experimental confirmation of SR, the whole lot. That
should require extraordinary evidence before it is worth considering.

>
> Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
> conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
> known inventory of science etc. While it does not support the 'new' ideas,
> it does not prove them wrong by itself, either.
>

There is no contradiction between Edgar's theory and reductionism, it is a
reductionist theory. What proves (or comes very close to proving) Edgar's
theory of time wrong is that it contradicts most of 20th century physics,
both theoretical and experimental. His theory of computational reality
isn't itself rendered wrong by the "known inventory of science" of course.
(By the way, your use of these buzz phrases does rather suggest that you
are pushing an agenda here. Science is far more than you are trying to make
out - it isn't all conventional, blinkered fuddy-duddies dismissing
crackpot ideas, but has room for plenty of outrageous speculation - as long
as it is properly grounded, doesn't flat-out contradict a century of
experimentation, etc.)

>
> I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness
> Sci) and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
> "homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
> ever since.
>
> Always easiest to think your opponents have dismissed your ideas because
they are "conservative" (or "bourgeois", or "heretics" or whatever
epitheton you wish to apply) -- rather than because just maybe they knew
more about the subject, and could see where your ideas were wrong.

PS "epitheton" is itself an "ornamental epitheton", I'd say. I do hope it
wasn't just a typo!

-- 
You received this message because 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 Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 9:21 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <
> multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>>
>>> But i the realm of reality,
>>>
>>
>> And where may one find this realm of realms?
>>
>>
>>>   i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
>>>
>>
>> The only truth Edgar is unearthing for me is:
>>
>> You can enlist entire mailing lists as free reviewers for any book
>> project you may have, without paying them one cent for doing so. Vanity and
>> altruism make good bedfellows. PGC
>>
>> I doubt if Edgar was expecting his ideas to be taken apart quite so
> thoroughly. The only sensible response to what he's been told would be to
> completely rewrite it in light of the misunderstandings that have been
> pointed out in his basic assumptions!
>
> I can't see that happening though.
>

We'll see. It's not as if one of the more seasoned posters was testing
something they had read, picked up, or developed somehow. He just swooped
in and took everybody's nuggets home, while calling them fairytale people.
Anyways, happy New Years everybody! PGC


>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

:-) Those realms can be avoided, especially if one is flexible with where
one... but off-topic. PGC

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

>
>
>
> 2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>>
>>> But i the realm of reality,
>>>
>>
>> And where may one find this realm of realms?
>>
>
> Is the realm where you pay taxes.
>
>>
>>
>>>   i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
>>>
>>
>> The only truth Edgar is unearthing for me is:
>>
>> You can enlist entire mailing lists as free reviewers for any book
>> project you may have, without paying them one cent for doing so. Vanity and
>> altruism make good bedfellows. PGC
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>>>

 On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>  All,
>>
>> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
>> I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an 
>> important
>> and separate issue from previous discussions.
>>
>>
>> 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental
>> reality, we know external reality only filtered through the structures of
>> our own minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of 
>> external
>> reality which is provably very very different than actual external 
>> reality.
>>
>> 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
>> reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
>> within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external 
>> reality
>> we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our 
>> very
>> existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge 
>> of
>> it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
>> than the physical world we believe it to be.)
>>
>
> That are belief, not knowledge.
>
> Then, what is knowledge? the one derived from mathematical deductions
 based on the belief on + and succ ?

 That one is still on the type belief (a consequence of Gödel's
 incompleteness).

 To know that 1+ 1 = 2, you need to

 1) believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but you need also that

 2) it is the case that 1 + 1 = 2   (in your "reality")

 If you put arithmetical realism on the table, anyone believing that 1 +
 1 = 2, knows that 1 + 1 = 2. This needs some "reality" satisfying the fact
 that 1+1=2, and we do suspect its existence indeed, as the structure (N, 0,
 s, +, *) taught in high school.

 Usually "rational belief" in a large sense is axiomatized by the modal
 axiom K

 B(x -> y) ->(Bx -> By),

 with or without the necessitation rule (inferring Bx from x), but
 (almost) always with the modus ponens (inferring B from A -> B and A).

 Then a form of self-awareness is captured by the possible axioms Bx ->
 BBx.

 Gödel provability obeys that. That are the K4 reasoners. 4 is the name
 (sic) of the formula Bx -> BBx, as it was the main axiom of the fourth
 system by Lewis (S4).

 S4 is the knowledge theory. It is K4 together with the axiom Bx -> x.
  By definition of knowledge, if you know x, x is true. If p were not true,
 i.e; if it was not the case that p, you would just be believing wrongly.

 Gödel's provability obeys K4 (indeed K4 + B(Bx->x)->Bx), but does not
 obeys Bx -> x, at least from the machine 3p points' of view on itself.

 But the conjunction of Bx & x does obeys S4 (indeed S4 +
 B(B(x->Bx)->x)->x, the Grzegorczyk formula).

 Set theoretically, knowledge is the intersection of your beliefs and
 truth.

 It can be explained that some machine, like PA and ZF, already
 understand (prove, or prove from some Dt conditional, or more) that their
 *personal* knowledge escape all possible 3p definitions.  They can't
 believe they are any machine. They still can bet on it, like "nature"
 apparently already did.

 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 http

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 1:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist 
in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and 
they led to here."


No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not "random" per se. 
The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with our individual existence in it 
and consistent with all of us (communicating/interacting observers).


Sure, and the one we find ourselves in via evolution with randomness must be one suitable 
for our existence too.


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 are wavefunctions?


On 12/30/2013 1:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has 
N
qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you 
can
only retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's 
theorem).  So
it doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
computations have to occur in *some* sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot 
exist in
whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and 
therefore
there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits. 
What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference

terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N 
bit
outputs.


Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real
question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least 
many minds).


Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that 
a
classical computer can support consciousness.


Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the computations 
that
support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious states, and first 
person
views.


Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.


No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing "fictional" about 
these computations. They would have very bit the same power to yield consciousness as 
the computations of a classical computer.  Do you disagree with this?


I'm not sure what you mean by "power"; whether it means effectively or potentially?  I 
don't think consciousness (at least like ours) can occur except in the context of a 
quasi-classical world.  So it depends on whether the computations are sufficient to 
instantiate such a world.





That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is irrelevant, 
as all
the conscious states exist in the intermediate states,


That's your story and you're sticking to it.



Do you disagree?


It is certainly relevant that we can only access N-bits of an N-qubit computer.  But what 
it shows is not certain.


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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Hi Brent,

"But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
somethings happen at random and they led to here."

No, the "one we happen to find ourselves in" may be arbitrary, but not
"random" per se. The universe we find ourselves in must be consistent with
our individual existence in it and consistent with all of us
(communicating/interacting observers).


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:33 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi LizR,
>>>
>>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>>
>>
>>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
>> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
>> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
>> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
>> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
>> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>>
>>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
>> laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
>> laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
>> They describe a block universe.
>>
>>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
>> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
>> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
>> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
>> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
>> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
>> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
>> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
>> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>>
>>
>>  But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
>> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>>
>>
>
>  That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory
> of nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
> information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
> is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
> information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
> outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
> may be required, but I suspect not.)
>
>  Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all)
> reasonable?
>
>
> But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we
> happen to exist in.  I don't see that as any better than saying that
> somethings happen at random and they led to here.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goo

Re: The background to Edgar's book

2013-12-30 Thread John Mikes

Dear Liz,
as a former ed-in-chief of a science magazine (Ion Exchange and Membranes)
I know the difficulties one can run into if trying to get peer-review
approval on "NEW" ideas that do not fit into the conventional scientific
fabric of college courses. I was a risk-taker and provided space for
several new ideas that made sens - to me. ('Let the readership decide and
debate').

Sometimes new ideas (versions?) do not fit into the 'reductionistic'
conventional stuff of the Rosenesque MODEL content, limited to the already
known inventory of science etc.
While it does not support the 'new' ideas, it does not prove them wrong by
itself, either.

I submitted a paper once with some 'mild' novelty (J. of Consciousness Sci)
and an irate (conservative) reviewer called me a
"homespun fireside philosopher" - an ornamental epitheton I value highly
ever since.
John Mikes

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Edgar,
>
> Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
> popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
> mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the
> product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
> philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
> substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
> Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.
>
> Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
> imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because
> having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit
> feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear
> in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you
> something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right.
> When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they
> are almost always wrong.").
>
> I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
> fall into.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
> >> That means you think things are realistic, and that means  I know for a
>>> fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment
>>> that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism
>>> or both MUST be wrong.
>>>
>>
>> > Or measurements are multi-valued.  MWI has both locality and realism.
>>
>
> If the many World's Theory was local AND realistic we'd know with
> certainty that it's wrong because any theory that is consistent with
> experimental results can NOT be both.
>

There are at least two possible answers to the bell inequalities:
1. Nonlocal influences
2. Mutliple outcomes for each measurement

If you choose 2, then you don't need 1. You can have multiple outcomes for
a measurement and realism. You just can't have only one definite real
value, without FTL influences.


> But MWI could be true because although it is realistic it is not local.
>

It is local, all QM effects under MW propagate at c or slower.  See the
"many worlds FAQ" or the wikipedia table comparing various interpretations.


> A entire parallel universe as big as our own that you can never go to or
> even see is about as far from being local as you can get.
>

Locality has a specific definition in physics, that things are only
affected by other things (fields or particles) in direct proximity to each
other. It says nothing about the existence of places we can or can't go to.

Jason


>
>   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.
>

-- 
You received this message because 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality


On 12/30/2013 1:23 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:


On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:

On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>> wrote:

Hi LizR,

 Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth 
change
between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about every 
book and
paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this point. None 
offer
any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the first place. 
If we
point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states, whatever) we still 
need to
explain how that particular sequence is the one that just "happened". 
No, it
could not "Happen".


A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie 
stacked on
top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to 
"explain
time away" - they are attempting to explain how time arises from the 
relevant
equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are betraying a personal bias 
against the
idea by using that phrase, so I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But 
anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of
physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of 
physics
are - equations which describe how things change over time. They describe a 
block
universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to 
be an
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise 
occurs.
In "classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block
universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be
deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in 
the
form of the MWI gives a broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the
probabalistic laws of physics to occur. A block multiverse has no need to 
evolve or
select a sequence of events, because all sequences compatible with the laws 
of
physics occur.


But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in 
which all
possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?


That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of nothing" - to 
specify all possible starting conditions requires less information than any specific 
ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe is ONLY the relevant "mathematical 
structure" and doesn't require any extra information, which implies all possible 
starting conditions and their outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A 
visit from Smaug may be required, but I suspect not.)


Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?


But then the explanation for *this* is that it's just a random one we happen to exist in.  
I don't see that as any better than saying that somethings happen at random and they led 
to here.


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 are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:57 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>  But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
>>> quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
>>> qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only
>>> retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it
>>> doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
>>> depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
>>> results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
>>> computations have to occur in *some* sense.
>>>
>>>
>>>  But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist
>>> in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore
>>> there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.
>>> What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference
>>> terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit
>>> outputs.
>>>
>>
>>  Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real
>> question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many
>> minds).
>>
>>
>>  Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that
>> a classical computer can support consciousness.
>>
>
>  Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the
> computations that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious
> states, and first person views.
>
>
> Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.
>
>
No, I am trying to show that given computationalism, there is nothing
"fictional" about these computations. They would have very bit the same
power to yield consciousness as the computations of a classical computer.
 Do you disagree with this?


>
>   That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is
> irrelevant, as all the conscious states exist in the intermediate states,
>
>
> That's your story and you're sticking to it.
>


Do you disagree?

Jason


>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear LizR,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > > wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi LizR,
>>>
>>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>>
>>
>>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
>> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
>> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
>> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
>> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
>> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>>
>>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the
>> laws of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the
>> laws of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time.
>> They describe a block universe.
>>
>>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
>> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
>> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
>> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
>> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
>> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
>> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
>> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
>> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>>
>>
>> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
>> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>>
>>
>
> That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of
> nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
> information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
> is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
> information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
> outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
> may be required, but I suspect not.)
>
> Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?
>

Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I can
buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
a pair of things...

  I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...


>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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.
F

Re: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

Dear Brent,


On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi LizR,
>>
>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>
>
>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>
>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
> of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
> of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
> describe a block universe.
>
>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>
>
> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions
> obtain?
>

Yes, QM -as standardly used- has a state transition model to do
calculations with it. There are other ways of doing computations. My
favorite is Hewitt's Actor Model:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7erJ1DV_Tlo

Observers come with self-consistent universes -which are their
observations. Interactions between these must be, at some level, logically
non-contradictory (incontrovertible).



>
> Brent
>
>
>  That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens"
> for both GR *and *QM!
>
>  :-)
>   --
> You received this message because 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/


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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Hi LizR,
>>
>>   Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants
>> are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth
>> change between them." does not explain anything. I have read just about
>> every book and paper that attempts to explain time away. All fail on this
>> point. None offer any reason for the illusion of change to be there in the
>> first place. If we point to a sequence (of numbers, events, states,
>> whatever) we still need to explain how that particular sequence is the one
>> that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".
>>
>
>  A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie
> stacked on top of each other. The books, papers etc you read are not
> attempting to "explain time away" - they are attempting to explain how time
> arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I suspect that you are
> betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so I may
> be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)
>
>  You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws
> of physics. In the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws
> of physics are - equations which describe how things change over time. They
> describe a block universe.
>
>  Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has
> to be an external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or
> otherwise occurs. In "classical" relativity this question is answered by
> saying that the block universe is the only possible outcome of the laws of
> physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we have a Laplace's demon type
> answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a broader answer by
> allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to occur.
> A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events,
> because all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.
>
>
> But QM requires initial conditions too.  Do you propose a multiverse in
> which all possible (logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?
>
>

That is the logical conclusion if one starts from some sort of "theory of
nothing" - to specify all possible starting conditions requires less
information than any specific ones. Max Tegmark suggests that the universe
is ONLY the relevant "mathematical structure" and doesn't require any extra
information, which implies all possible starting conditions and their
outcomes are latent in the equations (somehow A visit from Smaug
may be required, but I suspect not.)

Well, that's my take on it, at least. Does that sound (at all) reasonable?

-- 
You received this message because 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 Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona

2013/12/30 Platonist Guitar Cowboy 

>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>
>> But i the realm of reality,
>>
>
> And where may one find this realm of realms?
>

Is the realm where you pay taxes.

>
>
>>   i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
>>
>
> The only truth Edgar is unearthing for me is:
>
> You can enlist entire mailing lists as free reviewers for any book project
> you may have, without paying them one cent for doing so. Vanity and
> altruism make good bedfellows. PGC
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>>>

 On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

  All,
>
> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
> I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important
> and separate issue from previous discussions.
>
>
> 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality,
> we know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own
> minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external 
> reality
> which is provably very very different than actual external reality.
>
> 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
> reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
> within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external 
> reality
> we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very
> existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of
> it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
> than the physical world we believe it to be.)
>

 That are belief, not knowledge.

 Then, what is knowledge? the one derived from mathematical deductions
>>> based on the belief on + and succ ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That one is still on the type belief (a consequence of Gödel's
>>> incompleteness).
>>>
>>> To know that 1+ 1 = 2, you need to
>>>
>>> 1) believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but you need also that
>>>
>>> 2) it is the case that 1 + 1 = 2   (in your "reality")
>>>
>>> If you put arithmetical realism on the table, anyone believing that 1 +
>>> 1 = 2, knows that 1 + 1 = 2. This needs some "reality" satisfying the fact
>>> that 1+1=2, and we do suspect its existence indeed, as the structure (N, 0,
>>> s, +, *) taught in high school.
>>>
>>> Usually "rational belief" in a large sense is axiomatized by the modal
>>> axiom K
>>>
>>> B(x -> y) ->(Bx -> By),
>>>
>>> with or without the necessitation rule (inferring Bx from x), but
>>> (almost) always with the modus ponens (inferring B from A -> B and A).
>>>
>>> Then a form of self-awareness is captured by the possible axioms Bx ->
>>> BBx.
>>>
>>> Gödel provability obeys that. That are the K4 reasoners. 4 is the name
>>> (sic) of the formula Bx -> BBx, as it was the main axiom of the fourth
>>> system by Lewis (S4).
>>>
>>> S4 is the knowledge theory. It is K4 together with the axiom Bx -> x.
>>>  By definition of knowledge, if you know x, x is true. If p were not true,
>>> i.e; if it was not the case that p, you would just be believing wrongly.
>>>
>>> Gödel's provability obeys K4 (indeed K4 + B(Bx->x)->Bx), but does not
>>> obeys Bx -> x, at least from the machine 3p points' of view on itself.
>>>
>>> But the conjunction of Bx & x does obeys S4 (indeed S4 +
>>> B(B(x->Bx)->x)->x, the Grzegorczyk formula).
>>>
>>> Set theoretically, knowledge is the intersection of your beliefs and
>>> truth.
>>>
>>> It can be explained that some machine, like PA and ZF, already
>>> understand (prove, or prove from some Dt conditional, or more) that their
>>> *personal* knowledge escape all possible 3p definitions.  They can't
>>> believe they are any machine. They still can bet on it, like "nature"
>>> apparently already did.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alberto.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because 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, sen

Re: What are wavefunctions?

2013-12-30 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Jason Resch  wrote:

>> That means you think things are realistic, and that means  I know for a
>> fact your thinking is wrong, not crazy but wrong. We know from experiment
>> that Bell's inequality is violated, and that means that locality or realism
>> or both MUST be wrong.
>>
>
> > Or measurements are multi-valued.  MWI has both locality and realism.
>

If the many World's Theory was local AND realistic we'd know with certainty
that it's wrong because any theory that is consistent with experimental
results can NOT be both.  But MWI could be true because although it is
realistic it is not local. A entire parallel universe as big as our own
that you can never go to or even see is about as far from being local as
you can get.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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 are wavefunctions?


On 12/30/2013 12:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum. 
But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes

2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N 
bits of
information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it doesn't really act 
like
2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits 
depending
on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all results 
obtained in
"parallel universes". This means that the 2^N computations have to 
occur in
*some* sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist 
in whole
universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore there 
must be
other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.  What Holevo's
theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference terms as mere
calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit outputs.


Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real 
question.
 If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many minds).


Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that a 
classical
computer can support consciousness.


Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the computations that support 
a mind, there would be many resulting conscious states, and first person views.


Of course that is assuming the very proposition you're arguing.

That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one world is irrelevant, as all the 
conscious states exist in the intermediate states,


That's your story and you're sticking to it.

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 are wavefunctions?

2013-12-30 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:09 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> If an influence can go backward in time as well as forward then it can
> effectively have FTL influence,
>

We already know for a fact that faster than light influences exist, and
this has nothing to do with any theory, it was found experimentally. Of
course this does not mean you can sent a message faster than light, matter
and energy and information are still limited by the speed of light, but
influences can certainly go astronomically faster, probably infinitely
faster.

  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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?

Dear LizR and Brent,

  I will try to go at this from a different direction. What exactly does
"fundamental level" mean? Does there have to be "something fundamental"?
Consider Leibniz' monadology: strip it of the anthropocentrism and
religiosity and one obtains a nice "any one thing is made from combinations
of other things" concept that has no need for something fundamental.
   I have a question: what would be the most simple Boolean algebra?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote:
>
>>  Dear Bruno,
>>
>>Why do you not consider an isomorphism between the Category of 
>> computer/universal-numbers
>> and physical realities? That way we can avoid a lot of problems!
>>I think that it is because of your insistence of the Platonic view
>> that the material/physical realm is somehow lesser in ontological status
>> and the assumption that a timeless totality = the appearance of change (and
>> its measures) is illusory. I would like to be wrong in this presumption!
>>
>>  The problem is that assuming the material / physical realm as
> fundamental gets you no further than assuming that "God did it!" It's a
> "shut up and calculate" (or shut up and pray) ontology.
>
>  With materialism you just have a "brute fact" - well, maybe that's it,
> maybe there *is *just a brute, unexplained fact. But us ape descended
> life forms like to look for explanations even beneath the apparent brute
> facts!
>
>
> But "Everything happens" is just as useless as "God did it".  A theory
> that can explain anything fails to explain at all.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..

On 31 December 2013 00:00, Pierz  wrote:

> I have to admit I'm starting to derive a weird kind of enjoyment from this
> debate. Liz and frequentflyer: you guys are my heroes. Though "anodyne"
> means "pain-relieving", which is not how I would describe Roger's theories.
> I would choose the word "jejune" instead.
>

Thank you :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

(Although like any good writer, I only come here to avoid having to work on
my novel... :-(

>
> Edgar, ole buddy ole pal. You're wrong mate. Has some tiny skerrick of the
> possibility of this osmosed through the blood-brain barrier yet? Take your
> long "proof" of the common present moment. Once again the flaw is clear to
> everyone but you. You describe a graph with lines describing the two
> separated travellers. Now you draw a vertical line from one to the other
> and thus "prove" they share the same moment at all times. The problem is
> your privileging of the vertical line - ie the one orthogonal to traveller
> 'a'. There are many lines that could be used to connect the two travellers'
> moments from other frames of reference. There is no single "vertical" line
> that can be privileged above others.
>
> Sure, when two people shake hands they share a common moment so to speak,
> because the event is a single point in space time. The problem is proving
> simultaneity while the observers are apart.
>
> I'm going to give you a challenge here. Take two spatially separated
> events. How do you know if these two events occur at the same time (ie, in
> the same common present moment)? I presume you think they either shared a
> CPM or didn't, that the universal line of time either passed through the
> two events together or in sequence. Please show how you will prove one or
> the other. If you can suggest an experiment to prove this, I'll give you
> $100. If your experiment involves clocks, however, well we know that
> simultaneity will be relative to inertial frame of reference, so that won't
> do.
>
> Brent, you seem to be both highly knowledgeable on physics and relativity
> and impartial on the subject of Edgar, so you can decide if he has met the
> challenge. i.e., if you say cough up, I cough up. Hope you don't mind the
> burden of responsibility!
>
> BUT, if I don't have to cough up, then I submit that it is established
> that we only share a unique common present moment at exact points of
> coincidence in space-time, e.g., the handshake, and that your theory is
> worthless for all practical purposes (and therefore wrong).
>

I will throw in a bottle of wine if my other half hasn't polished off the
16 I got him for Xmas before then (OK, technically it was a present from
work, but he's the main wine drinker, so it saved a lot of thought
about socks!)

>
>

-- 
You received this message because 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.

The background to Edgar's book

Edgar,

Have you written any peer-reviewed papers on your ideas? Most scientific
popularisations are written to explain a theory that has been worked out
mathematically (like David Deutsch's "Fabric Of Reality") or which are the
product of long (and intense) discussions amongst scientists and
philosophers working in the relevant fields(s), which have often involved
substantial modification to the original ideas (like, I imagine, Russell
Standish's "Theory Of Nothing"). Or most likely both, in a lot of cases.

Only fictional works tend to be written entirely from the author's
imagination, without much in the way of feedback (I say "much" because
having done this myself I know that it's very hard *not* to solicit
feedback, and *not* to act on it to some extent. But I always try to bear
in mind this advice from Neil Gaiman: "Remember: when people tell you
something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right.
When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they
are almost always wrong.").

I hesitate to guess which of the above categories your magnum opus might
fall into.

-- 
You received this message because 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 Nature of Truth

On 31 December 2013 08:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
>> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>>
>> But i the realm of reality,
>>
>
> And where may one find this realm of realms?
>
>
>>   i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
>>
>
> The only truth Edgar is unearthing for me is:
>
> You can enlist entire mailing lists as free reviewers for any book project
> you may have, without paying them one cent for doing so. Vanity and
> altruism make good bedfellows. PGC
>
> I doubt if Edgar was expecting his ideas to be taken apart quite so
thoroughly. The only sensible response to what he's been told would be to
completely rewrite it in light of the misunderstandings that have been
pointed out in his basic assumptions!

I can't see that happening though.

-- 
You received this message because 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 are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>  But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
>> quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
>> qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only
>> retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it
>> doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.
>>
>>
>>
>>  OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
>> depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
>> results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
>> computations have to occur in *some* sense.
>>
>>
>>  But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist
>> in whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore
>> there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.
>> What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference
>> terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit
>> outputs.
>>
>
>  Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real
> question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many
> minds).
>
>
> Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that a
> classical computer can support consciousness.
>

Because with computationalism, if a quantum computer runs the computations
that support a mind, there would be many resulting conscious states, and
first person views.  That we can only access N-bits of a mind from any one
world is irrelevant, as all the conscious states exist in the intermediate
states, which you call "calculation fictions".

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: What are wavefunctions?


On 12/30/2013 11:17 AM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) 
quantum.  But
notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N
complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of
information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it doesn't really act like 
2^N
parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits 
depending on
the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all results obtained in
"parallel universes". This means that the 2^N computations have to occur in 
*some*
sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist in 
whole
universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore there 
must be
other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits. What Holevo's 
theorem
shows is the one can regard all those interference terms as mere calculation
fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit outputs.


Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real question.  If 
they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many minds).


Why is that "the real question"?  Saying yes to the doctor implies that a classical 
computer can support consciousness.


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: The Nature of Truth


On 12/30/2013 3:39 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

All,

In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm starting a new 
topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and separate issue from previous 
discussions.



1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality, we know external 
reality only filtered through the structures of our own minds. What we really know is 
only our own mental model of external reality which is provably very very different than 
actual external reality.


I'm not sure this is right.  If our mental model includes our best and most fundamental 
scientific theories, then we don't *know* they are very different from reality.  And we 
only say we know this about our naive, inbuilt model of the world (which is more 
Newtonian) because we compare it with the scientific models; yet the latter is derived 
from the former. "Science is just common sense writ large."




2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental reality to an extent 
sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively within it. If we didn't have some 
actual true knowledge of external reality we could not even function within it and thus 
could not exist. So our very existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some 
true knowledge of it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure 
rather than the physical world we believe it to be.)


3. External reality is a consistent logical structure. It is computed, and for it to be 
computed it must follow consistent logical rules.


4. Therefore the only real test of truth is its internal logical consistency over the 
entire scope of knowledge. We can not directly compare our knowledge to the external 
world because it is filtered through the structures of our own senses and minds, but we 
do know that our knowledge is truth to the extent it is internally self-consistent over 
maximum scope.


5. In fact this is the actual working basis of scientific method, forensics, our 
successful functioning in daily life and in all human endeavors that seek truth. Namely 
is the body of knowledge in question internally consistent. If it is not then something 
is UNtrue.


This is the Consistency Theory of Knowledge. Consistency over maximum scope IS truth, 
the only truth possible to know.


There is and can be no direct knowledge of truth, there is only consistency.

This applies to all types of truth, from the logical structures in daily life moment to 
moment, as well as to knowledge of a "Final Theory".



There is however one important exception. Our mental model of reality is part of the 
actual external reality, and we do have direct knowledge of that. The truth of that is 
the thing itself. But its truth is an internal mental model of external reality, not the 
external reality it pretends to be.


OK, except I think your terminology is confusing because you use "truth" as a noun, and 
write thins like "truth of our mental model is the thing itself".  If you would stick to 
"true" as an adjective applying to sentences the above could be a lot cleaner.


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: The Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
> knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.
>
> But i the realm of reality,
>

And where may one find this realm of realms?


>  i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.
>

The only truth Edgar is unearthing for me is:

You can enlist entire mailing lists as free reviewers for any book project
you may have, without paying them one cent for doing so. Vanity and
altruism make good bedfellows. PGC


>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>>
>>>
>>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>>  All,

 In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory"
 I'm starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important
 and separate issue from previous discussions.


 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality,
 we know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own
 minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external reality
 which is provably very very different than actual external reality.

 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
 reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
 within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external reality
 we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very
 existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of
 it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
 than the physical world we believe it to be.)

>>>
>>> That are belief, not knowledge.
>>>
>>> Then, what is knowledge? the one derived from mathematical deductions
>> based on the belief on + and succ ?
>>
>>
>>
>> That one is still on the type belief (a consequence of Gödel's
>> incompleteness).
>>
>> To know that 1+ 1 = 2, you need to
>>
>> 1) believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but you need also that
>>
>> 2) it is the case that 1 + 1 = 2   (in your "reality")
>>
>> If you put arithmetical realism on the table, anyone believing that 1 + 1
>> = 2, knows that 1 + 1 = 2. This needs some "reality" satisfying the fact
>> that 1+1=2, and we do suspect its existence indeed, as the structure (N, 0,
>> s, +, *) taught in high school.
>>
>> Usually "rational belief" in a large sense is axiomatized by the modal
>> axiom K
>>
>> B(x -> y) ->(Bx -> By),
>>
>> with or without the necessitation rule (inferring Bx from x), but
>> (almost) always with the modus ponens (inferring B from A -> B and A).
>>
>> Then a form of self-awareness is captured by the possible axioms Bx ->
>> BBx.
>>
>> Gödel provability obeys that. That are the K4 reasoners. 4 is the name
>> (sic) of the formula Bx -> BBx, as it was the main axiom of the fourth
>> system by Lewis (S4).
>>
>> S4 is the knowledge theory. It is K4 together with the axiom Bx -> x.  By
>> definition of knowledge, if you know x, x is true. If p were not true, i.e;
>> if it was not the case that p, you would just be believing wrongly.
>>
>> Gödel's provability obeys K4 (indeed K4 + B(Bx->x)->Bx), but does not
>> obeys Bx -> x, at least from the machine 3p points' of view on itself.
>>
>> But the conjunction of Bx & x does obeys S4 (indeed S4 +
>> B(B(x->Bx)->x)->x, the Grzegorczyk formula).
>>
>> Set theoretically, knowledge is the intersection of your beliefs and
>> truth.
>>
>> It can be explained that some machine, like PA and ZF, already understand
>> (prove, or prove from some Dt conditional, or more) that their *personal*
>> knowledge escape all possible 3p definitions.  They can't believe they are
>> any machine. They still can bet on it, like "nature" apparently already did.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because 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 th

Re: What are wavefunctions?

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably)
> quantum.  But notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N
> qubits it takes 2^N complex numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only
> retrieve N bits of information from it (c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it
> doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.
>
>
>
>  OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits
> depending on the 2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all
> results obtained in "parallel universes". This means that the 2^N
> computations have to occur in *some* sense.
>
>
> But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist in
> whole universe, much less in that little quantum computer and therefore
> there must be other worlds which contain these enormous number of bits.
> What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard all those interference
> terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N bit
> outputs.
>

Can such "calculation fictions" support conciousness?  That's the real
question.  If they can, then you can't avoid many-worlds (or at least many
minds).

Jason



> It is conceptually no different than doing a calculation in ordinary
> probability theory: I start with some initial conditions and I introduce a
> probability distribution and compute a probability for some event.  In that
> intermediate step I introduced a continuous probability distribution which
> implies an *infinite* number of bits.  Nobody thinks this requires an
> infinite number of worlds.
>
> Brent
>
>   --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Another stab at the universal present moment - a gedanken..


On 12/30/2013 3:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 11:58 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/29/2013 6:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

Liz,

No, it is clear that your here is not the same as mine because you are not here. 
However it is quite clear that you absolutely must be doing something in the exact 
same present moment that I write this sentence. That is the present moment that we 
share.


No, that's not clear at all.  Since you and Liz are not in the same place and the 
speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, there exist a whole range of Liz's 
moments which may correspond to your moment depending on which moving frame is 
arbitrarily chosen to determine simultaneity.


Yes. Presentism does not make sense with special relativity. "present" is an 
indexical. No need and in fact no means, to reify the "present".








Do you somehow imagine that there is some gap in your time line that takes you out 
of existence as I write this sentence? If there isn't then you must agree we do 
share a common present moment...


But it is not uniquely defined.


A long time ago, in my childhood, I saw a movie with a friend. My friend found the 
movie boring, and he felt like if it never ends: time was going slowly, for him.  But 
I loved that movie, and time was going very quickly for me. We discussed that after, 
and I was troubled. Was we still at the same moment?

Well, with computationalism, that question just does not make any sense.


Being at the same event, same point of spacetime, should still make sense.



For immaterial Newtonian-like point. If not we can't hardly breath. Our bodies do have 
volume. OK?


Do they have volume in comp (which is all immaterial)?  Is volume definable in 
comp?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The Nature of Truth

2013-12-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona

To summarize, there is no possible pure knowledge, only rules to extract
knowledge from assumed beliefs. Thanks. But I already knew so.

But i the realm of reality,  i.e. sensible experience, Edgar is right here.




2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 30 Dec 2013, at 15:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/12/30 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2013, at 12:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>>  All,
>>>
>>> In response to the discussion of the possibility of a "Final Theory" I'm
>>> starting a new topic on the Nature of Truth since this is an important and
>>> separate issue from previous discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1, it is impossible to directly know the external fundamental reality,
>>> we know external reality only filtered through the structures of our own
>>> minds. What we really know is only our own mental model of external reality
>>> which is provably very very different than actual external reality.
>>>
>>> 2, However we can easily prove that we do know external fundamental
>>> reality to an extent sufficient for us to function reasonably effectively
>>> within it. If we didn't have some actual true knowledge of external reality
>>> we could not even function within it and thus could not exist. So our very
>>> existence in actual reality demonstrates we do have some true knowledge of
>>> it. (This true knowledge consists of snippets of logical structure rather
>>> than the physical world we believe it to be.)
>>>
>>
>> That are belief, not knowledge.
>>
>> Then, what is knowledge? the one derived from mathematical deductions
> based on the belief on + and succ ?
>
>
>
> That one is still on the type belief (a consequence of Gödel's
> incompleteness).
>
> To know that 1+ 1 = 2, you need to
>
> 1) believe that 1 + 1 = 2, but you need also that
>
> 2) it is the case that 1 + 1 = 2   (in your "reality")
>
> If you put arithmetical realism on the table, anyone believing that 1 + 1
> = 2, knows that 1 + 1 = 2. This needs some "reality" satisfying the fact
> that 1+1=2, and we do suspect its existence indeed, as the structure (N, 0,
> s, +, *) taught in high school.
>
> Usually "rational belief" in a large sense is axiomatized by the modal
> axiom K
>
> B(x -> y) ->(Bx -> By),
>
> with or without the necessitation rule (inferring Bx from x), but (almost)
> always with the modus ponens (inferring B from A -> B and A).
>
> Then a form of self-awareness is captured by the possible axioms Bx -> BBx.
>
> Gödel provability obeys that. That are the K4 reasoners. 4 is the name
> (sic) of the formula Bx -> BBx, as it was the main axiom of the fourth
> system by Lewis (S4).
>
> S4 is the knowledge theory. It is K4 together with the axiom Bx -> x.  By
> definition of knowledge, if you know x, x is true. If p were not true, i.e;
> if it was not the case that p, you would just be believing wrongly.
>
> Gödel's provability obeys K4 (indeed K4 + B(Bx->x)->Bx), but does not
> obeys Bx -> x, at least from the machine 3p points' of view on itself.
>
> But the conjunction of Bx & x does obeys S4 (indeed S4 +
> B(B(x->Bx)->x)->x, the Grzegorczyk formula).
>
> Set theoretically, knowledge is the intersection of your beliefs and truth.
>
> It can be explained that some machine, like PA and ZF, already understand
> (prove, or prove from some Dt conditional, or more) that their *personal*
> knowledge escape all possible 3p definitions.  They can't believe they are
> any machine. They still can bet on it, like "nature" apparently already did.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because 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 are wavefunctions?


On 12/30/2013 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that's essentially everything, since everything is (presumably) quantum.  But 
notice the limitation of quantum computers, if it has N qubits it takes 2^N complex 
numbers to specify its state, BUT you can only retrieve N bits of information from it 
(c.f. Holevo's theorem).  So it doesn't really act like 2^N parallel computers.



OK, but nobody pretended the contrary.  You can still extract N bits depending on the 
2^N results, by doing some Fourier transfrom on all results obtained in "parallel 
universes". This means that the 2^N computations have to occur in *some* sense.


But they pretend that the number 2^N is so large that it cannot exist in whole universe, 
much less in that little quantum computer and therefore there must be other worlds which 
contain these enormous number of bits.  What Holevo's theorem shows is the one can regard 
all those interference terms as mere calculation fictions in going from N bit inputs to N 
bit outputs.  It is conceptually no different than doing a calculation in ordinary 
probability theory: I start with some initial conditions and I introduce a probability 
distribution and compute a probability for some event.  In that intermediate step I 
introduced a continuous probability distribution which implies an *infinite* number of 
bits.  Nobody thinks this requires an infinite number of worlds.


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: How can a grown man be an atheist ?


On 12/30/2013 2:07 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 21:02, Stephen Paul King > wrote:


Dear Bruno,

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

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


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


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


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality

On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King > wrote:

Hi LizR,

Round and round we go... This sentence "It emerges because instants are
connected
to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between
them."
does not explain anything. I have read just about every book and paper that
attempts
to explain time away. All fail on this point. None offer any reason for the
illusion
of change to be there in the first place. If we point to a sequence (of
numbers,
events, states, whatever) we still need to explain how that particular
sequence is
the one that just "happened". No, it could not "Happen".

A good way to visualise a block universe is like the frames of a movie stacked on top of
each other. The books, papers etc you read are not attempting to "explain time away" -
they are attempting to explain how time arises from the relevant equations. (Actually, I
suspect that you are betraying a personal bias against the idea by using that phrase, so
I may be wasting my typing fingers here! But anyway...)

You are asking what connects the frames together. The answer is the laws of physics. In
the Newtonian and Relativistic views this is what the laws of physics are - equations
which describe how things change over time. They describe a block universe.

Asking why one sequence of events "just happened" is assuming there has to be an
external time in which one sequence is selected, or evolves, or otherwise occurs. In
"classical" relativity this question is answered by saying that the block universe is
the only possible outcome of the laws of physics, assumed to be deterministic. So we
have a Laplace's demon type answer. Quantum theory, in the form of the MWI gives a
broader answer by allowing all events allowed by the probabalistic laws of physics to
occur. A block multiverse has no need to evolve or select a sequence of events, because
all sequences compatible with the laws of physics occur.

But QM requires initial conditions too. Do you propose a multiverse in which all possible
(logically non-contradictory) initial conditions obtain?

Brent

That answers the question of how this particular sequence "just happens" for both GR
/and /QM!

:-)
--
You received this message because 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: Another shot at how spacetime emerges from computational reality