date:20140208


On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with 
 it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to 
 deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best 
 efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true.


 What is Edgar's insight?  Can you explain it?  All I've seen is that 
 observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is 
 trivially the meaning of at the same event.

 His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are 
 derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting.  
 Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light 
 signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the 
 clocks so they define and inertial frame.

 Brent

  
 I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight 
 is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with 
 goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. 
  
 I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he himself 
 seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands or 
 falls on. 
  
 I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think 
 that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. 
  
 I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your 
 question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel 
 better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of 
 following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out 
 of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage 
 to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum 
 indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it 
 doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be 
 about time in the end. 
  
 So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in 
 terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically 
 enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out 
 well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest 
 sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it 
 might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe 
 are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. 
  
 That's my best guess for your answer. 

 
Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't 
already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground' 
given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to 
formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively 
in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some 
basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's 
the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency. 
The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the 
extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally 
legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about 
this, people throw up their arms and say what the fuck are we doing giving 
all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is 
clearly totally screwy and wrong. 
 
That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken 
out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's 
best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the 
merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses 
on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's 
fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the gift of any 
group of people to decide. 
 
What I personally couldn't vouch for and wouldn't feel good about in the 
fulsomeness of reflection, would be if that had been the built in implicit 
decision, in effect by the way things were actually done on the ground. But 
that was never fully realized by either side him or the collective. For him 
that could be really bad. That could be like, being left totally burned out 
by the process and walking away from his idea forever, when actually that 
outcome and kind of been an realized given from the start. Not purposefully 
- that is not necessary at all for that to be the real intention at the 
level of the METHOD. The method is objectively real, and it is always there 
whether it's realized or not. It's objective in that sense. If it isn't 
explicit worked through, then it's just the whatever was most repeating and 
most long term influential in the carcrash of what happened.  

  


-- 
You received this

Re: Block Universes

I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which
sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with
it - for example an astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the
same time as his twin on Earth, but intersecting it at an angle that means
his clock runs at a different rate.

Or something like that. This hyperplane appears to be the rest frame of the
CMBR (probably) and orthogonal to the expansion of the universe in 5
dimensions, ignoring the bumpy bits.



On 8 February 2014 20:59, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with
 it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to
 deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best
 efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true.


 What is Edgar's insight?  Can you explain it?  All I've seen is that
 observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is
 trivially the meaning of at the same event.

 His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are
 derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting.
 Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light
 signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the
 clocks so they define and inertial frame.

 Brent


 I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight
 is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with
 goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway.

 I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he
 himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands
 or falls on.

 I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think
 that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem.

 I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your
 question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel
 better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of
 following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out
 of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage
 to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum
 indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it
 doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be
 about time in the end.

 So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in
 terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically
 enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out
 well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest
 sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it
 might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe
 are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled.

 That's my best guess for your answer.


 Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't
 already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground'
 given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to
 formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively
 in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some
 basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's
 the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency.
 The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the
 extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally
 legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about
 this, people throw up their arms and say what the fuck are we doing giving
 all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is
 clearly totally screwy and wrong.

 That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken
 out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's
 best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the
 merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses
 on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's
 fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the gift of any
 group of people to decide.

 What I personally couldn't vouch for and wouldn't feel good about in the
 fulsomeness of reflection, would be if that had been the built in implicit
 decision, in effect by the way things were actually done on the ground. But
 that was never fully realized by either side him or the collective. For him
 that could be really bad. That could be like, being left totally burned out
 by the process and

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room



On 07 Feb 2014, at 19:03, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 Computation is 3p, and consciousness is 1p, and no 1p thing can be  
a 3p thing.


Sure it can. There is no consistent definition of p



?

What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p given in UDA?

What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p given in the  
Arithmetical UDA (AUDA)?





so 3p can be anything as can 1p.


?

Even if there were non consistent definition of A and B, it would not  
follow that A can be equal to B.
(there is no consistent definition of consciousness and there is no  
consistent definition of God does not imply that consciousness = god,  
for example).






And I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why if  
intelligent behavior (which can be detected objectively) and  
consciousness  (which can only be observed subjectively) can be  
totally separated why did random mutation and natural selection  
bother to invent consciousness?


An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a necessary  
side effect of intelligence. But I don't follow this: it is a  
phenomena having some role, I would say, and so evolution is just not  
a problem.
To be sure, I let this epiphenomena/phenomena question open until I  
explain a bit more what happens in arithmetic more closely, to avoid a  
vocabulary discussion.





And I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at  
least once, and perhaps many times.


I doubt that is a fact. Evolution might (and probably have) just makes  
it possible for consciousness, which would be in arithmetic, to be  
manifested through persons in the relative way.

Again, that is not crucially important, for the question above.

Bruno





  John K Clark



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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: Unput and Onput



On 07 Feb 2014, at 17:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when  
machine looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot  
avoid some private transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic,  
with standard definition for transcendence.


I think the standard definition is beyond normal experience, but  
I think you mean true but unprovable.


True and unprovable is only G* minus G.  But the private  
transcendence is a more complex phenomenon in which Z* minus Z and  
X* minus X participate.





But even if you take transcendent to mean ineffable I don't see how  
arithmetic is going to pick out the qualia of experience as  
ineffable.


The hope is that X1* is a quantum logic à la John Bell (the  
logician, not the physicist), already used to model a notion of  
qualia, by proximity relations on perceptible fields.





  There are infinitely many true but unprovable propositions.  Why  
are the qualia we experience the ones that they are and not some  
others?


Because the one that they are probably maximizes the probability to  
eat, and minimizes the probability to be eaten.


That just makes it the qualia of the gaps.


That would be the case if the question was why qualia?, and not why  
this or that qualia? as Brent was asking.
The qualia itself should be explained by the logic of one of the  
hypostases (X1*).


Bruno


You can't negatively assert positive identities like blue or itchy.  
Neither one would minimize or maximize anything inherently. If they  
had an implicit function like that, then there would be no reason  
for them anyhow as a regular quantitative value could be used  
instead. We don't live in a universe where qualia appears wherever a  
function implies that it would be convenient.


Craig


Insects color qualia are probably quite different, because it is  
driven by the sexual strategy of plants.


Bruno






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-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.


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.


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



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

Re: Unput and Onput



On 07 Feb 2014, at 20:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:33:07 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Feb 2014, at 20:54, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 6, 2014 11:22:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Feb 2014, at 20:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:53:56 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 05 Feb 2014, at 13:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:37:39 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal  
wrote:


On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:07, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Numbers can be derived from sensible physics


That is a claim often done, but nobody has ever succeed without  
assuming Turing universality (and thus the numbers) in their  
description of physics.


Turing universality can just be a property of physics, like  
density or mass.


That is close to just nonsense (but I agree that some notorious  
physicists are attracted to this, but they don't convince me).


Can you explain why?


Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion.

It has nothing to do with physics. But physics can implement them,  
and that notion is not that obvious.


How do you know it has nothing to do with physics?


Because the paper convinced me, and this by assuming the most  
elementary mathematic. No reference at all to anything physical is  
mentioned. Turing's model *looks like* a sort of physical device,  
but that's only part of Turing's pedagogy. Turing machine are  
mathematical objects, and they can be defined in arithmetic.


That's great for you but it may as well be The Bible showed me the  
light to me. Nothing physical is mentioned, but that does not mean  
that the concepts could have arisen in the first place without the  
presence of physical objects as inspiration. I understand completely  
that a Turing machine is an abstraction, but the principles which  
are beneath that abstraction require that theoretical features  
behave in particular ways. The Turing machine needs to be  
constructed of reliable, emotionless, untiring, undistractable, semi- 
permanent units. There can be no fluid or imaginative components, no  
free intentions or personal preferences. The Turing machine is a  
structure sculpted of hyper-earth, not fire, water, air, or ether.


Proof?








Certainly it seems more plausible to me that Turing universality  
supervenes on a common language of physical unity and unit- 
plurality than it does that the flavor of a tangerine supervenes on  
Turing universality.


Then you are like explaining the simple things that we agree on by  
the complex things nobody agree on.


I don't agree that the flavor of a tangerine is complex or that  
nobody agrees on it. It seems much more complicated to try to reduce  
that flavor to what could only be the processing of hundreds of  
billions of bytes.


?



















Just as Comp does a brute appropriation of qualia under 1p  
uncertainty,


No. That would be a confusion between []p and []p  p (or others).

Only God can do that confusion.

You seem to go back and forth between making qualia something  
transcendent and private, to making it somehow inevitable  
mathematically.


Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when  
machine looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot  
avoid some private transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic,  
with standard definition for transcendence.


What's a standard definition for transcendence?


I said *some* private transcendence, because to be honest on this  
needs, if only the completion of the course in modal logic, and much  
more.


But the main idea of transcendence is that it looks real or true,  
yet you cannot justify it, or prove it to another.
typical human candidate is consciousness, sense (I guess), the  
belief in a primitive physical universe, or in God, but also  
different kinds of relations that machines can have with different  
kind of infinities.


Why isn't it just subconscious?


You can call it like you want.








How do you know that such a condition is not a 1 dimensional data  
transformation rather than an introspective aesthetic environment?


As far as I can make sense of this, I would say that once a machine  
looks inward, she is confronted to an introspective aesthetic  
environment.


So you don't know,


?



but you are gong to say that it is the one and not the other.


I said that you might have both (in comp).












If we ask ourselves, 'Does being a good mathematician require you  
to be a good artist or musician?', the answer I think is no.


I am not sure. But good mathematician is vague. Good artist also.

Just in simple, straightforward terms - does being able to multiply  
fractions require that you can paint a realistic face or does it  
seem to be a fundamentally different talent?


It depends who you are.

I don't think that it depend on anything. Art galleries are full of  
art, not mathematical proofs. In a universe of pure

Re: Unput and Onput



On 08 Feb 2014, at 01:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:33:28 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 February 2014 07:48, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:43, LizR wrote:

Because Turing universality is a mathematical notion.

It has nothing to do with physics.

I must admit I was quite surprised by this. I thought you generally  
argue that physics can be extracted from comp, and TU is part of  
comp (isn't it?)
Ys, but that is why it is meaningfull to say that we derive physics  
from zero physical assumption.


 We derive physics from TU, which is defined in pure arithmetic, and  
has indeed no relation at all with physics *in his definition*. It  
involves only 0, successor, and the * and + laws, nothing else.


Of course arithmetic and TU has something to do with physics, *at  
some level*, assuming comp, and well, in the psychology or theology  
of the TUs, which is itself derived from arithmetical self-reference.


But this means that physics has some plausible relation with the UT.  
The UT itself, at his definition level, is a purely arithmetical  
notion.


OK?

Yes, of course. I was getting the cart before the horse, as they  
say. TU has nothing to do with physics but physics may have  
something to do with TU.


How do you know it has nothing to do with physics? It seems clear to  
me that the behaviors of integers, memory, etc. are rooted in  
familiarity with a particular macroscopic physics.


That is possible, even with comp, but it is a metatheory on the  
relation between human and number. To define the number, you don't  
need to invoke anything physical.




Building a Turing machine only out of emotions or fog or empty space  
is not possible.


Proof?  (that statement is extra-ordinary, and so requires a clear and  
quite extra-ordinary proof).


Bruno





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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



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

Re: Block Universes



On 07 Feb 2014, at 21:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:


Jesse,

I'm willing to accept the notion that time, like everything else is  
quantized at the finest scale, but even so I would maintain that  
everything is at one and only one point in time as the current state  
is continually recomputed into the next state..


However it seems to me this not just a simple sequence of  
information states being computed by programatic operators, but that  
the information that constitutes the current state of the universe  
must include information about how that information is changing. Not  
sure if that's clear. A lot more about it in my book where I explore  
the details of the information universe.


As log as you don't define what you mean by computation this is  
nonsense.


Bruno





Also the notion that the arrow of time has anything to do with the  
2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't make any sense at all. Entropy  
varies widely in the universe. If it had anything to do with the  
arrow of time we could expect time to flow differently in areas of  
different entropy and backwards in areas of decreasing entropy which  
it of course doesn't.


Edgar


On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:01:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net  
wrote:

Jesse,

BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because  
your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your  
clock than when it was sent.



And how does that prove that time flows in a non-block-timey  
sense? From a geometric point of view, it just means that if you  
have a v-shaped path through spacetime of a light signal that  
intersects my worldline at two different points, then those two  
events have different proper times on my clock (because naturally,  
*any* two distinct points on my worldline have distinct proper  
times). If you're just talking about the fact that the event of the  
signal being sent always happens at an earlier proper time than the  
event of it being received, that's ultimately a consequence of the  
thermodynamic arrow of time and the fact that the entropy of the  
universe is continually increasing from a low-entropy Big Bang--if  
the laws of physics are deterministic it would in principle be  
possible to set up a special set of initial conditions for an  
isolated system that would ensure entropy would decrease towards a  
future minimum rather than increase, and in such a system there  
would be time-reversed signal reception events that happened  
before time-reversed transmission events.


Jesse



On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,

OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of  
this issue that I promised:



A few points:

1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the  
present moment that I used before. The twins meet, shake hands and  
compare watches. That is the operation definition.


That is essentially the same as your reflected light operational  
definition with which I have no problem.


2. However it is important to note that that works not just for the  
twins together, but for every single twin by himself. Because any  
twin or observer can shake his own hand, look at his own watch, or  
note that the light reflected from a mirror in his hand takes  
minimal time to return.


Therefore what is true for the twins together is also true for each  
twin separately, and is true for every observer in the universe as  
well.


3. So what is it that is true? You say it is being at the same  
point in spacetime. Call that relationship R1. I use the term that  
everyone else does and has throughout history, namely being in the  
(same) present moment. Call that relationship R2.



So let's use a thought experiment to examine the difference between  
R1 and R2:


Imagine a line of a billion twins. By both our definitions every two  
adjacent twins will be in what you call relationship R1 and I call  
R2. And this will be true of the adjacent twins on both sides of  
every twin.


In your terminology every twin will be at the same point of  
spacetime with both the one to the right and to the left.


In my terminology every twin will be in the same present moment  
with both the one to the right and to the left.


Note that  these relationships are transitive, so they necessarily  
cascade through the whole line of twins. What that means is that  
twin #1 must have that same relationship with twin #1 billion.


But clearly it is NOT true that twin 1 is at the same point in  
spacetime as twin 1 billion because he not at the same point in  
space. However twin 1 can be in the same present moment as twin 1  
billion, because that is just a time relationship that does not  
require a same space location.


Thus our agreed operational definition leads to a contradiction with  
your terminology but not mine.

Re: Biology, Buddha and the irreflexive Multiverse (was Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)



On 07 Feb 2014, at 23:21, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/7/2014 10:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Feb 2014, at 21:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/6/2014 12:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
In Kripke semantic all statements are relativized to the world  
you are in. []A can be true in some world and false in another.  
The meaning of [] is restricted, for each world, to the world  
they can access (through the accessibility relation available in  
the Kripke multiverse).


[]A still keep a meaning, but only in each world. So everything  
is said when we define the new meaning of [] by the rule


[]A is true in alpha, by definition, means that A is true in all  
world beta *accessible* from alpha.


And

A is true in alpha iff there is a world beta; where A is true,  
accessible from alpha.


Suppose A is true in alpha,


OK. Nice.




but alpha is not accessible from alpha


OK.




and A is not true in any other world accessible from alpha.


OK.




Does it follow that A is not true in alpha?


Yes. That does follow.

How frustrating!

A is true, but not possible.

How could that makes sense?

Well, this does not make sense ... in the Leibnizian multiverse.  
For sure.



I don't see the point allowing that worlds may not be accesible  
from themselves?  Does that have some application?


Yes.

First you prove to everybody that I can see in the future, as I  
announced yesterday the discovery of a Kripke multiverse violating  
the law []A - A.


You just did.

Well, in alpha, to be sure, []A - A is true (OK?), but []~A - ~A  
is falsified, as []~A is true (~A is true in all accessible world  
from alpha), and ~A is false in alpha, as A is true is true in  
alpha, and worlds obeys CPL).


That amounts to the same, as the laws do not depend on the  
valuation. If []A - A is a law, []~A - ~A should follow.


Note that []~A - ~A, is equivalent with (contraposition, double  
negation): ~~A - ~[]~A = A - A


A - A  is the dual formulation of []A - A.

As law, they are equivalent. But as formula in one world, they can  
oppose to each other.


So you did find a Kripke multiverse violating the *law*  []A - A.

And you did find the culprit: those bizarre world which does not  
access to themselves.




Does that have some application?



Yes.

1) An easy one, which plays some role in what I like to call the  
simplest buddhist theory of life ever!


And that theory is a subtheory of G, and so will stay with us.

That theory models life by worlds accessibility.

To be alive at alpha means that t is true in alpha. It means that  
there is, at least, one world accessible from alpha.


To die at alpha means that t is false in alpha. But t is true in  
alpha, as t is true in all worlds, so the only way to have t  
false, is that there are no accessible worlds from alpha, at all,  
including itself.


That makes alpha into a cul-de-sac world.

So in Kripke semantics, ~t, or equivalently []f, characterizes  
the cul-de-sac world.


Then the simplest buddhist theory of life ever is just the statement,

If you are alive, then you can die. It means that for all worlds  
alpha where you are alive (t is true), you can access to a cul-de- 
sac world.


It means that everywhere, in all worlds we t - []f, or  
equivalently t - ~[]t.


2) If you interpret t by intelligent, and []f by stupid, you get  
with the same multiverse, my general theory of intelligence and  
stupidity.


3) if you interpret [] by provability (in PA, or in ZF), again, t  
- ~[]t is a law. Read: if I am consistent, then I can't prove  
that I am consistent.


It is easy to see that the law t - ~[]t is a direct  
consequence of the formula of Löb []([]A - A) - []A.


Just put t in place of A, and keep in mind that A - f is just ~A,  
and then contra-pose:


[]([]A - A) - []A
[]([]f - f) - []f
[](~[]f) - []f
~[]f - ~[](~[]f)
t - ~[]t

The worlds in the Kripke mutiverse characterizing G are like that,  
they don't access to themselves.


[]A- A is not an arithmetical law from the 3p self-referential  
view of the machine, but that is why the Theaetetus idea is  
applicable and will give the non trivial S4Grz for the knower, or  
first person, fro which []A - A is indispensable.


Some might be astonished that []f is true in a cul-de-sac world.   
But kripe semantics say that []f is true in alpha then f is true in  
all accessible worlds from alpha.


This really means (for all beta): (alpha R beta) - (beta  
satisfy f).


But (alpha R beta) is always false, and (beta satisfy f) is always  
false, so (alpha R beta) - (beta satisfy f).


OK?


Dunno.  I'll have to think about it.


Normally, we will discuss this a lot.





One thing I find puzzling is that accessible seems ill defined.


Of course, it means just binary relation, on some non empty set  
called multiverse (here).






I have an intuitive grasp of what possible and necessary mean.


But that is only the alethic modalities. In PA the modal box [] will  
represent provability, and the worlds will be non

Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

On 07 Feb 2014, at 21:36, Chris de Morsella wrote:

From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Eidetic memory and the comp hypothesis

Thanks for the link Chris.

It has also been discovered, some years ago, that glial cells are  
involved in chronic pain. Since then, I follow them closely. They do  
communicate chemically in some wavy way, and they do communicate to,  
and influence, neurons.
I still tend to think that neurons play the key role in the  
information treatment, and probably in the basic loops needed for  
consciousness, but I would not been astonished, that glial cells  
would be important for surviving some long period of time.
(Needless to say, for the UDA reversal, this is only a matter of  
making the substitution level lower, and this does not change the  
consequences.)

I agree that it seems highly probable that most of the brain  
activities underlying the mind -- out of which we experience the  
spontaneously arising sense of self,  the awareness of that self and  
all the other magnificent mysteries of consciousness -- are  
occurring primarily as phenomenon primarily rooted in the electro- 
chemical chirping, crackling activity occurring in our highly folded  
cortexual sheets and the hugely parallel neural/axonal  networks.

Though if indeed (as it appears) glial cells play a key role in  
cementing memories (and maybe in some chemically based manner  
perhaps even storing long term memories -- perhaps like an archival  
storage medium for (slow) chemically mediated recall mechanisms --  
then, in fact, it would be impossible to describe the working of the  
brain/mind without factoring in and understanding their role(s). It  
seems to me that -- at least some large portion of -- the glial  
cells may play a role like the one I am conjecturing.

Is the glial brain underlying the cortexual sheet is in fact a kind  
of chemical only -- and hence much slower by orders of magnitude --  
processor that the brain/mind uses as a permanent archive for long  
term memories that adjacent populations of neurons use kind of like  
a hard drive or maybe an archival drive/tape backup? It certainly  
seems like these cells are playing some role; what if our brains  
have glial cell hard drives.

I was not aware of the role these types of brain cells (comprising  
around 90% of the brains cells) also are somehow involved in  
mediating the experience of pain (what about other sensations and  
emotions?) -- that is interesting.

In terms of information theory -- or comp in this case -- not all  
that much changes. It is more like an extension of the electro- 
chemical cortex and the operations it performs are chemically  
mediated and so are much slower than electrical switches. However I  
also agree that this would not qualitatively change the essential  
nature of the brain as a biological computer, albeit an incredibly  
complex and highly parallel one with vast numbers of neurons and  
even vaster numbers of vertices.

I would not be astonished that, if someone accept a brain transplant  
based on on the neuronal network, he would pretend having survived,  
when coming back from the hospital, but then get sleep problems, and  
developing chronical pains, long term memory damages, so that after  
one month, he has to come back to the hospital, and wait for a better  
transplant taking into account more of the glial cells. Of course that  
would be more expensive. Lowering the level makes the transplant more  
expensive of course.

Brains are terribly complex structures, that seems rather clear.

Bruno

Chris

Bruno

On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:59, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Liz - The pace of what we are discovering about the brain makes  
everything we know about it a moving goal post; case in point the  
key role it now appears astrocytes or glial cells play in the  
formation of memories. Astrocytes account for around 90% of all  
brain cells. This indicates to my view of things that until we  
really do understand the actual mechanisms (and the second follow  
on ring of emergent meta-mechanisms that characterize and emerge  
within vastly parallel networks as well), it is too early to put  
hard upper boundaries on capacity.  If we are just now discovering  
previously overlooked critical actors for the formation of  
memories; do we even really know that much about the physical  
mechanisms for memory in the brain?
This is, as you may have guessed, a subject in which I am fairly  
interested; I believe a rigorous micro and dynamic network scale  
understanding of brain functioning is required in order to form a  
theory of consciousness, self-aware intelligence etc. I also feel  
we are getting tantalizingly close to a kind of gestalt moment when  
all the pieces will emerge naturally as one whole dynamic elegant  
theory that will win someone a Nobel prize and a grand  
understanding of the

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

Seconds (1966) is also worth a look.

-- 
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: Unput and Onput



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:31:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 07 Feb 2014, at 17:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:52:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 06 Feb 2014, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/6/2014 8:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  
 Yes. But it is not a back and forth. It just happen that when machine 
 looks inward, and stay honest with herself, she cannot avoid some private 
 transcendence. It is a theorem of arithmetic, with standard definition for 
 transcendence.


 I think the standard definition is beyond normal experience, but I 
 think you mean true but unprovable.  


 True and unprovable is only G* minus G.  But the private 
 transcendence is a more complex phenomenon in which Z* minus Z and X* 
 minus X participate.




 But even if you take transcendent to mean ineffable I don't see how 
 arithmetic is going to pick out the qualia of experience as ineffable.


 The hope is that X1* is a quantum logic à la John Bell (the logician, not 
 the physicist), already used to model a notion of qualia, by proximity 
 relations on perceptible fields. 




   There are infinitely many true but unprovable propositions.  Why are 
 the qualia we experience the ones that they are and not some others?


 Because the one that they are probably maximizes the probability to eat, 
 and minimizes the probability to be eaten.


 That just makes it the qualia of the gaps. 


 That would be the case if the question was why qualia?, and not why 
 *this* or *that* qualia? as Brent was asking.


Each quale can be understood to be the personal presence of the total 
proprietary significance, while quanta (numbers, arithmetic, relations) can 
be understood to be the impersonal presence of the locally genericized 
qualia. Private experience is a subset of total experience. Public 
experience is a relativistically genericized collection of shared private 
experiences.

The qualia itself should be explained by the logic of one of the hypostases 
 (X1*).


It should be, but I do not think that it is. I think that any of the 
hypostases could be explained by non-qualia. We don't have to explain 
imaginary numbers as being qualia, they can just be hypothetical. I don't 
see any reason why all quantitative properties could not exist just as well 
in a universe which completely lacks any kind of aesthetic presentation. 
Just as we can calculate geometry problems arithmetically without drawing 
lines and shapes, it makes no sense to me that any of the hypostases could 
positively affirm the specific nature of qualia. 

Craig


 Bruno


 You can't negatively assert positive identities like blue or itchy. 
 Neither one would minimize or maximize anything inherently. If they had an 
 implicit function like that, then there would be no reason for them anyhow 
 as a regular quantitative value could be used instead. We don't live in a 
 universe where qualia appears wherever a function implies that it would be 
 convenient.

 Craig
  


 Insects color qualia are probably quite different, because it is driven 
 by the sexual strategy of plants.

 Bruno





 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-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.


 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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





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

Re: Block Universes

Ghibbsa, Brent, Russell, Jesse,

What Ghibbsa and others are trying to do here is establish a notion of a 
universal CLOCK time, and there are several approaches to doing this. The 
best way we would do this is to take an observer in deep space with no 
gravitational field or acceleration and calculate things like the Hubble 
age of the universe in his frame since that does provide a de facto 
standard for a universal observer. It's my understanding that the 13.7 
billion figure is essentially that and that thus the true CLOCK TIME age of 
the universe can be considered 13.7 billion years because it would be 
measured (calculated) as such for a standard non-accelerated, 
non-gravitationalized observer, and by far most of the (non-accelerated) 
spatial points in the universe would approximate that frame as they would 
be located in intergalactic space. Thus it does give us a de facto standard 
frame for clock times.

HOWEVER that is NOT the p-time concept. That's an entirely different notion 
of time that has no proper metric.

P-time is just the active presence of reality. The presence of reality 
manifests as a present moment because since reality is real and actual it 
must also be present, and that presence manifests as a present moment. The 
present moment is simply the actual presence of the universe, the actual 
directly observable presence of reality. That present moment must be 
universal because it is the actual presence of the reality of the universe. 
The presence of the universe and the universe itself MUST be coterminous. 
Thus the present moment must be universal across the entirety of the 
universe.

P-time is a dimensionLESS (or pre-dimensional) abstract computational 
space. As such it has no intrinsic measure other than its characteristic of 
'happening' which provides the processor cycles to compute all 
dimensionality and the current information state of the entire universe.

So the present moment of p-time is that IN WHICH all dimensionality, 
including clock times, are computed. It has no intrinsic dimensionality of 
its own.

Though p-time is the actual radial dimension of the hyperspherical universe 
it cannot be directly measured because we can only use clocks of one form 
or another to measure time and clocks only measure CLOCK time. So the 
universal time you are discussing is a universal notion of CLOCK time, not 
p-time.

However because we, and all biological observers, exist as a part of 
reality, as a part of the actual universe, we are automatically IN the 
presence of the universe and thus in the present moment which is our direct 
experience OF that presence in which we exist. Thus we all directly 
experience the presence of reality, the actual presence of the universe, as 
the present moment in which we all exist.

Thus our fundamental experience of a personal present moment is actually 
our direct experience of the most fundamental process of reality itself, of 
the continual re-computation of the current state of the universe, driven 
by the continual extension of the radial p-time dimension of the universe. 
In my judgment this is an extremely profound insight!

Edgar

On Friday, February 7, 2014 11:41:17 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Ghibbsa, 
  
  Let me clarify my previous answer a little. 
  
  P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe 
 though it 
  doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to 
  dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time 
 radial 
  dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension 
 actually 
  is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. 
  

 I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega  1)? 

 Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely 
 considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. 

 Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative 
 curvature? 

 Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the 
 spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension 
 extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. 

 Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding 
 space. 

  So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor 
 cycles 
  of all the computations that produce the current information state of 
 the 
  universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different 
  relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. 
  
  Hope that makes it a little clearer 
  

 Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical 
 computer with the curvature of spacetime?

Re: Block Universes

Russell,

Yes, that's correct. I'm just saying my theory predicts Omega MUST be 1
and the universe a positively curved hypersphere.

1. Because that's the only cosmological geometry consistent with p-time.
2. Because an Omega 1 results in a universe either infinite or with edges,
neither of which is physically possible in my judgement for reasons I've
stated previously here.

Edgar

On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:45 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,

Some good questions!

Yes, the theory predicts a very small positive curvature of space. The
universe is a closed finite hypersphere with no edges and not infinite.

A lot of people claim that data suggests the universe is flat, but the
data
does not actually suggest that. What the data suggests is only that the
universe is very LARGE, i.e. that the curvature, if any, is very slight.
Also note that for the universe to actually be flat Omega must be
EXACTLY=1
to enormous precision. While if it varies from 1 in only the umpteenth
digit it is not actually flat, just very large. The statistical
likelihood
of a number near to 1 being exactly 1 rather than the near infinite
other
values it could have is incredibly low. So there is no real indication
that
the universe is actually flat, only that whatever curvature it has is
slight. Another good example of how otherwise intelligent scientists
often
misinterpret their own data!

Sure, the issue is not whether it is flat, as surely Omega must differ
slightly from 1, but whether Omega is greater than 1, or less than 1.

If Omega were less than 1, space has a negative curvature, and the
universe is open (never contracts into a big crunch).

The empirical data I was alluding to was the observation that the
universe's expansion accelerated, starting about a billion years
ago. I thought this indicated a negative curvature case, although
still close to flat. Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed here.

A quick Google search indicates they're still arguing over what the
WMAP data means, though:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/weird-findings-suggest-we-live-saddle-shaped-universe-f8C11133381

My theory does NOT assume an embedding dimension. The 4-dimensional
hypersphere is the whole shebang

Actually, you're right. The radius of a 4D hypersphere does not depend
on the embedding dimension - just as the radius of a circle does not
depend on embedding dimension. Sorry.

Since my universe is hyperspherical with p-time the radial dimension,
the
passage of p-time is what 'inflates' the cosmic balloon, whose surface
is
the current universe, and thus what produces the current value of the
curvature of space and causes the Hubble expansion.

How close does space have to be to a hypersphere in order for your theory
to work? General relativity demands local departure from flatness (and
sphericity for that matter) to account for gravitational
phenomena. This may be related to Brent's comments...

Cheers
--

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

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

Re: Block Universes

Liz,

No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:15:42 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which 
 sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with 
 it - for example an astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the 
 same time as his twin on Earth, but intersecting it at an angle that means 
 his clock runs at a different rate.

 Or something like that. This hyperplane appears to be the rest frame of 
 the CMBR (probably) and orthogonal to the expansion of the universe in 5 
 dimensions, ignoring the bumpy bits.



 On 8 February 2014 20:59, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with 
 it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to 
 deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best 
 efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true.


 What is Edgar's insight?  Can you explain it?  All I've seen is that 
 observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is 
 trivially the meaning of at the same event.

 His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are 
 derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting.  
 Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light 
 signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the 
 clocks so they define and inertial frame.

 Brent

  
 I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight 
 is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with 
 goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. 
  
 I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he 
 himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory stands 
 or falls on. 
  
 I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think 
 that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. 
  
 I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your 
 question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel 
 better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of 
 following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out 
 of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage 
 to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum 
 indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it 
 doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be 
 about time in the end. 
  
 So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in 
 terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically 
 enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out 
 well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest 
 sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how it 
 might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe 
 are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. 
  
 That's my best guess for your answer. 

  
 Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't 
 already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground' 
 given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to 
 formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively 
 in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some 
 basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's 
 the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency. 
 The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the 
 extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally 
 legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about 
 this, people throw up their arms and say what the fuck are we doing giving 
 all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is 
 clearly totally screwy and wrong. 
  
 That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken 
 out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's 
 best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the 
 merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses 
 on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's 
 fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the gift of any 
 group of people to decide. 
  
 What I personally couldn't vouch for and wouldn't feel good about in the 
 fulsomeness of reflection, would be if that had been the built in implicit 
 decision, in

Re: Block Universes

Liz,

No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic 
processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it manifests 
in the computations it produces because only they have any measure because 
only they have dimensionality. Again whenever we try to measure p-timel we 
end up measuring only what it has computed because only what it computes 
has measure including all measuring sticks, clocks and devices. P-time 
computes all dimensionality, and all measuring devices. Thus those 
measuring devices only measure other things that have been computed, not 
the p-time that computes them all.

Thus when I speak of a processor 'rate', it's only an illustrative analogy 
because that rate has no direct measure. The only glimpse we get of it is 
in the minimal quanta of time measured in clock time, and presumably the 
curvature of the universe. So in clock time terms the p-time processor 
cycle must be very short, on the scale of what scientists misleadingly call 
the Planck time scale.

The p-time processor rate must obviously be fast enough to compute all 
events in clock time, so in CLOCK time measures, the duration of a p-time 
processor cycle must be shorter than the shortest clock time event.

Edgar



On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:40:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
  Ghibbsa,
 
  Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
 
  P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe 
 though it
  doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to
  dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time 
 radial
  dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension 
 actually
  is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time.

 If you can assign a speed to the expansion of the hypothetical 
 hypersphere, then you have assumed an external space-time in which it is 
 expanding, so that speed means something (distance/time). So you are 
 assuming an extra 5D space-time in order to have something in which the 4D 
 universe is expanding, including a time dimension... How is this prior to 
 dimensionality?



-- 
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: A theory of dark matter...

Liz,

For the first part of my answer to the question of in what sense might 
space be absolute see my new topic post on 'Newton's Bucket and Mach's 
Principle'..

Edgar



On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:57:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 8 February 2014 15:45, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  
 but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak 
 of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of 
 all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes 
 beyond the principle of equivalence. In that, the landscape shows what's 
 big and what's small, so the relation between them, in one big picture. 
  
 I ask this in context that acknowledges it wouldn't be any good 
 for resolving much useable knowledge about the world. In fact none at all, 
 save that relativity does imply such a reality is really there.  

  

 But does relativity imply that? I don't think Einstein thought so, since 
 he was taken with the ideas of Ernst Mach, in which there isn't an absolute 
 landscape. But I'm told that general relativity doesn't obey Mach's 
 principle, so perhaps it does imply it. (Certainly quantum gravity theories 
 that try to make something different of space-time at the fundamental level 
 seem to me to imply that there is an absolute framework involved... but I 
 have been known to be wrong :)
  

-- 
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.

Lakoff and Arithmetic Origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From

Lakoff and Núñez's avowed purpose is to begin laying the foundations for a 
truly scientific understanding of mathematics, one grounded in processes 
common to all human cognition. They find that four distinct but related 
processes metaphorically structure basic arithmetic: object collection, 
object construction, using a measuring stick, and moving along a path.

It seems I'm not the only one who suspects that that arithmetic truth is 
derived from the abstraction of public object qualities (and their 
spatial-scale relations), rather than universal metaphysics.

-- 
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: A theory of dark matter...

Brent, and Liz,

We have to be careful in our choice of words here.

It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that 
each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give 
the same results here.

However when one twin returns with a different clock time and STOPS both 
twins agree on the resulting different clock times.

Relativity says this is due to the acceleration of the traveling twin. But 
my question is 'acceleration relative to WHAT?'

The very notion of acceleration (including that of Newton's bucket) assumes 
there is an absolute background space in some sense that acceleration is 
relative to.

I have a theory to explain this by the way spacetime is created by quantum 
events and thus must take on aspects of the frames of the events that 
create it. The cumulative large scale effect of this is to produce a very 
particular notion of absoluteness roughly aligned with the distribution of 
the mass of the universe. This because that mass undergoes the quantum 
events that produce the space that mass resides in.

This explains why Mach Principle that the rotational acceleration of 
Newton's bucket is with respect to the cosmological mass of the universe is 
roughly correct. But it provides an actual theory for why this is true.

Edgar





On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
  

 On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 

 Ghibbsa, 

  Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to 
 choose one frame over the other to get the correct results.
  
  
 You don't.  But in almost all cases there is a frame in which it is easy 
 to apply the equations, one that takes advantage of symmetries and leaves 
 out negligible effects.  So you do the analysis is that frame and then you 
 transform the answer if necessary to some other frame of interest.  But in 
 general what you're interested in is frame independent: Did the spaceship 
 rendezvous with the planet or miss it?  Did the tank fall in the pit or 
 not?  To do the transformation you have to know how things transform, which 
 for inertial frames in flat spacetime is by Lorentz transformations, i.e. 
 those that leave lightcones invariant.

 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: Real science versus interpretations of science

2014-02-08 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:52 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:36:21 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
 wrote:




 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary,
 only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and 
 accusations.

 Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error...


 Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives,
 unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining the
 ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this regard, 
 *officially
 decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully noting
 the swearing  protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an overly ardent
 compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the plaintiffs
 overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical
 encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside
 of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and
 archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and sections.

 Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of events
 on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry souls of
 plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in
 comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this noble-bloat
 house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and
 otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a
 single post into the eternity of P-time.

 Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized interpretations
 of Science because of the gravy gravity of this officialized, sealed,
 notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, spamificationationalizeducation
 of the rest of the dumb list for we all like the gravy bit, unless we are
 greenitarian, which remains solemnly, in the light of day, a dark matter of
 information-urination from black holes spun out of standards more than
 blocks of verses singing in unison of angry hawks and birds.

 All rejoice and thank the Edgar,
 as well and more the forgiver,
 foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future and on
 the left.

 Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been
 achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC


 yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your
 judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do
 say I am to be thanked  as well and more so, but on the other hand you
 send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has
 a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your
 eyes.

 One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to
 really that much of fuckat least for that to matter whether or not
 something is a good post.

 What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a
 snob


That's like throwing narcissism at people who surf the web. Of course I
have to be snob if I write fiction and compose it musically: I'd have
nothing to say without my own biases. But the same can be said of any
scientific stance, regardless of interpretation (on topic btw): you're
elitist towards some ideas and think other ideas aren't quite your cup of
tea, and so defending your ideas is natural. Welcome to the web.

My last post was merely bad extemporaneous non P-time prose, because I'm
bored of giving sincere replies just for getting slapped by another Edgar
comment, when he has taken the floor so often and failed to address basic
objections to his ideas; instead throwing authoritative and infantilizing
insults, always followed by some smiley emoticon to trivialize the
transgression. So fine, he likes to play this game where he pushes
everybody's buttons and then goes oh, I don't know why everybody here is
so touchy, concerning his book, of all things.

Him liking this game, I thought he wouldn't mind some of this, obfuscated
in prose, because he doesn't take things as seriously as everybody else
here, who have some faith axe to grind instead of being reasonable. What I
got as a reply was simply You're idea of science is sci-fi + you're a
snob. I have no problems with those and partially agree.



 p.s. don't worry I forgive you

 p.p.s. tee hee


 Not especially addressing you here PGC but I had to reply to something to
 keep it in this thread.

 So something I asserted was that I had tried to study Bruno's
 structure with as little direct knowledge of the contents as
 possible. Between this thread and another where I addressed Bruno directly
 I actually said his was the best structure I'd personally seen, or at the
 top table.

 I think

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames 
because their clocks read different t-values. You simply cannot invent any 
frame that makes the actual difference in their ages go away. All you are 
doing is trying to ignore the effect by assigning a new arbitrary time to 
the meeting. That's fine but they are still really different ages so in 
that sense they can never actually be at the same clock time except by an 
arbitrary definition which ignores the fact of the trip and thus refuses to 
address the whole point of the trip.

Edgar

On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that 
 two events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at 
 the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have 
 different time coordinates in their coordinate systems.


 Huh? No they don't. If a given pair of events A and B have exactly the 
 same coordinates (both space and time coordinates) as one another in one 
 coordinate system, then A and B must have the same coordinates as one 
 another in EVERY coordinate system. Of course the actual value of the 
 shared time coordinate will differ from one coordinate system to another 
 (since this depends on things like where you arbitrarily set the origin of 
 your coordinate system), but in every coordinate system the time-coordinate 
 of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually disagreeing with that 
 (please answer clearly yes or no), or are you just pointing out that the 
 shared time-coordinate is different in different systems, or that the 
 shared time-coordinate will not match the clock time for both of them?

 Incidentally, to speak of their coordinate systems is ambiguous since 
 they are not both inertial. Although physicists sometimes refer to the 
 inertial rest frame of an observer as their own frame or similar words 
 (though even this is purely a matter of convention, nothing stops a given 
 observer from assigning coordinates to events using a coordinate system in 
 which they are *not* at rest), there is no standard way to construct a 
 coordinate system for a non-inertial observers, there are an infinite 
 number of different coordinate systems they could use (even if you restrict 
 them to using a coordinate system where they remain at a constant position 
 coordinate, and where the time coordinate matches their own proper time).


  

 That's the whole point of needing a separate present moment to account for 
 that. You can't just arbitrarily set a new clock time for the meeting and 
 ignore the actual clock time difference in ages


 The *definition* of same time in relativity depends only on the 
 coordinate time, not the clock time of any particular clock which is not a 
 coordinate clock. So given this definition, yes you can ignore their own 
 clock times, because it isn't relevant. If your point is just I don't like 
 this definition because it's different from how I would prefer to define 
 things that's fine, but you can't claim that this way of speaking is 
 ill-defined or *internally* contradictory.

  


 When measuring tapes cross with different readings they do cross at the 
 same point in space.


 Yes, and that means if the point where they cross is the 30-cm mark on 
 tape #1 and the 40-cm mark on tape #2, then no matter what x-y coordinate 
 system you use to label different points on the surface where the tapes are 
 laid out, the 30-cm mark of tape #1 will have the same y-coordinate as the 
 40-cm mark of tape #2 (and likewise for the x-coordinate).

  

 When twins with different clock times meet they meet at the same point in 
 time.


 Yes, and that means that if twin #1 is turning 30 at the point in 
 spacetime where they meet, and twin #2 is turning 40 at that point, then no 
 matter what x-y-z-t coordinate system you use to label different points in 
 spacetime, the event of twin #1 turning 30 will have the same t-coordinate 
 as the event of twin #2 turning 40 (and likewise for the spatial 
 coordinates x,y,z).


  

 It is NOT the same point in CLOCK time unless you redefine it as so by 
 imposing another coordinate system on it that ignores the fact of the trip.



 That's like saying the point where the tapes cross is NOT the same point 
 in MEASURING TAPE space unless you redefine it as so by imposing another 
 coordinate system on it that ignores the fact of their paths in space.


  

 But this is cheating because you ignore the real actual clock time 
 difference of the ages which don't go away.


 That's like saying but this is cheating because you ignore the real 
 actual measuring-tape difference of the position-markers which don't go 
 away.

  


 The difference is that the tapes cross arbitrarily.


 What makes their crossing arbitrary? To flesh this out a bit, I'm

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

When I say 'everything happens in the same present moment'.

1. By everything I mean everything that actually happens, not everything 
you can imagine happening like Jesus not being crucified or Hitler winning 
WW2. I would think that would be obvious.

2. Everything in the history of the universe does NOT happen at the same 
p-time. P-time progresses just as clock time does and only the current 
p-time is called the current present moment. That present moment is not the 
same as the previous present moment though each as experienced as THE 
present moment. In each cycle or moment of p-time, the current present 
moment, the information state of the entire universe is recomputed. That, 
and only that, is what actually happens in every present moment of p-time 
as p-time progresses.

3. Part of what happens in every cycle of p-time is that all relativistic 
effects, including all clock times and their differences, are recomputed. 
The recomputed state of all those relativistic effects then has the local 
re-computed clock time 'attached' to it as its measure. These local clock 
times are NOT the measure of p-time, because they vary within p-time as the 
twins show.

Edgar 

On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and I 
 did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. 

 I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present 
 moment of p-time as p-time continually happens).


 That's a complete non-answer. I guess you are *defining* everything to 
 mean everything which actually exists in my presentist ontology, i.e. only 
 things as they are right now. But my question was specifically about 
 *past* events, and it doesn't depend at all on the assumption that past 
 events exist, only that there is an objective truth about them. Do you 
 believe there is an objective truth about whether astronauts landed on the 
 moon in 1969, or about whether all life was created in seven days or 
 evolved over millions of years? If your answer is yes, then what I'm 
 asking is whether, among the objective truths about past events, there is 
 an objective truth about WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE 
 ANOTHER. Yes or no? Please give a clear answer to this question. And if the 
 answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think there is any way 
 to determine empirically the truth about whether two past events happened 
 at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to all beings within 
 our universe (if the latter, that's what I mean by 'metaphysical').
  


 But as I've explained, p-time is that IN WHICH all computations of 
 measurable quantities takes place, so it doesn't really have a metric in 
 the sense that clock time does, because it is the logical computational 
 locus of the origin of all metrics. 



 I have no idea what you mean by metric here, which in mathematics refers 
 to a function that defines some notion of distance along paths in a 
 manifold (which can include proper time if the manifold in question is 
 relativistic spacetime). Again, please just tell me yes or no if you think 
 there's an objective truth about whether past events happened at the same 
 time as one another, no technical ideas like metrics are necessary to 
 answer this question.

 Jesse


-- 
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.

Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-08 Thread John Clark

The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species
called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and sometimes the
brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its wheels over
questions of words rather than ideas. For example, a recent poll showed
that 70% of people in the USA thought that if a dying patient agreed then
doctors should be allowed to end the patient's life by some painless
means; however only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to help a
dying patient who wanted to die commit suicide. Another example would be
those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious
being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO
believe in God.

  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: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-08 Thread John Clark

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 here is no consistent definition of p


  ?


!


  What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p


Just as there is no absolute meaning to the word motion there is no
consistent meaning to the 1p or the 3p. Your 3p can be my 1p and
vice versa.

 ?


!


  Even if there were non consistent definition of A and B, it would not
 follow that A can be equal to B.


If A and B have non consistent definitions then A and B can be equal or
unequal or anything you like. Thus whatever A and B are they have no place
in logical thought.

Bertrand Russell in a lecture on logic said that a false proposition
implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said In that case,
given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope. Russell immediately
replied, Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 2 = 1. The set
containing just me and the Pope has 2 members. But 2 = 1, so it has only 1
member; therefore, I am the Pope.

 I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why if intelligent
 behavior (which can be detected objectively) and consciousness  (which can
 only be observed subjectively) can be totally separated why did random
 mutation and natural selection bother to invent consciousness?



 An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a necessary side
 effect of intelligence.


That's what I think is probably true although I can't prove it.

  But I don't follow this: it is a phenomena having some role, I would
 say, and so evolution is just not a problem.


OK, but if you believe that and if you are a logical person then you must
also believe that the Turing Test can detect consciousness too and not just
intelligence.

 And I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at least
 once, and perhaps many times.



 I doubt that is a fact.


I assume you don't doubt that consciousness has been produced at least once
and perhaps many times, but you think an invisible man in the sky made it
and not Evolution.

 Evolution might (and probably have) just makes it possible for
 consciousness


Apparently you think the distinction between Evolution producing
consciousness and Evolution just (JUST?!!) making consciousness possible
is important. I do not.

  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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-08 Thread Chris de Morsella

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Suicide Words God and Ideas

The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species
called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and sometimes the
brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its wheels over
questions of words rather than ideas. For example, a recent poll showed that
70% of people in the USA thought that if a dying patient agreed then doctors
should be allowed to end the patient's life by some painless means;
however only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to help a dying
patient who wanted to die commit suicide. Another example would be those
who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious being who
created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO believe in
God.

Well said John - and in this (if not on all things) we agree - language is
an imprecise and sometimes tragically misleading tool, albeit one most
powerful in helping our species build out the vast assemblage of the various
human cultures. 

The importance of clearly communicating cardinal terms cannot be overstated.
Words are symbolic vehicles, conveying meaning across the discontinuous gulf
between minds. Not only must the minds in the communication chain, share an
agreement of their symbolic meaning - in order for them to work as intended,
but as you pointed out the choice of words used to convey a thought can have
a profound effect on the outcome.

One exercise I engage in is to parse what I read for words whose purpose is
to color meaning rather than describe some fact. News reports are an
excellent place to discover this treasure trove of the use of adjectives and
coded phrases meant to trigger emotional responses and to generate firm
opinions. 

Chris

  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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

John, and Chris,

The problem is that language evolved to describe and make sense of daily 
life, what I call 'the logic of things'. Thus it is not really designed to 
properly describe many of the deeper more fundamental aspects of reality. 
Trying to do that often leads to wrong or misleading conclusions because it 
is often very difficult to even express the questions well in syntactical 
logic, much less the answers...

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:06:54 PM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote:

  

  

 *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [mailto:
 everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:] *On Behalf Of *John Clark
 *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 8:01 AM
 *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Subject:* Suicide Words God and Ideas

  

 The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species 
 called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and sometimes the 
 brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its wheels over 
 questions of words rather than ideas. For example, a recent poll showed 
 that 70% of people in the USA thought that if a dying patient agreed then 
 doctors should be allowed to end the patient's life by some painless 
 means; however only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to help a 
 dying patient who wanted to die commit suicide. Another example would be 
 those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious 
 being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO 
 believe in God.

 Well said John – and in this (if not on all things) we agree – language is 
 an imprecise and sometimes tragically misleading tool, albeit one most 
 powerful in helping our species build out the vast assemblage of the 
 various human cultures. 

 The importance of clearly communicating cardinal terms cannot be 
 overstated. Words are symbolic vehicles, conveying meaning across the 
 discontinuous gulf between minds. Not only must the minds in the 
 communication chain, share an agreement of their symbolic meaning – in 
 order for them to work as intended, but as you pointed out the choice of 
 words used to convey a thought can have a profound effect on the outcome.

 One exercise I engage in is to parse what I read for words whose purpose 
 is to color meaning rather than describe some fact. “News” reports are an 
 excellent place to discover this treasure trove of the use of adjectives 
 and coded phrases meant to trigger emotional responses and to generate firm 
 opinions. 

 Chris

   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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 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: Block Universes

Edgar, it's very frustrating trying to have a discussion with you when I
repeatedly ask you questions that are meant to clarify things that seem
unclear to me in your arguments, and you just completely ignore these
questions and just give me a broad restatement of your overall views, which
for me usually fails to clarify the specific things I found unclear. In the
post you're responding to here I went as far as to give a list of simple
yes-or-no questions to make it as easy as possible for you to see what I
was asking and give me a quick answer--but you didn't directly address any
of these questions. Instead of another exposition on your theories which
*you* may think addresses the questions but in most cases doesn't for me,
could you please just answer the following questions yes or no? I'll just
quote them again from my previous post, but put them in a numbered list
this time:

1. 'my question was specifically about *past* events, and it doesn't depend
at all on the assumption that past events exist, only that there is an
objective truth about them. Do you believe there is an objective truth
about whether astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, or about whether all
life was created in seven days or evolved over millions of years?'

2. 'If your answer is yes, then what I'm asking is whether, among the
objective truths about past events, there is an objective truth about
WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE ANOTHER. Yes or no?'

3. 'And if the answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think
there is any way to determine empirically the truth about whether two past
events happened at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to
all beings within our universe'

(Obviously 2 and 3 only need to be answered if you do in fact answer yes
to the previous questions.)

Jesse


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 When I say 'everything happens in the same present moment'.

 1. By everything I mean everything that actually happens, not everything
 you can imagine happening like Jesus not being crucified or Hitler winning
 WW2. I would think that would be obvious.

 2. Everything in the history of the universe does NOT happen at the same
 p-time. P-time progresses just as clock time does and only the current
 p-time is called the current present moment. That present moment is not the
 same as the previous present moment though each as experienced as THE
 present moment. In each cycle or moment of p-time, the current present
 moment, the information state of the entire universe is recomputed. That,
 and only that, is what actually happens in every present moment of p-time
 as p-time progresses.

 3. Part of what happens in every cycle of p-time is that all relativistic
 effects, including all clock times and their differences, are recomputed.
 The recomputed state of all those relativistic effects then has the local
 re-computed clock time 'attached' to it as its measure. These local clock
 times are NOT the measure of p-time, because they vary within p-time as the
 twins show.

 Edgar

 On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and
 I did answer it but will give a more complete answer now.

 I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same
 present moment of p-time as p-time continually happens).


 That's a complete non-answer. I guess you are *defining* everything to
 mean everything which actually exists in my presentist ontology, i.e. only
 things as they are right now. But my question was specifically about
 *past* events, and it doesn't depend at all on the assumption that past
 events exist, only that there is an objective truth about them. Do you
 believe there is an objective truth about whether astronauts landed on the
 moon in 1969, or about whether all life was created in seven days or
 evolved over millions of years? If your answer is yes, then what I'm
 asking is whether, among the objective truths about past events, there is
 an objective truth about WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE
 ANOTHER. Yes or no? Please give a clear answer to this question. And if the
 answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think there is any way
 to determine empirically the truth about whether two past events happened
 at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to all beings within
 our universe (if the latter, that's what I mean by 'metaphysical').



 But as I've explained, p-time is that IN WHICH all computations of
 measurable quantities takes place, so it doesn't really have a metric in
 the sense that clock time does, because it is the logical computational
 locus of the origin of all metrics.



 I have no idea what you mean by metric here, which in mathematics
 refers to a function that defines some notion of distance along paths in

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room



On 08 Feb 2014, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:


 here is no consistent definition of p

 ?

!

 What is inconsistent with the definition of 3p and 1p

Just as there is no absolute meaning to the word motion there is  
no consistent meaning to the 1p or the 3p. Your 3p can be my  
1p and vice versa.


 ?

!


3p = the content of the diary of the guy which observes the  
teleportation experience.
1p = the content of the diary of the guy who enter actually the  
teleportation box. We have provided numerous examples. Where is the  
inconsistency.


Relative, yes. Inconsistent? You must give a proof.





 Even if there were non consistent definition of A and B, it would  
not follow that A can be equal to B.


If A and B have non consistent definitions then A and B can be equal  
or unequal or anything you like. Thus whatever A and B are they have  
no place in logical thought.


Bertrand Russell in a lecture on logic said that a false proposition  
implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said In that  
case, given that 1 = 0, prove that you are the Pope. Russell  
immediately replied, Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we  
have 2 = 1. The set containing just me and the Pope has 2 members.  
But 2 = 1, so it has only 1 member; therefore, I am the Pope.


You have no consistent definition of John Clark's consciousness, nor  
any consistent of everybody else consciousness, so John Clark's  
consciousness = everybody else's consciousness, with your logic.


You can deduce all proposition from an inconsistent classical logical  
system, but that does not entail that consistent notions, for which  
you don't have (yet, or never) consistent definitions. are equal.


Correct machine cannot define truth, and they cannot define knowledge,  
but they can already shown that they are different.


But all this is irrelevant, given that I give two provably consistent  
definition of 1p and 3p (consistent relatively to elementary  
arithmetic).






 I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me why if  
intelligent behavior (which can be detected objectively) and  
consciousness  (which can only be observed subjectively) can be  
totally separated why did random mutation and natural selection  
bother to invent consciousness?


 An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a  
necessary side effect of intelligence.


That's what I think is probably true although I can't prove it.

  But I don't follow this: it is a phenomena having some role, I  
would say, and so evolution is just not a problem.


OK, but if you believe that and if you are a logical person then you  
must also believe that the Turing Test can detect consciousness too  
and not just intelligence.


That does not follow. Consciousness can have a role, but that role can  
be attributed to other factors too, and the case can be undecidable.  
Some things can be true, but not justifiable.
In fact if there were an effective criteria for consciousness, it  
would be simple to build a zombie satisfying that criteria.


What can happen is that the behavior of some conscious being can be  
such that living long enough with a conscious creature, in some reach  
of your emotion spectrum, you can develop empathy.







 And I know for a fact that Evolution did produce consciousness at  
least once, and perhaps many times.


 I doubt that is a fact.

I assume you don't doubt that consciousness has been produced at  
least once and perhaps many times, but you think an invisible man in  
the sky made it and not Evolution.


I think that with comp, consciousness is an arithmetical truth for  
some arithmetical entities, notably related to machine, and thus out  
of time and space categories. Then consciousness seem to have a time  
evolution, but that is only true from the 1p perspective.






 Evolution might (and probably have) just makes it possible for  
consciousness


Apparently you think the distinction between Evolution producing  
consciousness and Evolution just (JUST?!!) making consciousness  
possible is important. I do not.


Nor do I.

But you have a cut my quote which was:

I doubt that is a fact. Evolution might (and probably have) just  
makes it possible for consciousness, which would be in arithmetic, to  
be manifested through persons in the relative way.


The distinction is that in one case evolution somehow produce or  
create consciousness, and in the second case, evoulition does not  
create consciousness, but creates the condition of some possible  
manifestation of it.


Like evolution did not create the computer, or the numbers, but has  
created the conditions for them to manifest themselves.


If you assume comp, you don't need more than Gödel 1931 to understand  
that an infinity of computations going through your actual 1p state  
exists in arithmetic. That truth is atemporal, even if the first  
person feeling evolving through

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen at 
the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about their 
relativistic conditions.

You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to 
determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same 
p-time.

Take 2 observers, A and B.

1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration differences 
you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same present 
moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.

So we know that whenever there are no relativistic effects between any A 
and B that we just use their synchonized clocks to determine they are in 
the same current moment of p-time.

2. In the case of the twins after they meet up again with A's age =30 and 
B's age =40. A: There are no more relativistic effects after the meeting so 
we know they are now in the same current point in p-time. B: We can back 
calculate that they were in a previous same point in p-time when their 
synchronized clocks and ages were still identical, i.e. from their birth to 
the start of the trip. 

3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always 
back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form 
the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own 
clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and 
read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT 
= B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every 
current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that 
trip's motion we should always be able to back calculate to determine which 
clock times of any two observers occurred in the same current p-time 
SIMULTANEITY even when those observers cannot agree on CLOCK time 
simultaneity among themselves.

So since p-time has no metric itself you can't just compare p-time t values 
because there are none. You have to back calculate clock times to determine 
in what current p-times they occurred.

So that's how we determine whether any two events occurred a the same 
p-times or not. You should always be able to determine that even though you 
can assign a p-time t value because there are none because p-time doesn't 
have a metric.

Edgar



On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.


 Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?
  


 But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is 
 EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a 
 COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic 
 of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the 
 same point of time


 Huh? Even if one accepts p-time, that operational definition still must 
 be seen as a merely *approximate* way of defining the same point of p-time, 
 not exact, just like with same point in space or same point in 
 spacetime. If I bounce some light off you, surely you agree that the event 
 of it reflecting off you occurred at a slightly earlier point in p-time 
 that the event of reaching my eyes (or instruments)? Likewise if I feel our 
 palms meet in a handshake, I don't actually begin to feel it until a 
 slightly later moment of p-time than the moment our palms first made 
 physical contact, and likewise for any shift or movement you might make 
 with your hands. If you want to talk in a non-approximate way, all our 
 experiences are slightly delayed impressions of events that occured in the 
 past, regardless of whether we're talking about p-time or coordinate time.

 On this subject, could you address the question I asked in another post 
 about whether you think there's any empirical way to determine whether two 
 events in the past occurred at the same p-time, or whether the assumption 
 of p-time simultaneity is a purely metaphysical one and that there's no way 
 of knowing whether a specific pair of events we have records of actually 
 happened simultaneously in p-time?

  

 and that same point in time is obviously not anything that relativity 
 predicts, because no matter what set of coordinates you choose, relativity 
 always gives 2 different real answers for the ages of the twins. 



 I don't know what part of this you're not understanding, same point in 
 time in relativity just MEANS that two events are assigned the same time 
 coordinate, relativity doesn't deal with any absolute notion of 
 simultaneity of distant events whatsoever. And relativity definitely does 
 predict situations where clocks show different readings at the same 
 coordinate time--do you deny this?

 Like I said earlier, there is a direct spatial analogy here that makes 
 perfect sense if you don't assume p-time

Re: Modal Logic (Part 3: summary + 1 exercise)

On 8 February 2014 08:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 07 Feb 2014, at 02:29, LizR wrote:

 On 7 February 2014 09:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 06 Feb 2014, at 07:39, LizR wrote:

 On 6 February 2014 08:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:



 Which among the next symbolic expressions is the one being a well formed
 formula:

 ((p - q) - ((p (p V r)) - q))

 ))(p-)##à89- a - q)

 OK?


 I sure hope so.

 Well, I will pray a little bit.


 (to be sure the irst one might contain a typo, but I assure you there
 are no typo in the second one (and there is no cat walking on the keyboard).

 ***

 Then a set of worlds get alive when each proposition (p, q, r), in each
 world get some truth value, t, or f. I will say that the mutiverse is
 illuminated.

 And we can decide to put f and t is the propositional symbol for the
 boolean constant true and false.
 (meaning that p - f is a proposition, or well formed formula).

 In modal logic it is often simpler to use only the connector - and
 that if possible if you have the constant f.

 For example you can define ~p as an abbreviation for (p - f), as you
 should see by doing a truth table. OK?


 p - f is (~p V f), for which the truth table is indeed the same as ~p

 OK.


 (Can you define , V, with - and f in the same way? This is not
 an exercise, just a question!).


 I don't think I can define those *literally* with p, - and f if that's
 what you mean.


 That is what I mean, indeed.

 OK, having had a look at what you say below, let's have another go. Start
 from p - q being equivalent to (~p V q)

 That gives us ~p - q equiv (p V q) and from the above ~p is (p - f) so p
 V q is (p - f) - q which I seem to remember is what you got. OK so far.

 p  q --- well, p - q is ~(p  ~q), so ~(p - q) = (p  ~q) and ~(p -
 ~q) = (p  q)

 so ~(p - (q - f)) which I guess is ((p - ( q - f)) - f) = (p  q)

 Does it?!?! Looking below, I see that it does. Wow.

 I knew you can do that.


With hints.


 But that doesn't make sense, because  requires two arguments, so it would
 have to be something like ... well, p - q is (~p V q) and it's also ~(p 
 ~q), which contain V and  ... I'm not sure I know what you mean.


 Like for ~, to define  and V to a machine which knows only -
  and f.  You can use the ~, as you have alredy see that you can define
 it with - and f.

 I reason aloud. Please tell me if you understand.

 First we know that p - q is just ~p V q, OK?

 So the V looks already close to -. Except that instead of ~p V q
 (which is p - q) we want p V q.

 May be we can substitute just p by ~p: and p V q might be then ~p - q,

 Well, you can do the truth table of ~p - q, and see that it is the same
 as p V q.

 To finish it of course, we can eliminate the ~, and we have that p V q
 is entirely defined by (p - f) - q.

 OK?

 And the :

 Well, we already know a relationship between the  and the V, OK? The
 De Morgan relations.

 So, applying the de Morgan relation,  p  q is the same as ~(~p V ~q),
 (the same logically, not pragmatically, of course).

 That solves the problem.

 But we can verify, perhaps simplify. We can eliminate the V by the
 definition above (A V B = ~A - B),
 ~(~p V ~q) becomes ~(~~p - ~q), that is ~(p - ~q). Or, to really settle
 the things, and define  from - and f:
 p  q = ((p - (q - f)) - f).

 OK?


 Apparently, yes.

 OK. (Not sure what you mean by apparently, though).


Well, even though I did it, the result still looks rather strange to me!


 Each world, once illuminated (that is once each proposition letter has
 a value f or t) inherits of the semantics of classical proposition logic.

 This means that if p and q are true in some world alpha, then (p  q) is
 true in that world alpha, etc.
 in particular all tautologies, or propositional laws, is true in all
 illuminated multiverse, and this for all illuminations (that for all
 possible assignment of truth value to the world).

 OK?

 Question: If the multiverse is the set  {a, b}, how many illuminated
 multiverses can we get?


 I suppose 4, since we have a world with 2 propositions, and each can be t
 or f?


 Answer: there is three letters p, q, r, leading to eight valuations
 possible in a, and the same in b, making a total of 64 valuations, if I am
 not too much distracted. I go quick. This is just to test if you get the
 precise meanings.


 Oh, OK. So a and b are worlds, not ... sorry. I see.


 Good.


 So that is 2^3 x 2^3 because a has p,q,r = 3 values, all t or f, as does
 b. OK now I see what you meant.


 OK.



 Of course with the infinite alphabet {p, q, r, p1, q1, r1, p2, ... } we
 already have a continuum of multiverses.


 I can't quite see why it's a continuum. Each world has a countable
 infinity of letters, and the number of worlds is therefore 2 ^ countable
 infinity! Is that a continuum?


 Yes. We proved it, Liz.


 Yes I had a sneaky suspicion we did. It seems familiar ... a bit.

 Understanding is good.
 Understanding and

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

Yes, of course there is an objective truth that events such as you mention 
happen at the clock times they did according to clocks on earth. How could 
we think otherwise?

As for how to determine whether past events happen at the same p-times see 
my just previous post in response to your previous asking of the same 
question for a detailed answer.

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:

 Edgar, it's very frustrating trying to have a discussion with you when I 
 repeatedly ask you questions that are meant to clarify things that seem 
 unclear to me in your arguments, and you just completely ignore these 
 questions and just give me a broad restatement of your overall views, which 
 for me usually fails to clarify the specific things I found unclear. In the 
 post you're responding to here I went as far as to give a list of simple 
 yes-or-no questions to make it as easy as possible for you to see what I 
 was asking and give me a quick answer--but you didn't directly address any 
 of these questions. Instead of another exposition on your theories which 
 *you* may think addresses the questions but in most cases doesn't for me, 
 could you please just answer the following questions yes or no? I'll just 
 quote them again from my previous post, but put them in a numbered list 
 this time:

 1. 'my question was specifically about *past* events, and it doesn't 
 depend at all on the assumption that past events exist, only that there 
 is an objective truth about them. Do you believe there is an objective 
 truth about whether astronauts landed on the moon in 1969, or about whether 
 all life was created in seven days or evolved over millions of years?'

 2. 'If your answer is yes, then what I'm asking is whether, among the 
 objective truths about past events, there is an objective truth about 
 WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE ANOTHER. Yes or no?'

 3. 'And if the answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think 
 there is any way to determine empirically the truth about whether two past 
 events happened at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to 
 all beings within our universe'

 (Obviously 2 and 3 only need to be answered if you do in fact answer yes 
 to the previous questions.)

 Jesse


 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 When I say 'everything happens in the same present moment'.

 1. By everything I mean everything that actually happens, not everything 
 you can imagine happening like Jesus not being crucified or Hitler winning 
 WW2. I would think that would be obvious.

 2. Everything in the history of the universe does NOT happen at the same 
 p-time. P-time progresses just as clock time does and only the current 
 p-time is called the current present moment. That present moment is not the 
 same as the previous present moment though each as experienced as THE 
 present moment. In each cycle or moment of p-time, the current present 
 moment, the information state of the entire universe is recomputed. That, 
 and only that, is what actually happens in every present moment of p-time 
 as p-time progresses.

 3. Part of what happens in every cycle of p-time is that all relativistic 
 effects, including all clock times and their differences, are recomputed. 
 The recomputed state of all those relativistic effects then has the local 
 re-computed clock time 'attached' to it as its measure. These local clock 
 times are NOT the measure of p-time, because they vary within p-time as the 
 twins show.

 Edgar 

 On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:


 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and 
 I did answer it but will give a more complete answer now. 

 I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same 
 present moment of p-time as p-time continually happens).


 That's a complete non-answer. I guess you are *defining* everything to 
 mean everything which actually exists in my presentist ontology, i.e. only 
 things as they are right now. But my question was specifically about 
 *past* events, and it doesn't depend at all on the assumption that past 
 events exist, only that there is an objective truth about them. Do you 
 believe there is an objective truth about whether astronauts landed on the 
 moon in 1969, or about whether all life was created in seven days or 
 evolved over millions of years? If your answer is yes, then what I'm 
 asking is whether, among the objective truths about past events, there is 
 an objective truth about WHETHER THEY HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME AS ONE 
 ANOTHER. Yes or no? Please give a clear answer to this question. And if the 
 answer is yes, please tell me clearly whether you think there is any way 
 to determine empirically the truth about whether two past events happened 
 at the same time,

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-08 Thread meekerdb


On 2/8/2014 12:15 AM, LizR wrote:
I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which sweeps through 
space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with it - for example an 
astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the same time as his twin on Earth, 
but intersecting it at an angle that means his clock runs at a different rate.


Or something like that. This hyperplane appears to be the rest frame of the CMBR 
(probably) and orthogonal to the expansion of the universe in 5 dimensions, ignoring the 
bumpy bits.


You can of course choose such a hyperplane (e.g. a 3-sphere) of constant CMB observed 
temperature, which fits nicely with the symmetry of FRW cosmology and makes the equations 
very simple.  But that time variable, t, then makes the dynamical equations of something 
moving relative to the CMB quite messy because those equations are simple in terms of the 
Lorentz transform of t plus space variables.


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: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-08 Thread meekerdb


On 2/8/2014 12:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
An epiphenomenalist would say that consciousness is just a necessary side effect of 
intelligence. But I don't follow this: it is a phenomena having some role, I would say, 
and so evolution is just not a problem.


To say it has some role implies that there is a role apart from the physics and the 
intelligent behavior.  If it's a *necessary* aspect of intelligence then it makes no sense 
to talk about it having a role - its role is just another way of talking about the 
intelligence.


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: Block Universes

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to
 determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources of
gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is dealt
with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no
coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at
different points in space (see discussion at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the
only coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper
acceleration (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that
shows the G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall
have zero proper acceleration, so if you think there is a
gravitational/acceleration difference between an observer orbiting far
from a black hole and one falling towards it close to the event horizon,
you can't quantify it using proper time.




 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form
 the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own
 clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and
 read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT
 = B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every
 current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that
 trip's motion we should always be able to back calculate to determine which
 clock times of any two observers occurred in the same current p-time
 SIMULTANEITY even when those observers cannot agree on CLOCK time
 simultaneity among themselves.


HOW would you back calculate it though? Even if we set aside my questions
about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR spacetime,
your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind, could you
apply it to a simple example? Let's say Alice is sent on a ship that moves
away from Bob on Earth on the day they are both born, and the ship moves
with speed of 0.8c relative to the Earth, towards a planet 12 light-years
away in the Earth's frame. Alice arrives at that planet when she is 9 years
old, and at that point the ship immediately turns around and heads back
towards Earth with a relative speed of 0.6c. Alice experiences the return
journey to take 16 more years, so when she returns to Earth she is 25 years
old, but Bob is 35 years old when they meet. Can you show me how to
back-calculate how old Bob was when he was in the same moment of p-time as
Alice turning 9 and her ship reaching the planet and turning around?



 So since p-time has no metric itself you can't just compare p-time t
 values because there are none. You have to back calculate clock times to
 determine in what current p-times they occurred.

 So that's how we determine whether any two events occurred a the same
 p-times or not. You should always be able to determine that even though you
 can assign a p-time t value because there are none because p-time doesn't
 have a metric.


I have never asked you for a p-time value, I'm only interested in the
question of which events are simultaneous in p-time. I don't think your
answers so far have made it clear that you have any well-defined procedure
for determining this, see my questions above.

Jesse




 Edgar



 On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.


 Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?



 But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is
 EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed operational definitions define is a
 COMMON PRESENT MOMENT, and NOT a same point in spacetime, because the logic
 of it does not support it being in the same point in space, only in the
 same point of time


 Huh? Even if one accepts p-time, that operational definition still must
 be seen as a merely *approximate* way of defining the same point of p-time,
 not exact, just like with same point in space or same point in
 spacetime. If I bounce some light off you, surely you agree that the event
 of it reflecting off you occurred at a slightly earlier point in p-time
 that the event of reaching my eyes (or instruments)? Likewise if I feel our
 palms meet in a

Re: Block Universes

On 9 February 2014 11:28, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:

 HOW would you back calculate it though? Even if we set aside my
 questions about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR
 spacetime, your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind,
 could you apply it to a simple example? Let's say Alice is sent on a ship
 that moves away from Bob on Earth on the day they are both born, and the
 ship moves with speed of 0.8c relative to the Earth, towards a planet 12
 light-years away in the Earth's frame. Alice arrives at that planet when
 she is 9 years old, and at that point the ship immediately turns around and
 heads back towards Earth with a relative speed of 0.6c. Alice experiences
 the return journey to take 16 more years, so when she returns to Earth she
 is 25 years old, but Bob is 35 years old when they meet. Can you show me
 how to back-calculate how old Bob was when he was in the same moment of
 p-time as Alice turning 9 and her ship reaching the planet and turning
 around?


Madame Liz knows all and my psychic powers tell me that Edgar won't
give you a sensible answer.

-- 
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: Block Universes

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames
 because their clocks read different t-values.


In the post you're responding to here I had another request for
clarification which you didn't answer:

in every coordinate system the time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate
of B. Are you actually disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or
no), or are you just pointing out that the shared time-coordinate is
different in different systems, or that the shared time-coordinate will not
match the clock time for both of them?

Keep in mind that we were talking about what's true according to the
definitions of coordinate time in relativity, this question has nothing to
do with anything not part of relativity theory like p-time, nor is it
asking whether you *approve* of the definitions used in relativity.



 You simply cannot invent any frame that makes the actual difference in
 their ages go away.


I didn't say anything about making the difference in ages go away. If when
they meet twin #1 is turning 30 and twin #2 is turning 40, then if event A
= (twin #1 turns 30) and event B = (twin #2 turns 40), in every coordinate
system A has the same time-coordinate as B, but they are really different
ages at that point.




 All you are doing is trying to ignore the effect by assigning a new
 arbitrary time to the meeting. That's fine but they are still really
 different ages so in that sense they can never actually be at the same
 clock time except by an arbitrary definition which ignores the fact of the
 trip and thus refuses to address the whole point of the trip.


I have no idea what you think I am refusing to address. Yes, they really
are different ages, I have never suggested otherwise--and they really are
those different ages at the same coordinate time as coordinate time is
defined in relativity (using local measurements on physical coordinate
clocks). You may not *like* that definition of same time, but if you are
actually denying that what I am saying is true ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD
DEFINITIONS OF RELATIVITY, then you are misunderstanding something about
how relativity works.

Speaking of refusing to address things, yet again you just drop the subject
of spatial analogues when I explain how every quantitative fact about the
twin paradox scenario has a directly analogous quantitative fact in the
measuring tape scenario. For example, as I mentioned, the fact that the
twins are the same age when they depart is analogous to the fact that at
the first crossing-point that the measuring tapes diverge from, they both
show the same marking (say, 0 centimeters) at that first crossing point. We
can also lay out these tapes on a piece of graph paper with Cartesian
coordinate axes drawn on, so that any point on any given tape has a spatial
coordinate as well as a measuring-tape marking, analogous to the fact that
any event on the twins' worldline has a coordinate time as well as a clock
time according to their own clock.

I know that in some conceptual way you don't think a spatial scenario can
be analogous to one involving time, but can you point out any specific
measurable, quantitative facts about the twin scenario that don't have a
direct analogue in measurable, quantitative facts in the measuring-tape
scenario? As usual this is not meant to be a merely rhetorical question,
please answer yes or no (and if yes point to a specific measurable
quantitative fact in the twin paradox that you think lacks an analogue in
the measuring tape scenario).

Jesse

-- 
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: Block Universes

Jesse,

The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary but 
real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in the 
same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.

I don't know what else I can add to this. I did address all of your 
questions whether or not you like my answers...

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:23:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:



 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames 
 because their clocks read different t-values. 


 In the post you're responding to here I had another request for 
 clarification which you didn't answer:

 in every coordinate system the time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate 
 of B. Are you actually disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes 
 or no), or are you just pointing out that the shared time-coordinate is 
 different in different systems, or that the shared time-coordinate will not 
 match the clock time for both of them?

 Keep in mind that we were talking about what's true according to the 
 definitions of coordinate time in relativity, this question has nothing to 
 do with anything not part of relativity theory like p-time, nor is it 
 asking whether you *approve* of the definitions used in relativity.

  

 You simply cannot invent any frame that makes the actual difference in 
 their ages go away.


 I didn't say anything about making the difference in ages go away. If when 
 they meet twin #1 is turning 30 and twin #2 is turning 40, then if event A 
 = (twin #1 turns 30) and event B = (twin #2 turns 40), in every coordinate 
 system A has the same time-coordinate as B, but they are really different 
 ages at that point.


  

 All you are doing is trying to ignore the effect by assigning a new 
 arbitrary time to the meeting. That's fine but they are still really 
 different ages so in that sense they can never actually be at the same 
 clock time except by an arbitrary definition which ignores the fact of the 
 trip and thus refuses to address the whole point of the trip.


 I have no idea what you think I am refusing to address. Yes, they really 
 are different ages, I have never suggested otherwise--and they really are 
 those different ages at the same coordinate time as coordinate time is 
 defined in relativity (using local measurements on physical coordinate 
 clocks). You may not *like* that definition of same time, but if you are 
 actually denying that what I am saying is true ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD 
 DEFINITIONS OF RELATIVITY, then you are misunderstanding something about 
 how relativity works.

 Speaking of refusing to address things, yet again you just drop the 
 subject of spatial analogues when I explain how every quantitative fact 
 about the twin paradox scenario has a directly analogous quantitative fact 
 in the measuring tape scenario. For example, as I mentioned, the fact that 
 the twins are the same age when they depart is analogous to the fact that 
 at the first crossing-point that the measuring tapes diverge from, they 
 both show the same marking (say, 0 centimeters) at that first crossing 
 point. We can also lay out these tapes on a piece of graph paper with 
 Cartesian coordinate axes drawn on, so that any point on any given tape has 
 a spatial coordinate as well as a measuring-tape marking, analogous to the 
 fact that any event on the twins' worldline has a coordinate time as well 
 as a clock time according to their own clock. 

 I know that in some conceptual way you don't think a spatial scenario can 
 be analogous to one involving time, but can you point out any specific 
 measurable, quantitative facts about the twin scenario that don't have a 
 direct analogue in measurable, quantitative facts in the measuring-tape 
 scenario? As usual this is not meant to be a merely rhetorical question, 
 please answer yes or no (and if yes point to a specific measurable 
 quantitative fact in the twin paradox that you think lacks an analogue in 
 the measuring tape scenario).

 Jesse



-- 
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: Block Universes

Jesse,

I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe 
works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events 
occurred in the same p-time moment or not.

I'm sorry if you don't see how it works. I don't see how I can make it much 
clearer. It's just applying standard relativity calculations. You don't 
have to do them backwards BTW. If you start with A and B in the same frame, 
they will automatically be in the same p-time present moment so you can do 
the math forward from there to establish the same p-times for all different 
clock time of A and B when one starts to travel. That's simple standard 
relativistic calculations.

I don't have time to start doing calculations for you but the procedures I 
gave you are standard relativistic calculations that should enable you to 
determine which clock time labeled events occurred at the same p-times if 
you want.

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen 
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about 
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to 
 determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same 
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration 
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same 
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


 And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources of 
 gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is dealt 
 with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no 
 coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at 
 different points in space (see discussion at 
 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the 
 only coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper 
 acceleration (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that 
 shows the G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall 
 have zero proper acceleration, so if you think there is a 
 gravitational/acceleration difference between an observer orbiting far 
 from a black hole and one falling towards it close to the event horizon, 
 you can't quantify it using proper time.

  


 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always 
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form 
 the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own 
 clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and 
 read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT 
 = B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every 
 current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that 
 trip's motion we should always be able to back calculate to determine which 
 clock times of any two observers occurred in the same current p-time 
 SIMULTANEITY even when those observers cannot agree on CLOCK time 
 simultaneity among themselves.


 HOW would you back calculate it though? Even if we set aside my 
 questions about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR 
 spacetime, your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind, 
 could you apply it to a simple example? Let's say Alice is sent on a ship 
 that moves away from Bob on Earth on the day they are both born, and the 
 ship moves with speed of 0.8c relative to the Earth, towards a planet 12 
 light-years away in the Earth's frame. Alice arrives at that planet when 
 she is 9 years old, and at that point the ship immediately turns around and 
 heads back towards Earth with a relative speed of 0.6c. Alice experiences 
 the return journey to take 16 more years, so when she returns to Earth she 
 is 25 years old, but Bob is 35 years old when they meet. Can you show me 
 how to back-calculate how old Bob was when he was in the same moment of 
 p-time as Alice turning 9 and her ship reaching the planet and turning 
 around?
  


 So since p-time has no metric itself you can't just compare p-time t 
 values because there are none. You have to back calculate clock times to 
 determine in what current p-times they occurred.

 So that's how we determine whether any two events occurred a the same 
 p-times or not. You should always be able to determine that even though you 
 can assign a p-time t value because there are none because p-time doesn't 
 have a metric.


 I have never asked you for a p-time value, I'm only interested in the 
 question of which events are simultaneous in p-time. I don't think your 
 answers so far have made it clear that you have any well-defined procedure 
 for determining this,

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

A simple example:

Suppose A and B. Assume no relative motion but A is in a gravitational well 
that makes his clock runs 1/2 the speed of B's clock. Assume both clocks 
were synchronized when the gravitational field at A suddenly turned on. In 
this simple case both A and B were in the same present moment prior to the 
gravitational field turning on and both their clocks t and t' read time=0 
when it turned on. After the field turns on then whenever tx2 = t' then A 
and B will be in the same moment of p-time. 

Note that will be ALL the time, because all observers are always at the 
same moment of p-time. But it is simple to determine what A and B were 
doing at all past moments of p-time by this method.

This simple example will at least illustrate the method which can be 
applied to all other relativistic calculations.

Note that all observers and everything is always at the same universal 
moment of p-time, so it's just a matter of figuring out what their various 
clock time t-values are or were at that synchrony. 

But from an observational test it's always simple to know what clock time 
of your comoving clock and all clocks in that same frame. All you have to 
do is look at the clocks and read them and whatever they read is always the 
clock time reading of the current moment of p-time, because everything 
always is in that moment.

In fact it is only possible to read a clock IN the present moment, so you 
know that whatever clock you actually read, that is always the clock time 
of that clock that corresponds to the current p-time moment.

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen 
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about 
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to 
 determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same 
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration 
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same 
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


 And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources of 
 gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is dealt 
 with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no 
 coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at 
 different points in space (see discussion at 
 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the 
 only coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper 
 acceleration (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that 
 shows the G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall 
 have zero proper acceleration, so if you think there is a 
 gravitational/acceleration difference between an observer orbiting far 
 from a black hole and one falling towards it close to the event horizon, 
 you can't quantify it using proper time.

  


 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always 
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form 
 the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own 
 clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and 
 read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT 
 = B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every 
 current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that 
 trip's motion we should always be able to back calculate to determine which 
 clock times of any two observers occurred in the same current p-time 
 SIMULTANEITY even when those observers cannot agree on CLOCK time 
 simultaneity among themselves.


 HOW would you back calculate it though? Even if we set aside my 
 questions about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR 
 spacetime, your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind, 
 could you apply it to a simple example? Let's say Alice is sent on a ship 
 that moves away from Bob on Earth on the day they are both born, and the 
 ship moves with speed of 0.8c relative to the Earth, towards a planet 12 
 light-years away in the Earth's frame. Alice arrives at that planet when 
 she is 9 years old, and at that point the ship immediately turns around and 
 heads back towards Earth with a relative speed of 0.6c. Alice experiences 
 the return journey to take 16 more years, so when she returns to Earth she 
 is 25 years old, but Bob is 35 years old when they meet. Can you show me 
 how to back-calculate how old Bob was when he was in the same moment of 
 p-time as Alice turning 9 and her ship reaching the planet and turning 
 around?
  


 So since p-time has

Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe
 works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events
 occurred in the same p-time moment or not.


No you didn't, because you just used the phrase back calculate without
explaining what that entails.



 I'm sorry if you don't see how it works. I don't see how I can make it
 much clearer.


By explaining how you would back calculate Bob's age at the same moment in
p-time that Alice turned 9. Or at the very least, telling me what the
answer would be in this case.



 It's just applying standard relativity calculations.


Standard relativity calculations tell you what age Bob was at the same
moment in p-time that Alice turned 9? Relativity doesn't include p-time,
and different frames with different definitions of simultaneity will
disagree about what age Bob was at the same time that Alice turned 9.



 You don't have to do them backwards BTW. If you start with A and B in the
 same frame, they will automatically be in the same p-time present moment


When you say automatically be in the same p-time present moment do you
mean that if they both turn 40 simultaneously in their mutual rest frame,
this automatically means they turn 40 simultaneously in p-time, even if
they are not at the same spatial location?



 so you can do the math forward from there to establish the same p-times
 for all different clock time of A and B when one starts to travel. That's
 simple standard relativistic calculations.


Again, standard relativistic calculations don't say anything about
p-time, and you didn't specify a particular frame you want to do
calculations in, so it's totally unclear what you mean here.



 I don't have time to start doing calculations for you


Please just tell me Bob's age that is simultaneous in p-time with Alice
turning around, it will help me clarify what you might mean by your
confusing phraseology. For example you mean that since they both started
out at rest in Bob's frame, it will be whatever age is simultaneous in
*that* frame with Alice turning 9? In Bob's rest frame, he turns 15
simultaneously with Alice turning 9, so are those events also simultaneous
in p-time?



 but the procedures I gave you are standard relativistic calculations that
 should enable you to determine which clock time labeled events occurred at
 the same p-times if you want.



It doesn't, your allusions to standard relativistic calculations are too
vague since all relativistic calculations of simultaneity are
frame-depedent but you haven't specified a frame. And of course, you have
also COMPLETELY avoided the issue of what calculations we'd do to determine
p-time simultaneity in a case where gravity is involved.

Jesse







 Edgar



 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS
 to determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


 And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources
 of gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is
 dealt with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no
 coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at
 different points in space (see discussion at http://math.ucr.edu/home/
 baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the only
 coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper acceleration
 (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that shows the
 G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall have zero
 proper acceleration, so if you think there is a gravitational/acceleration
 difference between an observer orbiting far from a black hole and one
 falling towards it close to the event horizon, you can't quantify it using
 proper time.




 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form
 the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own
 clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and
 read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT
 = B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every
 current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that
 trip's motion we should always be able to back

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

2014-02-08 Thread freqflyer07281972

I've been following this thread with some interest, waiting for one movie 
to be invariably mentioned among this crowd, and surprised that it hasn't 
been yet: Waking Life by Richard Linklater. 

Not only would members of this list like this movie, they would also be 
reminded of the different kinds of conversations that go on here. It could 
even be interpreted as a kind of visualization of the QIT. The only person 
on this list who might not like it is John Clarke, since it is filled with 
references to so many useless, deadbeat, unproductive and non-contributing 
philosophers and one of the many pre-occupations of the film is that 
utterly meaningless ASCII sequence/noise free will (blech, I threw up a 
bit in my mouth just typing those nine characters, that's how abhorrent and 
senseless the notion is). Also, it is a cartoon, and I'm pretty sure he 
would have stopped watching anything so stupid since Grade 6, or when he 
was 12, or something. And most importantly, it didn't win any awards and 
was not on anyone's top ten list, at least, not anyone who counts as having 
valuable opinions about quality movies. But for the rest of you, I strongly 
recommend you check it 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: Block Universes


On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:57:44 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Liz,

 No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.

 Edgar

 
I wusn't messin' with your idea man promise! I was just ranting away full 
of good intentions but basically a bit sick in the head.  




 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:15:42 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which 
 sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with 
 it - for example an astronaut moving at 0.9c will be intersecting it at the 
 same time as his twin on Earth, but intersecting it at an angle that means 
 his clock runs at a different rate.

 Or something like that. This hyperplane appears to be the rest frame of 
 the CMBR (probably) and orthogonal to the expansion of the universe in 5 
 dimensions, ignoring the bumpy bits.



 On 8 February 2014 20:59, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:26:45 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:06:17 AM UTC, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 9:50 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing 
 with it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for 
 ways 
 to deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best 
 efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be 
 true.


 What is Edgar's insight?  Can you explain it?  All I've seen is that 
 observers at the same event are at the same place and time - which is 
 trivially the meaning of at the same event.

 His other insight, that distance relations are not fundamental but are 
 derived from some kind of alignment of frames, sounds more interesting. 
  
 Many people have noticed that you can define space just by sending light 
 signals between observers with clocks, which is a way of aligning the 
 clocks so they define and inertial frame.

 Brent

  
 I strongly doubt I'm the best person to be saying what his insight 
 is. What I'm trying to contribute is more an outline method aligned with 
 goals and making explicit what's already implicit anyway. 
  
 I have stuck with p-time because that's the simplest thing that he 
 himself seems to offer as the make or break insight his whole theory 
 stands 
 or falls on. 
  
 I hadn't even picked up the insight you just mentioned. If you think 
 that's more interesting, go with that for sure, no problem. 
  
 I don't even understand that one clearly. So I'll answer your 
 question 'what is his insight' in terms of p-time but only because I feel 
 better equipped to speak of that one. The answer is, the good news of 
 following a method like I suggest, is that it takes the meaning right out 
 of his hands, eliminating the anyway unrealistic dependence that we manage 
 to align with whatever is actually in his head. All we need is the minimum 
 indivisible core of some sense a universal 'now' could be true. Really, it 
 doesn't have to be edgar's idea of either universal, or 'now' or even be 
 about time in the end. 
  
 So long as we build everything we are doing, for edgar, with edgar, in 
 terms of edgar, in at the level of method, which we can do by basically 
 enshrining the principle we help the guy the best way for this to work out 
 well for him. Translating to a principle of seeking the strongest 
 sense his idea can be true, which includes within that all senses of how 
 it 
 might be made true, including removing dependencies he happens to believe 
 are built in but which we in fact discover can be totally decoupled. 
  
 That's my best guess for your answer. 

  
 Final word from me: The only new distinction I'm proposing that isn't 
 already what Edgar is saying and not already a 'fact on the ground' 
 given so much time is already being given to this, is that we seek to 
 formalize things a little bit by getting clear, what is already effectively 
 in play, and seeking to reinforce whatever that is by some 
 basic principles that can be enshrined in method because that's 
 the generally accepted best way to ensure on-going consistency. 
 The outcome I have proposed assumes the goal is sort of, positive in the 
 extreme, and everything else rolls from that. But another totally 
 legitimate outcome would be that having stopped to collectively think about 
 this, people throw up their arms and say what the fuck are we doing giving 
 all this freakin' attention to such an undeserving idea that is 
 clearly totally screwy and wrong. 
  
 That would be perfectly legitimate too. If the garbage needs to be taken 
 out and the collective insight is that is Edgar and his ideas, then it's 
 best for him too that he can know that cleanly and make his own mind up the 
 merits on which it was based, and keep open for himself that he focuses 
 on searching for a fairer bunch of folk to get his idea considered. That's 
 fine. I can definitely vouch for that outcome as totally in the

Re: Films I think people on this forum might like

Not sure if that's a recommendation or just a chance to let off steam but
anyway - thanks, I will try to get hold of that.


On 9 February 2014 13:34, freqflyer07281972 thismindisbud...@gmail.comwrote:

 I've been following this thread with some interest, waiting for one movie
 to be invariably mentioned among this crowd, and surprised that it hasn't
 been yet: Waking Life by Richard Linklater.

 Not only would members of this list like this movie, they would also be
 reminded of the different kinds of conversations that go on here. It could
 even be interpreted as a kind of visualization of the QIT. The only person
 on this list who might not like it is John Clarke, since it is filled with
 references to so many useless, deadbeat, unproductive and non-contributing
 philosophers and one of the many pre-occupations of the film is that
 utterly meaningless ASCII sequence/noise free will (blech, I threw up a
 bit in my mouth just typing those nine characters, that's how abhorrent and
 senseless the notion is). Also, it is a cartoon, and I'm pretty sure he
 would have stopped watching anything so stupid since Grade 6, or when he
 was 12, or something. And most importantly, it didn't win any awards and
 was not on anyone's top ten list, at least, not anyone who counts as having
 valuable opinions about quality movies. But for the rest of you, I strongly
 recommend you check it 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: Block Universes

On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
 processor cycle 'rate'.

 What is this 'rate' ? Is it like '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.

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

Consider another simple example:

A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are 
synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t = 
t', which is always their clock times confirm they are the same current 
p-time as well as the same clock time.

Now magically they are in non-accelerated relative motion to each such that 
each sees the other's clock running half as fast as their own.

During the duration of the relative motion whenever A reads t = n on his 
OWN clock and B reads t'=n on his OWN clock they will be at the same 
current moment of p-time. They can use this method later on to know what 
they were doing at the same present moment.

Note however that both A and B will be seeing what each other was doing not 
at the present moment but in the past because they observe each other's 
clocks to run only half as fast as their own. They cannot directly observe 
the other's actions in the same p-time moment but they can calculate them.

Now imagine the relative motion suddenly stops without any acceleration 
(this is just a thought experiment to keep things simple and easier to 
understand).

Now both A and B will again be stationary with respect to each other and 
their clocks will be running at the same rate again AND they will still be 
synchronized (because the relative motion caused no lasting effect when it 
stopped). Now again their same clock times will mark them being in the same 
current moment of p-time whenever t = t' which will again be ALL the time.

So they were always in the same current moment of p-time, and always when t 
= t' on their own clocks, but they saw each other's clocks slow and so 
could not see what each other was doing in the current moment of p-time 
(they see what each other was doing in a past current moment of p-time) 
when in relative motion. They could not observe the other's current p-time 
but they could calculate it and after the trip could tell exactly what each 
other was doing at every moment of p-time during the relative motion just 
by asking what they were doing at any clock time t value.

Thus there is always an actual p-time 'same time' whether or not it is 
observable or not. All observers in the universe are always doing something 
at the same time all other observers are, and using this method they can 
always tell what that was...

Edgar



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
  wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen 
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about 
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to 
 determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same 
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration 
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same 
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


 And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources of 
 gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is dealt 
 with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no 
 coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at 
 different points in space (see discussion at 
 http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the 
 only coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper 
 acceleration (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that 
 shows the G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall 
 have zero proper acceleration, so if you think there is a 
 gravitational/acceleration difference between an observer orbiting far 
 from a black hole and one falling towards it close to the event horizon, 
 you can't quantify it using proper time.

  


 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always 
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a statement of the form 
 the twins were in the same current moment of p-time when A read his own 
 clock as A-t and B's clock as B-t, AND B read his own clock as B-t' and 
 read A's clock as A-t'. In this case A-t will NOT = A-t', and B-t will NOT 
 = B-t', but they will have specific back calculable t values for every 
 current p-time during the trip. Thus if we have all the details of that 
 trip's motion we should always be able to back calculate to determine which 
 clock times of any two observers occurred in the same current p-time 
 SIMULTANEITY even when those observers cannot agree on CLOCK time 
 simultaneity among themselves.


 HOW would you back calculate it though? Even if we set aside my 
 questions about gravity above and just look at a case involving flat SR 
 spacetime, your answer gives no details. If you have any procedure in mind,

Re: Block Universes

Liz,

See my other post that discusses the minimum p-time cycle time must be less 
than the minimum possible interval of events, where I discuss that...

Edgar


On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:49:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:

 Liz,

 No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic 
 processor cycle 'rate'.

 What is this 'rate' ? Is it like '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.

Re: Real science versus interpretations of science


On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:41:14 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:52 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:36:21 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
 wrote:




 On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Ghibbsa,

 Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, 
 only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and 
 accusations.

 Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error...


 Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, 
 unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining 
 the 
 ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this 
 regard, *officially 
 decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully 
 noting the swearing  protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an 
 overly 
 ardent compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the 
 plaintiffs 
 overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical 
 encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside 
 of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and 
 archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and 
 sections.

 Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of 
 events on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry 
 souls 
 of plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in 
 comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this 
 noble-bloat 
 house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and 
 otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a 
 single post into the eternity of P-time.

 Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized 
 interpretations of Science because of the gravy gravity of this 
 officialized, sealed, notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, 
 spamificationationalizeducation of the rest of the dumb list for we 
 all like the gravy bit, unless we are greenitarian, which remains 
 solemnly, 
 in the light of day, a dark matter of information-urination from black 
 holes spun out of standards more than blocks of verses singing in unison 
 of 
 angry hawks and birds.

 All rejoice and thank the Edgar, 
 as well and more the forgiver, 
 foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future and on 
 the left.

 Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been 
 achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC 

  
 yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your 
 judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do 
 say I am to be thanked  as well and more so, but on the other hand you 
 send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has 
 a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your 
 eyes. 
  
 One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to 
 really that much of fuckat least for that to matter whether or not 
 something is a good post. 
  
 What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a 
 snob


 That's like throwing narcissism at people who surf the web. Of course I 
 have to be snob if I write fiction and compose it musically: I'd have 
 nothing to say without my own biases. But the same can be said of any 
 scientific stance, regardless of interpretation (on topic btw): you're 
 elitist towards some ideas and think other ideas aren't quite your cup of 
 tea, and so defending your ideas is natural. Welcome to the web.

 
I don't mind being sent upand everyone knows resorting to the flat tone 
gormless yeah...well...you're a bloody snob aren't you is the mark of 
defeat :o) 
 
 


 My last post was merely bad extemporaneous non P-time prose, because I'm 
 bored of giving sincere replies just for getting slapped by another Edgar 
 comment, when he has taken the floor so often and failed to address basic 
 objections to his ideas; instead throwing authoritative and infantilizing 
 insults, always followed by some smiley emoticon to trivialize the 
 transgression. So fine, he likes to play this game where he pushes 
 everybody's buttons and then goes oh, I don't know why everybody here is 
 so touchy, concerning his book, of all things.

You gave an entertaining post, and everyone always deserves to be sent up. 
I responded like a big girl's blouse. What can I say.

  

Him liking this game, I thought he wouldn't mind some of this, obfuscated 
 in prose, because he doesn't take things as seriously as everybody else 
 here, who have some faith axe to grind instead of being reasonable. What I 
 got as a reply was simply You're idea of science is sci-fi + you're a 
 snob. I have no

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider
 the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is).


 I bet you are not a zombie. But you seem to illustrate my point, if
 epiphenomenalism is true, despite you are not a zombie, you could be one,
 and that is a step toward the elimination of the person.

I know I'm not a zombie, but you don't know that. I don't know how you
would bet on it either, since you could not prove it in order to get
your payout! The most you can know is that if a certain substitution
is made in by brain then *if* I am conscious I will continue to be
conscious.

 You could say I have headache, which is a first person experience, and,
 for that reason I will take an aspirin, yet the existence of that first
 person headache is not used by my brain to make me taking the aspirin.
 That
 seems close to non-sense to me. It prevents you to be a zombie, but makes
 you deluded in all high level person behavior.


 A zombie would take an aspirin as well, wouldn't it? Otherwise its
 zombie deception would be obvious.


 Sure, he would take aspirin, coffee, and many things. We do agree on the
 definition of zombie.
 They act like any acting human. By definition p-zombiness is not
 behaviorally detectable.





 In fact, we don't even need to talk on consciousness. I think it makes
 sense
 to say that a program can have a high level causal efficacy, even when
 the
 behavior does not violate the laws of physics or arithmetic which
 supports
 that high level efficacy.

 For example, nobody will say that Deep Blue win the chess tournament,
 because this NAND receives this inputs and then (followed by a lengthy
 description of all the low level happenings).

 We will explain deep blue behavior in terms of most of its high level
 ability. We will say he lost that game because he did not recognize that
 his opponents has made a Nimzovitch entry, or he win that game because
 it
 tested more possibilities than the opponents.

 That will be the real (or more genuine) explanation, both for the
 computer
 scientists who programmed deep blue, and for the chess players.  Indeed
 the
 use of the NAND gates are somehow entirely irrelevant, we could have
 programmed deep blue on another type of machine.

 As complex entities, we need to have higher level description and
 explanation, and are necessarily ignorant of our lower levels, which
 might
 only be the support of our explanation, and is different from the more
 genuine high level explanation.

 In that way, we can recover the sense of I take an aspirin because I
 have a
 persistent headache since the morning.

 God might know that your body takes an aspirin because it obeys to SWE
 equation, but the SWE is only a context in which a person with a first
 person headache experience can take an aspirin. It is not the cause or
 the
 explanation of your behavior. You need to be God, to say that your
 consciousness has no role, and from God's view, I can make sense, but
 everything get wrong, hereby, simply because we are not in that God
 position.

 OK?


 I don't really disagree with any of that, but I would still say that
 chess program makes moves due to the activity of electrons in
 semiconductors,


 You remain locally correct, but that is less easy to do for oneself (as you
 don't know the level), and if you make consciousness having no role, because
 its role is subdue to some material causality, then with comp matter will be
 doubly eliminated, as it will become the illusion of an epiphenomenon.





 not because it is exercising a particular strategy
 except in a manner of speaking.  But the substantive point I want to
 make is that there is no downward causation,


 I don't think there is any causation at all. Causation is a modal notion,
 and as to be treated indexically to, and with comp, in a way related to the
 many computations in arithmetic.






 for if there were we
 would observe magical events. If you accept that then I agree with
 you, any apparent disagreement is really just semantics.


 We must still discuss if this is very semantics. Some higher level laws can
 be quite autonomous relatively to lower level laws, and some downard
 causation, even if reductible in theory to particles or numbers, remains
 meaningful at his own level.

Downward causation would involve, for example, a neuron spontaneously
firing when all the biochemical parameters show that it should not.
That would be something miraculous. It has never been observed, or we
would know there is something very wrong with science.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 8 February 2014 05:03, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 If there were identical triplets, and one of them grew up on the other side
 of the world and spoke a different language, while the others grew up in the
 same state and spoke the same language, do you think that a neuroscientist
 could figure out with certainty which triplet spoke the other language (not
 by looking at trace compounds that would identify a geographic region, etc,
 but strictly by the vast number of different words and phrases that they
 use)?

It's an assumption in science that the language difference is due to
brain difference. That's not to say that our techniques are at present
refined enough to see a difference, but there must be one if language
is due to the brain.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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

Re: A theory of dark matter...


On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:36:08 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:

 Brent, and Liz,

 We have to be careful in our choice of words here.

 It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that 
 each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give 
 the same results here.

 However when one twin returns with a different clock time and STOPS both 
 twins agree on the resulting different clock times.

 Relativity says this is due to the acceleration of the traveling twin. But 
 my question is 'acceleration relative to WHAT?'

 
Acceleration is relative to itself yeah? meters per second -- per second 
squared. And the speed of light.  


 The very notion of acceleration (including that of Newton's bucket) 
 assumes there is an absolute background space in some sense that 
 acceleration is relative to.

 
no it doesn't big doughnut :o) 
 
Edgar, mate, you must know what you've learned and what you haven't? This 
is a serious science list mate...there's academics here, people doing 
Phd's. You should know what you know, so be sensible.
 
Edgar 
 
 


 I have a theory to explain this by the way spacetime is created by quantum 
 events and thus must take on aspects of the frames of the events that 
 create it. The cumulative large scale effect of this is to produce a very 
 particular notion of absoluteness roughly aligned with the distribution of 
 the mass of the universe. This because that mass undergoes the quantum 
 events that produce the space that mass resides in.

 This explains why Mach Principle that the rotational acceleration of 
 Newton's bucket is with respect to the cosmological mass of the universe is 
 roughly correct. But it provides an actual theory for why this is true.

 Edgar





 On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
  

 On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 

 Ghibbsa, 

  Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to 
 choose one frame over the other to get the correct results.
  
  
 You don't.  But in almost all cases there is a frame in which it is easy 
 to apply the equations, one that takes advantage of symmetries and leaves 
 out negligible effects.  So you do the analysis is that frame and then you 
 transform the answer if necessary to some other frame of interest.  But in 
 general what you're interested in is frame independent: Did the spaceship 
 rendezvous with the planet or miss it?  Did the tank fall in the pit or 
 not?  To do the transformation you have to know how things transform, which 
 for inertial frames in flat spacetime is by Lorentz transformations, i.e. 
 those that leave lightcones invariant.

 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.

THIS LIST HAS TURNED ME ON TO......

RELATIVITY THEORY 
 
I love it...I'm being reeled in by it. A lot of people here have said 
really weird and wonderful things. A couple of things have been talked 
about as if fundamental, that I'm betting is not fundamental. A lot of 
other questions have been coming up for melike is space-time a 
metaphor, albeit one which works extremely well. The reason I'm wondering 
is because spacetime geometry is very intuitive. How do we know...are 
there any predictions that would only be whatever if spacetime was a 
metaphor. And what about Liz? She tried to sell me the Blocktime Bridge the 
other night. 
 
But seriously, I basically want to thank people for turning me on to one of 
our greatest theories. In the end that's the right way that things should 
pan out. The other theories are good...and people often have their own. 
It's all good, so long as the journey is where most of the value is. But in 
the end, loving science is about worshipping the greatest works of science. 
I was kind of starting to forget that. 

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

Re: Block Universes

2014-02-08 Thread Russell Standish

On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 07:18:06AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
 Liz,
 
 No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic 
 processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it manifests 
 in the computations it produces because only they have any measure because 
 only they have dimensionality. Again whenever we try to measure p-timel we 
 end up measuring only what it has computed because only what it computes 
 has measure including all measuring sticks, clocks and devices. P-time 
 computes all dimensionality, and all measuring devices. Thus those 
 measuring devices only measure other things that have been computed, not 
 the p-time that computes them all.
 
 Thus when I speak of a processor 'rate', it's only an illustrative analogy 
 because that rate has no direct measure. The only glimpse we get of it is 
 in the minimal quanta of time measured in clock time, and presumably the 
 curvature of the universe. So in clock time terms the p-time processor 
 cycle must be very short, on the scale of what scientists misleadingly call 
 the Planck time scale.
 
 The p-time processor rate must obviously be fast enough to compute all 
 events in clock time, so in CLOCK time measures, the duration of a p-time 
 processor cycle must be shorter than the shortest clock time event.
 
 Edgar
 

Let me see if I've got your idea now: you suppose that there is some
primitive ontological computer running a specific program that
computes all physical events on the fly, perhaps like Wolfram's
CA. Then for any events, there must be a specific clock cycle on which
it is computed, and for any two events, there is a matter of fact
whether event A is computed prior to event B (or vice verse), or that
the two events are computed simulatenously, in case the ontological
computer is a parallel computer with synchronous updates (like
Wolfram's model). Is this close to your idea of p-time?

Of course there are many criticisms to this, if that is the case: 1)
If something like the universal dovetailer is implementing our
physics, then there is no matter of fact as to which order events are
computed, as there are many different equivalent programs for
computing something that are being emulated by the dovetailer. This is
the essence of the UDA.

2) Even if it were a direct compution of reality a la Wolfram, an
asyncronously updating parallel computer need not have a matter of
fact to whether A is computed before B, just so long as the
relativistic causal structure is preserved.

Cheers

-- 


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


-- 
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: Block Universes

On 9 February 2014 14:10, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 See my other post that discusses the minimum p-time cycle time must be
 less than the minimum possible interval of events, where I discuss that...


So I assume that's a yes, then.


 Edgar

 On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:49:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:

 On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Liz,

 No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic
 processor cycle 'rate'.

 What is this 'rate' ? Is it like '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.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 8:47:26 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

 On 7 February 2014 07:47, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: 
 wrote: 

  Well, I *could* be a zombie and still say that, unless you consider 
  the idea of zombies contradictory (which maybe it is). 
  
  
  I bet you are not a zombie. But you seem to illustrate my point, if 
  epiphenomenalism is true, despite you are not a zombie, you could be 
 one, 
  and that is a step toward the elimination of the person. 

 I know I'm not a zombie, but you don't know that. 


You might know it intuitively, but not be able to justify it logically.

Craig

 

 I don't know how you 
 would bet on it either, since you could not prove it in order to get 
 your payout! The most you can know is that if a certain substitution 
 is made in by brain then *if* I am conscious I will continue to be 
 conscious. 

  You could say I have headache, which is a first person experience, 
 and, 
  for that reason I will take an aspirin, yet the existence of that 
 first 
  person headache is not used by my brain to make me taking the aspirin. 
  That 
  seems close to non-sense to me. It prevents you to be a zombie, but 
 makes 
  you deluded in all high level person behavior. 
  
  
  A zombie would take an aspirin as well, wouldn't it? Otherwise its 
  zombie deception would be obvious. 
  
  
  Sure, he would take aspirin, coffee, and many things. We do agree on the 
  definition of zombie. 
  They act like any acting human. By definition p-zombiness is not 
  behaviorally detectable. 
  
  
  
  
  
  In fact, we don't even need to talk on consciousness. I think it makes 
  sense 
  to say that a program can have a high level causal efficacy, even when 
  the 
  behavior does not violate the laws of physics or arithmetic which 
  supports 
  that high level efficacy. 
  
  For example, nobody will say that Deep Blue win the chess tournament, 
  because this NAND receives this inputs and then (followed by a lengthy 
  description of all the low level happenings). 
  
  We will explain deep blue behavior in terms of most of its high level 
  ability. We will say he lost that game because he did not recognize 
 that 
  his opponents has made a Nimzovitch entry, or he win that game 
 because 
  it 
  tested more possibilities than the opponents. 
  
  That will be the real (or more genuine) explanation, both for the 
  computer 
  scientists who programmed deep blue, and for the chess players. 
  Indeed 
  the 
  use of the NAND gates are somehow entirely irrelevant, we could have 
  programmed deep blue on another type of machine. 
  
  As complex entities, we need to have higher level description and 
  explanation, and are necessarily ignorant of our lower levels, which 
  might 
  only be the support of our explanation, and is different from the more 
  genuine high level explanation. 
  
  In that way, we can recover the sense of I take an aspirin because I 
  have a 
  persistent headache since the morning. 
  
  God might know that your body takes an aspirin because it obeys to SWE 
  equation, but the SWE is only a context in which a person with a first 
  person headache experience can take an aspirin. It is not the cause or 
  the 
  explanation of your behavior. You need to be God, to say that your 
  consciousness has no role, and from God's view, I can make sense, but 
  everything get wrong, hereby, simply because we are not in that God 
  position. 
  
  OK? 
  
  
  I don't really disagree with any of that, but I would still say that 
  chess program makes moves due to the activity of electrons in 
  semiconductors, 
  
  
  You remain locally correct, but that is less easy to do for oneself (as 
 you 
  don't know the level), and if you make consciousness having no role, 
 because 
  its role is subdue to some material causality, then with comp matter 
 will be 
  doubly eliminated, as it will become the illusion of an epiphenomenon. 
  
  
  
  
  
  not because it is exercising a particular strategy 
  except in a manner of speaking.  But the substantive point I want to 
  make is that there is no downward causation, 
  
  
  I don't think there is any causation at all. Causation is a modal 
 notion, 
  and as to be treated indexically to, and with comp, in a way related to 
 the 
  many computations in arithmetic. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  for if there were we 
  would observe magical events. If you accept that then I agree with 
  you, any apparent disagreement is really just semantics. 
  
  
  We must still discuss if this is very semantics. Some higher level laws 
 can 
  be quite autonomous relatively to lower level laws, and some downard 
  causation, even if reductible in theory to particles or numbers, remains 
  meaningful at his own level. 

 Downward causation would involve, for example, a neuron spontaneously 
 firing when all the biochemical parameters show that it should not. 
 That would be something miraculous. It has never been

Re: Block Universes


On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:44:09 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 07:18:06AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 
  Liz, 
  
  No 5D embedding space. The rate of expansion is just the intrinsic 
  processor cycle 'rate'. The only real measure of that is how it 
 manifests 
  in the computations it produces because only they have any measure 
 because 
  only they have dimensionality. Again whenever we try to measure p-timel 
 we 
  end up measuring only what it has computed because only what it computes 
  has measure including all measuring sticks, clocks and devices. P-time 
  computes all dimensionality, and all measuring devices. Thus those 
  measuring devices only measure other things that have been computed, not 
  the p-time that computes them all. 
  
  Thus when I speak of a processor 'rate', it's only an illustrative 
 analogy 
  because that rate has no direct measure. The only glimpse we get of it 
 is 
  in the minimal quanta of time measured in clock time, and presumably the 
  curvature of the universe. So in clock time terms the p-time processor 
  cycle must be very short, on the scale of what scientists misleadingly 
 call 
  the Planck time scale. 
  
  The p-time processor rate must obviously be fast enough to compute all 
  events in clock time, so in CLOCK time measures, the duration of a 
 p-time 
  processor cycle must be shorter than the shortest clock time event. 
  
  Edgar 
  

 Let me see if I've got your idea now: you suppose that there is some 
 primitive ontological computer running a specific program that 
 computes all physical events on the fly, perhaps like Wolfram's 
 CA. Then for any events, there must be a specific clock cycle on which 
 it is computed, and for any two events, there is a matter of fact 
 whether event A is computed prior to event B (or vice verse), or that 
 the two events are computed simulatenously, in case the ontological 
 computer is a parallel computer with synchronous updates (like 
 Wolfram's model). Is this close to your idea of p-time? 

 Of course there are many criticisms to this, if that is the case: 1) 
 If something like the universal dovetailer is implementing our 
 physics, then there is no matter of fact as to which order events are 
 computed, as there are many different equivalent programs for 
 computing something that are being emulated by the dovetailer. This is 
 the essence of the UDA. 

 2) Even if it were a direct compution of reality a la Wolfram, an 
 asyncronously updating parallel computer need not have a matter of 
 fact to whether A is computed before B, just so long as the 
 relativistic causal structure is preserved. 

 Cheers 

  
Which is everything hangs on p-time. It's a uber simplification. We are all 
taking our bets I suppose, and different ways to be realistic. One of mine 
is to strengthen the tie between realism and core theories. Not just the 
theories as their forces, but what else is said about nature in how things 
are done. In terms of that, the picture is of beautiful, parsimonious, 
fractallike, richly interweaved, fundamentally mathematical, inherently 
knowable. That's my world. Then out to the edge, everything is infinities 
in every direction. 
 
It can't be understood intellectually. I turn to art. Paint the frontiers, 
string theory knackers yards. brains and their higher consciousness. The 
world that has everything where nothing ever happens. It's hideous. My 
paintings are awesome. I'm the only one painting the frontier. I'm going to 
wait for the day it all gets torn down, I have a false ear purchased 
already. I will use my art wealth to push hard to make infinity a class A 
drug

-- 
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: A theory of dark matter...

On 9 February 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Brent, and Liz,

 We have to be careful in our choice of words here.

 It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
 each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
 the same results here.

 However when one twin returns with a different clock time and STOPS both
 twins agree on the resulting different clock times.

 Relativity says this is due to the acceleration of the traveling twin. But
 my question is 'acceleration relative to WHAT?'

 The very notion of acceleration (including that of Newton's bucket)
 assumes there is an absolute background space in some sense that
 acceleration is relative to.


I believe Newton's bucket is normally taken to rotate relative to distant
masses - i.e. it obeys Mach's Principle. But imagine a bucket rotating in
space, in a universe with dark energy pushing everything else away faster
and faster. Eventually there is nothing within the bucket's event horizon,
it's alone in an empty universe. Does the water in the bucket suddenly (or
gradually) stop forming a paraboloid as mass disappears, and become flat?
(I'd say not, but I could be wrong...)

We're assuming no friction, so the bucket rotates until frame dragging
slows it down, far into the future. Or we could make it a neutron star if
we prefer. Does it stop being an oblate spheroid when the last mass
vanishes over its event horizon?

Hm. Interesting. I hadn't thought about this before, but it seems to me
this particular thought experiment indicates that there *is* some
background spacetime framework, because how can the bucket know that
distant masses - that it can still see (I think) - have crossed its
cosmic horizon?

Maybe someone with a better grasp of cosmology can comment on this one, and
the implications (if any).

-- 
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: Block Universes

Heh heh. Have you ever read The Hole In The Zero by M K Joseph?

On 9 February 2014 17:17, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 It can't be understood intellectually. I turn to art. Paint the frontiers,
 string theory knackers yards. brains and their higher consciousness. The
 world that has everything where nothing ever happens. It's hideous. My
 paintings are awesome. I'm the only one painting the frontier. I'm going to
 wait for the day it all gets torn down, I have a false ear purchased
 already. I will use my art wealth to push hard to make infinity a class A
 drug


-- 
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: Real science versus interpretations of science

On 9 February 2014 14:31, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 Nothing phazes Edgar lol.

 Edgar is like our very own Saga Norén.

-- 
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.

Turing Reductio ad Absurdum

How do you know that you are really reading these words?

People misread things all the time. Maybe it just feels like you are 
reading them? You could be having a brain aneurism. Logically, there is no 
way to prove that you are reading these words right now.

The fact that you might not really be reading these words correctly (if at 
all) might be offensive to the real words. To avoid passing judgment on 
those other words, we must assume that it is no more likely that we are 
reading these words as it is that we are not.

What is the logical way out of this?

-- 
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: Real science versus interpretations of science


On Sunday, February 9, 2014 4:21:32 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 9 February 2014 14:31, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  
 Nothing phazes Edgar lol. 

 Edgar is like our very own Saga Norén.

 
I was getting these spasms of hilarity earlier on. Not very funny thoughts 
by normal standards. I suppose it about coming to a head. All I did 
was think about going on the thread and asking if anyone felt they had made 
any progress in their personal talking point with edgar. 
 
I guess it was the visual. But maybe the thought was enough. I could not 
stop laughing. It would've been ok but I was with wife/daughter at pizza 
express. Had to go sit in the toilet.  
 
 

  


-- 
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: Block Universes

2014-02-08 Thread Richard Ruquist

The hole in zero is like the closed circular string which in two dimensions
maps
everything outside of it to its interior with a r-1/r mapping in every
direction.
If so then infinity is mapped to the center of the zero, like 1/0=infinity.


On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 11:19 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Heh heh. Have you ever read The Hole In The Zero by M K Joseph?

 On 9 February 2014 17:17, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 It can't be understood intellectually. I turn to art. Paint the
 frontiers, string theory knackers yards. brains and their higher
 consciousness. The world that has everything where nothing ever happens.
 It's hideous. My paintings are awesome. I'm the only one painting the
 frontier. I'm going to wait for the day it all gets torn down, I have a
 false ear purchased already. I will use my art wealth to push hard to make
 infinity a class A drug



 --
 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: Block Universes

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Consider another simple example:

 A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
 synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t =
 t', which is always their clock times confirm they are the same current
 p-time as well as the same clock time.


When you say synchronized, do you mean they are synchronized according to
the definition of simultaneity in their mutual rest frame? As I asked
before, if two clocks are at rest relative to one another and
synchronized according to the definition of simultaneity in their mutual
rest frame, do you automatically assume this implies they are synchronized
in p-time? If so you are going to run into major problems if you consider
multiple pairs of clocks where each member of a pair is at rest relative to
the other member of the same pair, but different pairs are in motion
relative to another...I will await a clear answer from you on this question
before elaborating on such a scenario, though.




 Now magically they are in non-accelerated relative motion to each such
 that each sees the other's clock running half as fast as their own.


Physics textbooks often consider examples where there are instantaneous
accelerations such that the velocity abruptly changes from one value to
another, with the objects moving inertially both before and after the
instantaneous acceleration, is that the same as what you mean by
magically they are in non-accelerated relative motion?




 During the duration of the relative motion whenever A reads t = n on his
 OWN clock and B reads t'=n on his OWN clock they will be at the same
 current moment of p-time. They can use this method later on to know what
 they were doing at the same present moment.


Even if we assume instantaneous jumps in velocity, there are multiple ways
they could change velocities such that in their new inertial rest frames
after the acceleration, each would say the other's clock is running half as
fast as their own. For example, in the frame where they were previously at
rest, if each one's velocity symmetrically changed from 0 in this frame to
0.57735c in opposite directions in this frame, then in each one's new rest
frame the other would be moving at 0.866c (since using the relativistic
velocity addition formula at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html their
relative velocity would then be (0.57735c + 0.57735c)/(1 + 0.57735^2) which
works out to 0.866c), and a relative velocity of 0.866c corresponds to a
time dilation factor of 0.5. But likewise, in the frame where they were
previously at rest, it could be that one twin would remain at rest in this
frame while the other would jump to a velocity of 0.866c in this frame, and
then it would still be true that in each one's new rest frame the other is
moving at 0.866c. Does your statement above that whenever A reads t = n on
his OWN clock and B reads t'=n on his OWN clock they will be at the same
current moment of p-time apply even in the case of asymmetrical changes in
velocity? Are you saying all that matters is that in either one's new
inertial rest frame, the other one's clock is ticking at half the rate of
their own?


Jesse



On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:




 On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:

 Jesse,

 Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
 at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
 their relativistic conditions.

 You do this by essentially computing their relativistic cases BACKWARDS to
 determine which point in each of their worldlines occurred at the same
 p-time.

 Take 2 observers, A and B.

 1. If there is no relative motion or gravitational/acceleration
 differences you know that every point t in A's CLOCK time was in the same
 present moment as every point t' in B's CLOCK TIME when t=t'.


 And what if there *are* gravitational differences, if there are sources of
 gravity nearby and they are at different points in space? Gravity is dealt
 with using general relativity, and in general relativity there is no
 coordinate-indepedent way to define the relative motion of observers at
 different points in space (see discussion at http://math.ucr.edu/home/
 baez/einstein/node2.html for details). And the only
 coordinate-independent definition of acceleration is proper acceleration
 (what an observer would measure with an accelerometer that shows the
 G-forces they are experiencing), but all observers in freefall have zero
 proper acceleration, so if you think there is a gravitational/acceleration
 difference between an observer orbiting far from a black hole and one
 falling towards it close to the event horizon, you can't quantify it using
 proper time.




 3. In the case of twins DURING the trip in relative motion we can always
 back calculate the relativistic effects to make a

Re: Block Universes