date:20140211

On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content have
> been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>

Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
flourish, and with it civilisation.

As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
department...

-- 
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

On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> >
> > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-)
> >
> > (Sorry!)
> >
> > I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's
> > likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string
> theory
> > retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a
> positive
> > result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently...
> >
>
> I don't see how he does. He does have the existence of incommunicable
> facts (the G*\G thing), but that's not the same as qualia ISTM.
>

I said "apparently" because I have no idea how he does it.

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

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>

Correctly, I assume.


> and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>
>>
That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have a
nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably have
to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you can do
it very simply anyway?

-- 
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

Speaking of suicide, God etc...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/middleeast/suicide-bomb-instructor-accidentally-kills-iraqi-pupils.html

As Richard Dawkins asked, do they still get the virgins?

-- 
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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
>> have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
>> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
>> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
>> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
>> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
>> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>>
>
> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
> flourish, and with it civilisation.
>
> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
> department...
>

That we are currently in an interglacial period
suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)

In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.

The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased CO2
results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
thereby cooling the earth significantly.

Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.

>  --
> 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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>>
>
> Correctly, I assume.
>
>
>>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>>
>>>
> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have
> a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably
> have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you
> can do it very simply anyway?
>

And how can it be done very simply?


>
>
>  --
> 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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>>
>
> Correctly, I assume.
>

More accurately than the classical prediction


>
>
>>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>>
>>>
> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have
> a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably
> have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you
> can do it very simply anyway?
>
>
>  --
> 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

On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish > wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
>
> You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it! :-)
>
> (Sorry!)
>
> I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's
> likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string theory
> retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a positive
> result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently...
>

I don't see how he does. He does have the existence of incommunicable
facts (the G*\G thing), but that's not the same as qualia ISTM.

I said "apparently" because I have no idea how he does it.

I think a simpler form of the argument is that it must be possible to simulate 
consciousness because (we think) any physical process can be simulated and consciousness 
necessarily accompanies the physical processes of one's brain.  This is the bet of "saying 
yes to the doctor".  But there's a catch.  When we simulate an aircraft flying or a 
weather system those have a reference in the 'real' world and that's why they are 
simulations.  But if we simulate a conscious brain the consciousness will be 'real' 
consciousness. So simulating conscious is in a sense impossible; we may be able to produce 
it but we can't simulate it.  Consciousness must be consciousness of something, but it 
need not be anything physical; it could just be consciousness of arithmetical truths.  
This explains why aspects of consciousness are ineffable.  It's because conscious 
processes can prove Goedel's theorem and so know that some truths are unprovable.  Bruno 
takes "qualia are ineffable" and "some arithmetical truths are unprovable" and postulates 
"ineffable=unprovable".  This allows him to identify specifically what makes some computer 
program conscious: it's the ability to do induction and diagnoalization and prove Goedel's 
theorems.

My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in the sense required 
for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of consciousness *of* an external world 
and thoughts just about Peano's arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the 
"ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious physical and 
evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  That's why I think step 8 is invalid 
because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?) are possible independent of any external world 
- or looked at another way, I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' 
computation simulate a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* 
to that world.

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

Jesse,

I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular coordinate 
system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both equations of 
the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin B, 
relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it 
does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own 
frames of A and B. 

Thus when we compare A and B's coordinate systems we do find a 1:1 clock 
time to the same p-time relationship. That's exactly what I did in my 
examples.

This is one more of several ways that relativity either implies or requires 
a common p-time background to all relativistic calculations and phenomena.

Edgar



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first 
> thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present 
> moment background to all relativistic relationships.
>
>
> You mean the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ? But 
> I didn't ignore it at all, I responded to it at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJby 
> pointing out some crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the 
> entire argument after that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic 
> calculations" do not support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between 
> clock times, since different frames give *different* relationships between 
> clock times and clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. 
> Of course I realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 
> relationship, but you seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves 
> provided one, which just isn't true.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT 
> have purely spatial analogues.
>
>
> I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was 
> that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time 
> using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just 
> assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue. 
>
> If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince 
> others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely 
> talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't 
> bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed 
> trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite 
> relevant to that.
>
> So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects 
> of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times, 
> relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in 
> the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they?
>
> Jesse
>
>
>  
>
> Clock time does, at least in your weak sense. I did explain that at 
> length more than once...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that 
> would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the 
> question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that 
> 100%. It's just not p-time...
>
>
> But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an 
> *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start? 
> If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some 
> broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox 
> scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't 
> have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of 
> spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime" 
> but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the 
> latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have 
> exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like 
> the fact that the tapes can cross at the "same point in space" but have 
> elapsed different tape-measure distances since their previous crossing).
>
> Jesse
>
>
>  
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> It's not clear to me what you mean by, "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)".
>
> The way I understand that the answer is clearly NO. The whole idea of 
> relativity is that the time coordinates (clock times) of A and B are NOT in 
> general the same in either A nor B's coordinate systems, o

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
theory?

Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct? I 
certainly don't see any contradiction whatsoever, and you haven't pointed 
any out so you must not be aware of any. That lends credence to the theory 
of course

And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell 
me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said 
you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those 
assumptions what DO you agree with? Why is this could not a WOULD?

Edgar


On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example 
> could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and 
> the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
>
>
> What do you mean "agree with"? I don't even agree there is any such thing 
> as an objective frame-independent truth about simultaneity, I think block 
> time is quite satisfactory. And if there was an objective simultaneity, 
> which you would call simultaneity in p-time, I would see no reason to think 
> it should obey the postulates you suggest, like the postulate that for two 
> clocks at rest relative to one another, simultaneous readings in their rest 
> frame should automatically be simultaneous in p-time.
>
> Are you just asking me to consider the hypothetical that *if* there was 
> such a thing as objective p-time simultaneity, and *if* it respected the 
> postulates you believe in, would I *then* agree with your analysis of 
> various examples? If that's all you're asking I can tell you if I agree 
> with your analysis of various examples given these hypotheticals. But if 
> you are asking me to agree or disagree on anything more than that, then my 
> answer is "no, I don't agree with your statements about p-time because I 
> don't believe in your basic premises."
>
>  
>
>
> I gave simpler examples to make p-time simultaneity easier to understand, 
> so it makes no sense to address your slightly more complex examples until 
> we agree on my 3.
>
> Also in general it would be useful if you could let me know what you do 
> agree with that I say about p-time. Your MO is just to continually ask 
> question after question without usually indicating what answers of mine you 
> agree with or don't. To conduct an objective discussion it helps to know 
> what we agree with as well as what we don't. Don't you agree?
>
>
> Sure, but I thought you understood that I was an advocate of block time, 
> so that it would go without saying that I wouldn't agree with any 
> statements that presupposed p-time. None of the statements I ask you to 
> agree or disagree with presuppose block time, they are either questions 
> about your own beliefs about p-time, or questions about your use of 
> examples from relativity theory to make arguments for a need for p-time.
>
> Jesse
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:45:07 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
>
> For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second 
> that concludes there IS transitivity..
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> OK, then in the scenario I described, please tell me if you disagree with 
> any of the conclusions 1-4 about which events are simultaneous in p-time:
>
> Start by considering their initial positions, velocities and clock times 
> in a coordinate system where Alice and Bob are at rest. At coordinate time 
> t=0 in this frame, Alice is at position x=0 light-years, Bob is at position 
> x=25 light years, and their clock readings are T(Alice)=0 years, T(Bob)=0 
> years. Meanwhile at the same coordinate time t=0, Arlene is at position x=0 
> light years--her position coincides with that of Alice--and her clock reads 
> T(Arlene)=0 years, and Bart is at position x=9 light years and his clock 
> reads T(Bart)=-12 years. In this frame, Arlene and Bart are both moving in 
> the +x direction at 0.8c. So 20 years later in this frame, they both will 
> have moved forward by 20*0.8=16 light-years, so at t=20 Arlene is at 
> position x=16 light-years while Bart is at position x=25 light years. Their 
> clocks are running slow by a factor of 0.6 in this frame, so in a span of 
> 20 years they tick forward by 12 years, meaning at t=20 Arelene's clock 
> reads T(Arlene)=12 years and Bart's clock reads T(

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:55 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
>> >
>> > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it!
>> :-)
>> >
>> > (Sorry!)
>> >
>> > I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's
>> > likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string
>> theory
>> > retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a
>> positive
>> > result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently...
>> >
>>
>>  I don't see how he does. He does have the existence of incommunicable
>> facts (the G*\G thing), but that's not the same as qualia ISTM.
>>
>
>  I said "apparently" because I have no idea how he does it.
>
>
> I think a simpler form of the argument is that it must be possible to
> simulate consciousness because (we think) any physical process can be
> simulated and consciousness necessarily accompanies the physical processes
> of one's brain.  This is the bet of "saying yes to the doctor".  But
> there's a catch.  When we simulate an aircraft flying or a weather system
> those have a reference in the 'real' world and that's why they are
> simulations.  But if we simulate a conscious brain the consciousness will
> be 'real' consciousness. So simulating conscious is in a sense impossible;
> we may be able to produce it but we can't simulate it.  Consciousness must
> be consciousness of something, but it need not be anything physical; it
> could just be consciousness of arithmetical truths.  This explains why
> aspects of consciousness are ineffable.  It's because conscious processes
> can prove Goedel's theorem and so know that some truths are unprovable.
> Bruno takes "qualia are ineffable" and "some arithmetical truths are
> unprovable" and postulates "ineffable=unprovable".  This allows him to
> identify specifically what makes some computer program conscious: it's the
> ability to do induction and diagnoalization and prove Goedel's theorems.
>
> My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
> the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
> consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
> physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  That's
> why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
> are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another way,
> I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation simulate
> a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
> that world.
>


Recently the Harvard group of physicists led by Lisa Randell are proposing
that dark matter is like the light/electric matter that we observe, in that
dark matter may contain dark atoms and dark chemistry based on a dark
charge and a dark version of electromagnetic theory including dark photons.
They predict that galactic dark matter may be in the form of a double disk
that in principle can be observed..
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1521

My personal conjecture is that dark charge and dark photons may be the
basis of consciousness.
If so consciousness is dependent on an external world, Dark Matter. Richard


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

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

Human brain artificially created in laboratory

The title of this article is a bit of a reach.
But these lab results regarding self-organizing
may be of interest to this list. Richard


Human brain artificially created in laboratory
Published on Mon, Feb 10, 2014 by livia rusu

Post filled in: Genetics, Mind & Brain


Human embryonic stem cells can be induced into forming a developing brain
tissue. The brain development process represents one of the most specific
processes; during it, neuroepithelium, formed as a flat sheet by the
nervous system, grows on the exterior layer of the embryo, after which it
folds in to create a neural tube giving rise to the brain and the spinal
cord. The process implicates the migration and proliferation of undeveloped
nerve cells from the brain at one end and the spinal cord at the other.

Human embryonic stem cells spontaneously organize into neuroepithelial
tissue containing multiple zones after growing for 70 days in culture. Via
RIKEN.

The discovery made by Yoshiki Sasai, Taisuke KAdoshima and their colleagues
from RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology consisted in treating human
embryonic stem (ES) cells by the use of a system with signaling molecules
inducing the formation of nervous tissue from the outer embryonic layer.
The thesis of their scientific project was that the cells have the capacity
of spontaneously organizing into cerebral cortical tissues - forming at the
front of the developing neural tube.

The previous research of Sasai's team had proven that a new culture
technique could involve growing ES cells in suspension, showing this way
that the cells are capable of self-organizing into complex
three-dimensional structures. The finding served as a methodology
throughout which pieces of cerebral cortex and embryonic eyes from mouse ES
cells were grown. Another more recent study has shown that there is a
complete compatibility with human embryonic stem cells that can also
organize into embryonic eyes that contain retinal tissue and
light-sensitive cells.

The last study of Sasai's team showed that the formation of nervous tissue
from the outer embryonic layer can be induced by treating human ES cells to
grow using the cell culture system with signaling molecules. This was
doubled by the finding that the cells spontaneously organize into
neuroepithelial tissue which folds up immediately after this, to give a
multilayered cortex.

During the thickening of the front end of the neural tube that happens
along with the embryonic development at both ends, waves of cells migrate
outward to mold the layered cerebral cortex as well as other parts of the
brain. What this study correlates along with this scientific fact is that
the reason for which the front end of the neural tube's thickening is the
growth of the glial fiber, spanning the thickness of the tube and guiding
migrating cells more than due to the accumulation of immature cells within
the tube, as the scientific community had previously commonly agreed upon.

Another critical difference highlighted by the scientific research between
the development of the neuronal tube in mice in humans is that in humans
the inner surface of the neural tube and the intermediate neuroepithelial
zone underneath it contain distinct populations of neural progenitors
resembling radial glia. In contrast, the progenitor population in mice and
rats is not present in the developing of the cortex. Kadoshima declared
that 'efficient generation of cortical tissues could provide a valuable
resource of functional neurons and tissues for medical applications',
suggesting that further research should combine this method with
disease-specific human induced pluripotent SE cells, while the reproduction
of complex human disorders is also a possible on the table for further
experiments.

Read more at http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/human-brain-stem-
cells-10022014/#yvrlccr0wdF1c2FO.99

-- 
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 Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since
> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but
> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the
> theory?
>

No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover
contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of
the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock
times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account
for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my
spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving
quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous
argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you
wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed
there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about
the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered
my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative
facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments
that *don't* have direct spatial analogies.

Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to
show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that
there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were
simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't
think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a
metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do
so myself.

>
> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this
> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>

In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that A)
there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are simultaneous
in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects are at rest
relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are simultaneous in
their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can you please
consider the scenario I described in the post at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith
the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the
individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous
in p-time according to your rules?

If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very
idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop
assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for
empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my
point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion.

> And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell
> me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said
> you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those
> assumptions what DO you agree with?
>

You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe in
and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a
discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions
either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very
broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific
assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include
assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though
I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific
ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions?

Jesse

> Why is this could not a WOULD?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example
>> could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and
>> the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
>>
>>
>> What do you mean "agree with"? I don't even agree there is any such thing
>> as an objective frame-independent truth about simultaneity, I think block
>> time is quite satisfactory. And if there was an objective simultaneity,
>> which you would call simultaneity in p-time, I would see no reason to think
>> it should obey the postulates you suggest, like the postulate that for two
>> clocks at rest relative to one another, simultaneous readings in their rest
>> frame should automatically be simultaneous in p-time.
>>
>> Are you just asking me to consider the hypothetical that *if* there was
>> such a thing a

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 11 Feb 2014, at 00:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 10 February 2014 22:30, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I can't know that either. If you are conscious, you might well
become a
zombie after the substitution, if comp is false for example. I
cannot

know
for sure that comp is true. I can know it in the Theatetus' way,
but this
means only that I believe in comp, and that God knows that it is
true.

But you can know that a particular type of substitution that
preserves

the 3p functional organisation of my brain will also preserve its
consciousness (if it had it to begin with), otherwise we could make
partial zombies, which are absurd. This is an important result. It
is

a proof of comp.

I might still die in the process. The other can be an "impostor"
instead of

a zombie.
Partial zombie does not make sense, but partial impostor might make
sense.

(I must think more about that).

We cannot prove comp, in the same sense that we cannot prove that
we survive

any instant in life. It is "trivial", but that plays some role.

The argument of partial zombie makes non-comp non-plausible, but it
cannot
be said to prove that comp is true. It is easy to build artificial
(ad hoc)
non comp theories to refute the "provability" of comp. Some people
agree
that they will survive if you replace their brain neuron by neuron,
but that
they would die if you copy them and destroy them, and with non
comp, this
might be possible. This does not make sense, IF we assume comp at
the start.

I don't agree. I think it *can* be proved that replacing the brain
neuron by neuron will preserve consciousness with the only assumption
being that the observable behaviour of the neuron is preserved. This
holds whatever theory of consciousness you have; for example, it holds
even if you believe that the brain is animated by God.

So you say that Behavioral mechanism entails computationalism?
I will resist asking in you in which theory.
That result would also prove the logical impossibility of zombie.
My feeling is that you might use comp somehow.

But it is easy to find a counter-example. Take the theory according to
which the brain is animated by God, as you suggest, and God decides to
stop consciousness when 88% of the brain get digital. The person is
transformed in one nanosecond from full consciousness to full
zombihood when that 88% treshold is passed.

Think about what it would mean if, say, the neural pathways
responsible for pain were replaced but the replacement parts were
zombified, dead or impostors. We can imagine that God, who is
omnipotent, creates these parts. If you were subjected to a painful
stimulus you would also honestly believe that you felt the pain, you
would experience anxiety associated with pain, you would yell out and
try to withdraw from the source of the pain, and so on. However, you
would not actually feel any pain!

My point is that this is more easy to conceive for an epiphenomenalist
than for a phenomenalist.

If my 3p-behavioral attempt to withdraw from the source of the pain is
not caused, or at least rationally related to the unpleasant feeling I
am experiencing, am I not already close to a zombie?

If you follow the AUDA "super-thread" (modal logic, self-reference/
diagonalization, ...), my question to you should be
"are the logic of "[°]p = []p & p epiphenomenal on the logic of []p?".
May be I should as you if the truth or falsity that "the machines 678
stops on input 200796" is epiphenomenal on the truth Robinson Arithmetic">. Is G itself epiphenomenal?

It seems to me that the UDA would support that the entire couplings
consciousness/physical-realities is an epiphenomena of arithmetic.

Like "free" in free-will, "epi" does not seem to add something clear.
usually it is sustain by dualist who grasp that interactionist dualism
is inconsistent. But arithmetic can explains the truth of many
statements on the machine that the machine sometimes "know" (by other
and diverse means than proof) and the logic (+UDA/comp) suggests they
describe phenomena, with primitive materiality being a delusion (no
ontologically primitive time, space, energy, particles, waves, fields,
etc.).

It's interesting that you think quantum suicide effects are an
example

of downward causation. It would, in fact, look like magic to a
scientist who observed it. The problem is, there aren't any
scientists

who have observed it and reported it.

Some believe that the origin of life is so improbable, that it
comes from

some "quantum suicide", or analog post-selection effect.

So it remains true that there is
no downward causation in science.

You mean "in reality"? Which reality? Even arithmetic is full of
downward
causation, like "Deep blue lost the game because it never studied
Nimzovitch

entries".

At some level, there is no downward causation (it is just addition
and
multiplication, or just particles and force), but it is false that

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas



On 11 Feb 2014, at 01:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against  
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.



I think I understand it.  Asking the question "which will you be"  
in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.


But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The  
question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1-your  
future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.


Sure it is.  What does "your first person expectation" refer to.


It refers to the two possible consistent extensions {W, M}. With W  
(resp. M) describes the experience of pushing a button in Helsinki,  
opening a reconstitution box door in W, (resp. M), and noting W,  
(resp. M), in the personal diary.






Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be?
Or does it ask what is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?


It asks to the H-guy, "what do expect to live".





To see in ambiguity here consists in being ambiguous about "you".  
But I have explicitely introduced the 1p/3p distinction to make  
this non ambiguous. Comp says that in the 3p view you will be at  
both place, and that in the 1-view, you will (with probability 1)  
feel to be at only one place.


I could equally say you will feel to be both places.


By changing the meaning of the word. "you will feel to be in both  
places" is correct in the 3-1p, but incorrect in the 1p of the  
experiencer. if not he will say "Ah! Extraordinary, I can write (still  
in Helsinki): "I will feel to be both places!". then he pushes on the  
button, and both write "Shit, I was wrong, I feel to be in only one  
place, and I guess that the question was about that place". Then I get  
the correct meaning, and we, I mean John Clark, can move on step 4.





Either "you" is ambiguous and refers to either the M-man or the W- 
man, but we don't know which.  Or "you" refers to anyone who was the  
H-man, i.e. both the M-man and the W-man.


There is no ambiguity at all. Before the duplication, there is a 1-you  
= 3-you in Helsinki, after the duplication, there are two 1-you, and  
two 3-you, from the 3p. And only one 1-you and one 3p-you (the  
doppelganger) from both 1p-views. The question is which one you expect  
to be, and with what chance.


The experience can be iterated, and it is simple to show that it is  
equivalent to a Bernouilli distribution, with a normal limit.







There is no ambiguity at all. Only uncertainty or indeterminacy.  
That is the point.





One can quite reasonably say that neither the M-man or the W-man  
is the H-man, the H-man has been destroyed.


The original brain is also destroyed, and if the H-man died here,  
the guy who accepted an artificial brain dies too, and comp is false.


But that's the confusing point.  So what if they guy receiving the  
artificial brain dies, he might still say yes to the doctor since  
the alternative is to certainly die in some other way. Why should he  
not care about someone who is not biological continuous with him but  
has the same memories, personality, etc.?


Why not. But that is no more the comp hypothesis. It is the impostor  
theory. It entails too the reversal, but with a complex rephrasing at  
each line, and I guess it predicts, like the machine, that we are  
truly dying at each instant. To stop smoking appears here as a true  
compassionate act for the poor guy who inherit your body in some  
instants.











This is exactly the position taken by a professor of philosophy I  
happen to know.


He should publish.



This makes the probability questions trivial: What is the  
probability the M-man sees Moscow?  It's 1.


But the probability is never asked to the M-man. It is always asked  
to the H-man. Of course, if he dies, then the probability is 0. But  
then comp is false, and this shows that comp implies the  
indeterminacy.





The difference between John and me is that I accepted the thought  
experiment as a model of Everett's wave function splitting in  
order to see where it would lead.


If the Everett indeterminacy can be explained by the comp  
indeterminacy, then how could the comp indeterminacy not make sense?

You lost me, here.


Even if it doesn't make sense it can illustrate how to think about  
indeterminacy due to worlds splitting.


If it can illustrate something, it means that it makes sense.




If the transport booth were set to send its occupant to either  
Moscow or Washington according to spin measurement then in the  
Everett model the |M>+|W> is a superposition which decoherence  
quickly turns into a mixture.


And the comp-indeterminacy can be used, in some form, to explain how  
this happens without any collapse, but the relative realities (me in  
M) and (me in W) coexists.


There is nothing ambiguous, and if someone doub

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas



On 11 Feb 2014, at 02:35, LizR wrote:


On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb  wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against  
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.



I think I understand it.  Asking the question "which will you be"  
in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.


But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The  
question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1-your  
future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.
Sure it is.  What does "your first person expectation" refer to.   
Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be?  Or does it ask what  
is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?


Consider a quantum measurement instead. Do we have an expectation of  
1p experience when we check if a photon's been reflected or  
transmitted? We assign a probability to each outcome, surely? Why is  
Bruno's duplicator different?


(We seem to have been around in a loop on this about 100 times...)



With John Clark.

With Brent that is new. We can hope for a more genuine attempt to find  
a flaw, and less "pee pee" type of arguments.


But sadly, Brent seems to just reintroduce the 1p-3p confusion, and  
that's is about the same strategy than Clark.
That seems to me like an inability to just read and use a definition  
provided.


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.

What are numbers? What is math?

All,

In a computational reality everything consists of information in the 
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it 
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce real 
universe results.

All this information is ultimately quantized into a basic unit I call an 
R-bit. Thus all of reality is constructed of different arrangements of 
R-bits.

Now the basic insight is that R-bits are actually just numbers, let's call 
them R-numbers to distinguish from the H-numbers of human mathematics which 
are quite different.

This means that the actual numbers of reality are actually the real 
elemental constituents OF reality. Numbers make up reality, and everything 
in reality is constructed only of these R-numbers. R-numbers = R-bits.

This neatly addresses the problem of how there can be abstract concepts 
such as number that describe but aren't an actual part of reality. In this 
view there can't be, since the actual numbers of reality are the actual 
constituents of everything in reality.

As Pythagoros claimed, "all is number", in the realest sense possible.


Now what do these R-numbers look like?

1. Every R-number is exactly the same as every other R-number. They are 
fungible or interchangeable. They do not exist in any sequences such as 1, 
2, 3 ... They don't have ordinal or cardinal 'tags' attached to distinguish 
them. There are not different numbers, or different kinds of number. All 
numbers are exactly the same. 

What human H-math calls ordinal or cardinal characteristics of number are 
not intrinsic to R-numbers themselves, but are relationships between 
R-number groups and sets. These concepts are part of R-math, not 
characteristics of R-numbers.

2. R-numbers are finite. The universe contains only some finite number of 
basic R-bits, and since R-bits are themselves numbers, the number of 
numbers in the computational universe is finite. There are no R-number 
infinities.

3. The only R-numbers that exist correspond to what human H-math would try 
to think of as the non-zero positive integers up to the finite limit of 
R-bits in existence. There is no R-number 0, no negative R-numbers, no 
fractional or irrational R-numbers. These are examples of how human H-math 
generalizes and tries to extend the basic relational concepts of R-math to 
H-numbers. It is by making these kind of extensions and generalizations 
that H-math diverges from R-math and thus has real problems in accurately 
describing reality.


What does R-math look like?

1. R-math is the actual computations that compute actual reality that 
compute the real empirical objective state of the information universe. 
H-math, while originally modeled on R-math has greatly expanded beyond that 
to enormous complexities which though they sometimes can accurately 
describe aspects of reality, do NOT actually COMPUTE it. R-math is what 
actually actively COMPUTES reality, and only what is necessary to do that.

2. R-math is probably a rather small set of logico-mathematical rules, just 
what is necessary to actually compute reality at the elemental level. It 
will include active routines such as those that compute the conservation of 
the small set of particle properties that make up all elemental particles, 
and the rules that govern the binding of particle properties in atomic and 
molecular matter.

3. Thus R-math consists of the logical operators of the active routines 
that actively compute reality, rather than the static equations and 
principles of H-math.


So the take away is that :

1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And 
that information consists only of different arrangements of elemental 
R-bits. And these elemental R-bits are the actual numbers on the basis of 
which R-math continually computes the current state of the universe.

2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers.

3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and 
relationships between these numbers.

4. These are continually being recomputed by all the interactive programs 
(all just aspects of a single universal program) that make up all the 
processes in the universe.

5. These processes follow fundamental logico-mathematical rules which are 
part of what I call the extended fine tuning (the set of  every 
non-reducible aspect of reality including the rules of logic it follows). 
These are analogous to the basic machine operations of silicon computers. 

6. The programs of reality are complex sequences of these elemental 
operations acting on R-numbers which are just R-bits. In general these 
sequences incorporate standard routines such as the particle property 
conservation routine.


The aggregate result is the universe we exist within which consists 
entirely of different types of information, a fact  which can be verified 
by direct objective observation.

Our minds each internally simulate this information universe as the

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

But I just gave you an empirical method to determine which separate 
observer clock times coincide with the same p-time, and I gave nearly a 
half dozen examples of actually doing that.

And YOU were the one that suggested you assume some of my assumptions and 
tell me whether my other statements were consistent or not.

Also I don't see any "assumptions A and B above or whether they should also 
include C". I see observers A, B, C but I don't see what assumptions you 
label with those letters...

Edgar



On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
> theory?
>
>
> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover 
> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of 
> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock 
> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account 
> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my 
> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving 
> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous 
> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you 
> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed 
> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about 
> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered 
> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative 
> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments 
> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. 
>
> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to 
> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that 
> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were 
> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't 
> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a 
> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do 
> so myself.
>
>  
>
>
> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>
>
> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that 
> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are 
> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects 
> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are 
> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can 
> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the 
> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous 
> in p-time according to your rules?
>
> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very 
> idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop 
> assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for 
> empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my 
> point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion.
>
>
>
> And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell 
> me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said 
> you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those 
> assumptions what DO you agree with?
>
>
> You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe 
> in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a 
> discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions 
> either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very 
> broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific 
> assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include 
> assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though 
> I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific 
> ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions?
>
> Jesse
>
>  
>
> Why is this could not a WOULD?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your ex

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal



On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:


On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl  wrote:
Hi Liz:

I am not sure I understand your comment.
As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system  
that forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life  
approaches it accelerate.
There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating  
influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an  
"unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would  
be external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have  
permeable boundaries.]
 In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and  
thus unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully  
effective absent an "unnatural" earlier one.


I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are,  
if only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity,  
probably even more so than the next species since we have occupied  
almost every niche on the planet apart from deep sea smokers.


I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and  
unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at  
justifying ourselves.



It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder  
by the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction  
to avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can  
condemm the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that  
they too obey the physical laws.


"naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature  
plays a role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's  
God will".

I think this has a name: fatalism.

Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a  
theological error.


Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable  
"truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a cul- 
de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.)


We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial  
control, and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.






I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some  
members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years,  
and I don't particularly want the same for our children.


OK.

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 Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
> coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
> equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin
> B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it
> does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own
> frames of A and B.
>

You mean even if twins A and B are in relative notion you think "comparing
both equations of the two coordinate systems ... does allow a 1:1
relationship between the comoving clock times in their own frame of A and
B"? If so, I have no idea what you mean. Say twin B and twin A start moving
away from each other with a relative speed of 0.6c at birth, so in each
one's rest frame the other one's clock is running slow by a factor of 0.8.
Then in twin A's inertial rest frame, the event of A turning 50 is
simultaneous with twin B turning 40, but in B's inertial rest frame, the
event of B turning 40 is simultaneous with A turning 32. So what is the
"1:1 relationship" here, and what event on A's worldline does it pair with
the event of B turning 40?

Jesse



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first
> thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present
> moment background to all relativistic relationships.
>
>
> You mean the post at https://groups.google.com/
> d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ ? But I didn't ignore it
> at all, I responded to it at https://groups.google.com/
> d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJ by pointing out some
> crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the entire argument after
> that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic calculations" do not
> support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between clock times, since
> different frames give *different* relationships between clock times and
> clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. Of course I
> realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 relationship, but you
> seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves provided one, which just
> isn't true.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT
> have purely spatial analogues.
>
>
> I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was
> that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time
> using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just
> assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue.
>
> If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince
> others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely
> talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't
> bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed
> trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite
> relevant to that.
>
> So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects
> of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times,
> relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in
> the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they?
>
> Jesse
>
>
>
>
> Clock time does, at least in your weak sense. I did explain that at
> length more than once...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that
> would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the
> question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that
> 100%. It's just not p-time...
>
>
> But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an
> *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start?
> If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some
> broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox
> scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't
> have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of
> spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime"
> but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the
> latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have
> exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like
> the fact that the tapes can cross at the "same point in space" but have
> elapsed different tape-measure distances since their previous crossing).
>
> Jesse
>
>
>
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 201

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room



On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:07, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2014 2:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:09, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/9/2014 1:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 08 Feb 2014, at 22:27, meekerdb wrote:


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.


I begin to suspect that this way of talking is a confusion  
between provability (G) and truth (G*).


And that remark makes me think you are confusing mathematical  
necessity with nomological necessity.


"mathematical necessity" is quite vague, but I can accept it is  
approximated by G*. It is of course theory-related, and assume  
classical mathematical theories.


"nomological necessity" will be given by Z1* (or S4Grz1, or X1*).

At the start we are agnostic about Nature, primitve matter, and  
thus nomological necessity. Then it is explained by the   
way we recover nature from the FPI on UD* or arithmetic.


Why aren't we agnostic about arithmetic?


That is a mystery. That is part of what machines and numbers will  
never explain.






Where's John Mikes?









So you might be right, but only in God's eye. Like the lawyer  
might be right: the murderer just obeyed to the laws of physics  
or arithmetic.


But this does not mean that free-will or responsibility, and a  
role for consciousness or conscience, do not exist, as we don't  
live at the G* level.


Sure.  And we don't live at the elementary particle level either,  
so we talk about tables and chairs and people, evenif  
we think they're made of quarks, electrons, and photons.


The lawyer defense will not work, because the jury can decide for  
any punishment, and invoke that, them too, are only following the  
laws of physics or arithmetic, and "following laws" become an  
empty mantra, despite being true at some level.


G* proves epiphenomenalism ([]p & p is equivalent with []p for  
all arithmetical p), but G, which represents the actual machine,  
cannot prove that equivalence, and becomes inconsistent if it  
assumes it.


But can we prove the equivalence in the sense that physics proves  
that atoms exist, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.


Physics provides only evidences and proves nothing about reality.


Neither does logic or mathematics.


Of course.





They only prove that some theorems follow from some assumed axioms.


Yes.

Doubly so for comp, as it explains why it needs a quasi explicit act  
of faith to be applied in "reality" (to say "yes" to the doctor, to  
choose the subst-level, etc.).  This is reflected in the Solovay  
splitting G/G*, or x/x* with x intensional or modal variants of G.


Bruno


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



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

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was 
looking for them in the link you gave.

I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even gave 
an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a 
gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's.

Edgar



On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
> theory?
>
>
> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover 
> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of 
> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock 
> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account 
> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my 
> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving 
> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous 
> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you 
> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed 
> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about 
> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered 
> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative 
> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments 
> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. 
>
> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to 
> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that 
> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were 
> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't 
> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a 
> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do 
> so myself.
>
>  
>
>
> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>
>
> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that 
> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are 
> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects 
> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are 
> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can 
> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the 
> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous 
> in p-time according to your rules?
>
> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very 
> idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop 
> assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for 
> empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my 
> point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion.
>
>
>
> And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell 
> me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said 
> you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those 
> assumptions what DO you agree with?
>
>
> You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe 
> in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a 
> discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions 
> either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very 
> broad question, could you narrow it down by mentioning the specific 
> assumptions I should adopt (for example, whether they would only include 
> assumptions A and B above or whether they should also include C even though 
> I think this leads to conclusions that contradict presentism), and specific 
> ideas you want to know if I agree or disagree with given these assumptions?
>
> Jesse
>
>  
>
> Why is this could not a WOULD?
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example 
> could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and 
> the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
>
>
> What do you mean "agree with"? I don't even agree

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas



On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, LizR wrote:


On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb  wrote:
On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb  wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against  
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.



I think I understand it.  Asking the question "which will you be"  
in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.


But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The  
question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1-your  
future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.
Sure it is.  What does "your first person expectation" refer to.   
Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be?  Or does it ask what  
is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?


Consider a quantum measurement instead. Do we have an expectation  
of 1p experience when we check if a photon's been reflected or  
transmitted? We assign a probability to each outcome, surely? Why  
is Bruno's duplicator different?
There are two different people you can ask, "How did the experiment  
come out."


Well, likewise with the quantum version. In fact there are two  
versions of you who can ask them (i.e. if you accept the MWI, what's  
the problem?)

(We seem to have been around in a loop on this about 100 times...)


I agree and I'm willing to take it as hypothetical that it doesn't  
make a difference, at least till I understand the whole argument.   
But I suspect that it could.  It might require that in step a whole  
world be created and that I think could make a difference.


The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum  
duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and living  
from day to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of)  
continuity.


In other words, all types of existence appear to be equally  
"Heraclitean" and I'm not sure why Bruno's thought experiment should  
be treated any differently to the nonduplicated and the quantum- 
duplicated versions. He's just using it to point out the somewhat  
disjointed nature of normal existence by putting it into a  
hypothetical situation where we can more easily think about the  
consequences.


It's all very well having reservations that X might make a  
difference, but as Bruno keeps saying, show him where he's gone  
wrong so he can stop worrying about comp and spend his time keeping  
bees instead!


Exactly :)

Bruno




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



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

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-11 Thread ghibbsa


On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>   Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation of 
> consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm 
> pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the 
> johnkclak 
> program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.   
>

 >>> Only by a confusion 1p and 3p, 

>>>
>> >> OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun indented).  
>>> Explain exactly why my statement above is confused and or wrong and you 
>>> will have won this year old debate. 
>>>
>>
>> > UDA is the explanation of this. 
>>
>
> You're going to have to more than just type 3 letters to convince me!
>
> > You agreed also that consciousness is not localized 
>>
>
> Yes I agree, in fact it was me not you who first mentioned it.
>
> > but you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
>>
>
> Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious being 
> but can't emulate a desk?  If my consciousness is caused by a computer 
> processing information then the world that consciousness interacts with is 
> also cause by information. And information like consciousness has no unique 
> position.  
>
> > If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by many 
>> other computations (in a physical universe or in arithmetic) you need to 
>> explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of local matter
>>
>
> Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the John 
> Clark subprogram; the desk could appear however the master programer (or 
> evolution) wished it to appear, he could even ignore the laws of physics if 
> he wished and use Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics.  
>
> >> it's been over a year and to be honest I don't even remember what the 
>>> first 2 steps were, they may have been just as silly as step 3.
>>>
>>
>> > This shows the complete non seriousness of your attitude.
>>
>
>  I promise to give your ideas all the seriousness they deserve.
>
> > it means that you have judged from rumors and not personal study. 
>>
>
> You and I have never met so the only thing I have to judge you by is by 
> studying the ASCII sequence you have produced.  And I have never heard any 
> rumors about you but now you've got me curious, what are they? 
>
> > You are an obscurantist religious bigot 
>>
>
> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard 
> that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>
> > and parrot
>>
>
> Stop using the exact same ridiculous insult and I'll stop using the exact 
> same rubber stamp reply.   
>
>  John K Clark
>
probably the kiss of death since I'm a known lunatic , but I vouch for John 
here but would probably say comp itself as stated in 
Chuch/say-yes-to-doctor thesis, already drops the consciousness issue 
betweee n the cracks. Nothing wrong with the UDA after that, but 
consciousness wasn't being 'carried' to begin with.

-- 
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 Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was
> looking for them in the link you gave.
>
> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even
> gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a
> gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's.
>


Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you
saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with
respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual
rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the
post at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou
said:

'Yes is the answer to your question "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?"'

Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there?


Jesse


>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
>> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
>> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since
>> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but
>> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the
>> theory?
>>
>>
>> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover
>> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of
>> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock
>> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account
>> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my
>> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving
>> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous
>> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you
>> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed
>> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about
>> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered
>> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative
>> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments
>> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies.
>>
>> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to
>> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that
>> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were
>> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't
>> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a
>> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do
>> so myself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this
>> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>>
>>
>> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that
>> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are
>> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects
>> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are
>> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can
>> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
>> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the
>> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous
>> in p-time according to your rules?
>>
>> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very
>> idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop
>> assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for
>> empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my
>> point that this can only be a purely "metaphysical" notion.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you say if by agree we just mean taking my assumptions you COULD tell
>> me if you agreed or not. But in fact you have never to my recollection said
>> you agreed with anything even given those assumptions. So given those
>> assumptions what DO you agree with?
>>
>>
>> You've never asked me to adopt some assumptions I don't actually believe
>> in and tell me what they would imply, that isn't a common thing to do in a
>> discussion like this (you haven't done it with block time assumptions
>> either). And "given those assumptions what DO you agree with" is a very
>> broad question, co

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/10/2014 3:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The laws of physics or arithmetic makes it possible for you to  
express your
> point, but the content of your post is explained by your  
awareness of the
> questions, your taste for the field, your pleasure to argue  
rationally, your
> personality, etc. It is not explained by QM, as this explains all  
posts on
> all lists in all forums in an empty way. Your answer can be  
supported by the
> laws, but the laws does not explain your answer at the level  
where your

> answer can make sense to me.

That's a funny answer from a guy who proposed to explain everything  
as traces in all possible computations.

Just to sum up, as you mention "everything"

With comp+Theaetetus:

God is explained by the Arithmetical Truth
The Intelligible is explained by Number-Provability (Gödel's beweisbar)
The Soul is explained by the conjunction of Number-Provability and Truth
Intelligible Matter is explained by a probability calculus (called  
"bastard calculus by Plato and Plotinus) on the traces of all  
computations.
Sensible matter is explained by a intensional variant of Intelligible  
matter, again its conjunction with Truth.

Brent
"That which can explain anything fails to explain at all."

With physicalism, QM explains everything. At some level at least.

Would you say it fails?

I say that it fails only by its ambiguity on the observer, it uses  
comp (in Everett) but fail to justify its measure. And then it fails  
to address God, Intelligible, Soul and, well, the whole theological  
matter, which concerns life, but also possible others lives, other  
reality realms, and the other billions of very difficult question  
coming from the arithmetical reality (or its intensional variants).

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: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/11/2014 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:15, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/10/2014 3:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

The laws of physics or arithmetic makes it possible for you to express your
>point, but the content of your post is explained by your awareness of the
>questions, your taste for the field, your pleasure to argue rationally, your
>personality, etc. It is not explained by QM, as this explains all posts on
>all lists in all forums in an empty way. Your answer can be supported by the
>laws, but the laws does not explain your answer at the level where your
>answer can make sense to me.

That's a funny answer from a guy who proposed to explain everything as traces in all 
possible computations.

Just to sum up, as you mention "everything"

With comp+Theaetetus:

God is explained by the Arithmetical Truth
The Intelligible is explained by Number-Provability (Gödel's beweisbar)
The Soul is explained by the conjunction of Number-Provability and Truth
Intelligible Matter is explained by a probability calculus (called "bastard calculus by 
Plato and Plotinus) on the traces of all computations.
Sensible matter is explained by a intensional variant of Intelligible matter, again its 
conjunction with Truth.

Brent
"That which can explain anything fails to explain at all."

With physicalism, QM explains everything. At some level at least.

First, that's not true.  QM is apparently inconsistent with our best theory of gravity.  
Second, it has been very successful at explaining what is observed.  That doesn't mean it 
can explain ghosts, leprechauns, gods and other things *not* observed.  There's a 
difference between being able to explain anything and explaining everything.

Brent

Would you say it fails?

I say that it fails only by its ambiguity on the observer, it uses comp (in Everett) but 
fail to justify its measure. And then it fails to address God, Intelligible, Soul and, 
well, the whole theological matter, which concerns life, but also possible others lives, 
other reality realms, and the other billions of very difficult question coming from the 
arithmetical reality (or its intensional variants).

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.

--
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, you wanted me to address your examples so I will, although I thought
it better to hold off on this until we settled the question of whether the
basic assumption you seem to be making in case #1 leads to contradictions.
Given your recent post at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/qurIcfr_qT4J I
am not even sure if I am understanding the rule you use to derive your
conclusions about case #1 correctly, though--I really think we should
settle that before getting into an involved discussion of more complicated
cases involving general relativity like your case #2 and case #3.

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Let me try to clarify my response to your A, B, C past p-time simultaneity
> example, because I think I misstated it in my previous post.
>
> Assume three observers A, B, C, with three clock times t, t' and t''. It
> is important to specify these are the clock time readings of their OWN
> clocks in their OWN frames.
>

Do you understand that "clock time readings" for an observer are what
physicists mean by the "proper time" of that observer, and that these
readings are completely frame-independent, so it doesn't even matter what
coordinate times are assigned to these clock readings in "their own" frame?

Also, do you understand that any observer is free to use any coordinate
system they like in relativity, and that while it is a matter of convention
that the inertial rest frame of an inertial observer in flat spacetime is
often labeled "their own" frame, there is no such convention for
accelerating observers or observers in gravitational fields (which in
relativity requires the curved spacetime of general relativity)?

>
>
> Case 1: Assume they are all initially in the same inertial frame with
> synchronized clocks. In this same inertial frame they are in the same
> current moment of p-time at every synchronized clock time tick of their
> clocks.
>

See my comment at the top about my confusion resulting from your comment at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/qurIcfr_qT4J --
in this case, are you assuming a GENERAL RULE that says that in flat SR
spacetime with no gravity, when you have some observers "initially in the
same inertial frame" with clocks that are synchronized RELATIVE TO THAT
FRAME (as opposed to assuming from the start that they are 'synchronized'
in p-time without assuming this means the clocks are synchronized in their
inertial rest frame), that this ALWAYS IMPLIES that the clocks are
synchronized in p-time as well? If you aren't assuming such a general rule
I don't really understand the basis for your conclusions above, while if
you are assuming such a general rule, then I think my example with two
pairs of observers shows that this rule leads to a contradiction.

>
>
> Case 2: Assume A is in a gravity well that makes it's clock run at 1/2 the
> rate of B's clock.
>

Not a well-defined assumption. When gravity is involved, relativity says we
must describe this in terms of the curved spacetime of GR. But in GR there
are only two meaningful ways to compare the rates of clocks at different
points in space:

1. Use a particular spacetime coordinate system with a particular
definition of simultaneity, and then you can talk about the rate of one
clock ticking relative to the other *in that particular coordinate system*.
However, different coordinate systems will disagree on the rate of ticking
of one clock relative to the other, and all smooth coordinate systems are
equally valid in general relativity.

2. Calculate the rate that one observer will *see* the other clock ticking
in a purely visual sense--for example, if my clock elapses 2 seconds
between moments when I receive light signals from successive one-second
ticks of the other clock, I see it ticking half as slow as my own. The
relationship between purely visual rates need not be symmetrical, though:
If I see a distant clock ticking at half the rate of my own at a particular
point on its worldline, at that point on its worldline it is *not*
necessarily seeing my clock ticking twice as fast as its own.

Which of these do you mean, or do you think there is some third alternative
that can be defined in an empirical way?

>
> Case 3: Now C is in relative motion to B (and therefore to A as well).
>

We are still assuming that A and B are as described in case 2, correct? But
then we must still be in the curved spacetime of general relativity, and in
general relativity "relative motion" of distant observers has no
well-defined coordinate-independent meaning. In SR this does have meaning,
because you can "parallel transport" a velocity vector at one location in
spacetime A to a different location B to compare it with a velocity vector
at another point in spacetime B. But in general relativity, if you try to
do parallel transport of a velocity vector from A to B, the final vector at
B will be different depending on what path it was transported along. Se

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



On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:27, LizR wrote:


On 10 February 2014 01:49, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
So with "->" and "f" we can define all connectors.

Is there a connector (like "&", "V", "->", ...) such that all  
connectors can be defined from it?


You just said that ... oh do you mean without using 'f' ?

This is a facultative exercise. Only for possible raining sundays.  
We will not use this in the sequel.


OK. I don't know. It doesn't seem intuitively obvious, but if you  
can use ~ then we have already used & and (I think) V that way... I  
think.
Well, even though I did it, the result still looks rather strange  
to me!


Cantor said "I see but don't believe it". it is normal.  von Neuman  
said "nobody understand math", mathematicians get only used to it.


I seem to be in good company. They laughed at Archimedes. The  
laughed at Einstein. The laughed at Bozo the clown...


Understanding is good.
Understanding and memorizing, even with the help of a well  
presented diary, is better, as it saves the future possible works.


I agree.  I'm sure I started one, too, but I can't find it now. (So  
sometimes I have to treat you as my diary...)


Well, I hope you will not lost me too!

Likewise.


Gosh!

Well, I lost myself myself, if I can say, and that as many times as  
they are numbers ...







Memorizing is good, but only if you manage to keep the memory  
accessible. 'course.


Yes


OK.
I hope you will not forget that.





Some would disagree...

I guess that they met the bad math teacher who kicks the student  
before math kick them, making it impossible for them to understand  
the real kicking back of math, and develop the appreciation.


That's bad for the slow student, which sometimes are slow because  
they are more demanding in understanding, and it is good for the  
quick student, who can learn to solve problem by no more than  
pattern matching, without any understanding. Consumerist societies  
favour quick students, which aggravate the situation for slow  
students, and long term project.


As a math teacher, I try to help the two kinds of student, but it is  
not always easy, and to be honest, I favor the slow one.


For me, a valid reasoning with a false answer is better than a false  
reasoning with a correct answer. I know that in real life, the  
contrary is true.


Wise words.

Some others seems interested in the thread too, but might be less  
courageous for participating, as you need some courage to do a sort  
of persistent "exam" online. I can understand. But I know that if I  
explain everything ex-cathedra, everyone  will be lost somewhere,  
and nobody will know where. I do hope some others will  participate  
to make things lighter on your shoulders.


It takes a bit of courage for me, certainly. Especially since it's  
all stuff that seems to melt away, even though I understood it at  
the time. But then I *can* switch back and understand it again. But  
I find popularised physics and biology easier to follow than  
popularised logic, even though we have most of Raymond Smullyan's  
books.


Physics, biology, natural science are aristotelian, and use the  
natural intuitive (1p) conception of reality. Logicians and Classical  
logicians, well, first they insist not doing physics, nor philosophy,  
but mathematics, and this (most of the time unconsciously) makes them,  
with comp, exploring the highly counter-intuitive mindscape of the  
universal machine.
Logicians like the counter-intuitive surprises, and they delight in  
invalidating prejudices.


Smullyan's brother, if I remember well, told to the little Raymond  
--'tonight, I will surprise you, I promise!'
Little Raymond waited all the night, but got nothing, so at morning he  
complained to his brother "I thought you would surprise me!".
The brother replied: "If you thought that, are you not surprised by  
the fact that nothing happened". "You got me!", Smullyan said, and he  
was very pleased, and surprised.


Bruno




Thank god he is still alive! I had to go and check - last time I  
checked on someone, he'd died. It was John Galbraith Graham, my hero  
of the crossword world. I never knew him  yet I did in a way,  
just like Mr Smullyan and Ursula le Guin.



--
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

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

2014-02-11 Thread ghibbsa


On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:07:07 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> All,
>
> In a computational reality everything consists of information in the 
> computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it 
> its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce real 
> universe results.
>
> All this information is ultimately quantized into a basic unit I call an 
> R-bit. Thus all of reality is constructed of different arrangements of 
> R-bits.
>
> Now the basic insight is that R-bits are actually just numbers, let's call 
> them R-numbers to distinguish from the H-numbers of human mathematics which 
> are quite different.
>
> This means that the actual numbers of reality are actually the real 
> elemental constituents OF reality. Numbers make up reality, and everything 
> in reality is constructed only of these R-numbers. R-numbers = R-bits.
>
> This neatly addresses the problem of how there can be abstract concepts 
> such as number that describe but aren't an actual part of reality. In this 
> view there can't be, since the actual numbers of reality are the actual 
> constituents of everything in reality.
>
> As Pythagoros claimed, "all is number", in the realest sense possible.
>
>
> Now what do these R-numbers look like?
>
> 1. Every R-number is exactly the same as every other R-number. They are 
> fungible or interchangeable. They do not exist in any sequences such as 1, 
> 2, 3 ... They don't have ordinal or cardinal 'tags' attached to distinguish 
> them. There are not different numbers, or different kinds of number. All 
> numbers are exactly the same. 
>
> What human H-math calls ordinal or cardinal characteristics of number are 
> not intrinsic to R-numbers themselves, but are relationships between 
> R-number groups and sets. These concepts are part of R-math, not 
> characteristics of R-numbers.
>
> 2. R-numbers are finite. The universe contains only some finite number of 
> basic R-bits, and since R-bits are themselves numbers, the number of 
> numbers in the computational universe is finite. There are no R-number 
> infinities.
>
> 3. The only R-numbers that exist correspond to what human H-math would try 
> to think of as the non-zero positive integers up to the finite limit of 
> R-bits in existence. There is no R-number 0, no negative R-numbers, no 
> fractional or irrational R-numbers. These are examples of how human H-math 
> generalizes and tries to extend the basic relational concepts of R-math to 
> H-numbers. It is by making these kind of extensions and generalizations 
> that H-math diverges from R-math and thus has real problems in accurately 
> describing reality.
>
>
> What does R-math look like?
>
> 1. R-math is the actual computations that compute actual reality that 
> compute the real empirical objective state of the information universe. 
> H-math, while originally modeled on R-math has greatly expanded beyond that 
> to enormous complexities which though they sometimes can accurately 
> describe aspects of reality, do NOT actually COMPUTE it. R-math is what 
> actually actively COMPUTES reality, and only what is necessary to do that.
>
> 2. R-math is probably a rather small set of logico-mathematical rules, 
> just what is necessary to actually compute reality at the elemental level. 
> It will include active routines such as those that compute the conservation 
> of the small set of particle properties that make up all elemental 
> particles, and the rules that govern the binding of particle properties in 
> atomic and molecular matter.
>
> 3. Thus R-math consists of the logical operators of the active routines 
> that actively compute reality, rather than the static equations and 
> principles of H-math.
>
>
> So the take away is that :
>
> 1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And 
> that information consists only of different arrangements of elemental 
> R-bits. And these elemental R-bits are the actual numbers on the basis of 
> which R-math continually computes the current state of the universe.
>
> 2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers.
>
> 3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and 
> relationships between these numbers.
>
> 4. These are continually being recomputed by all the interactive programs 
> (all just aspects of a single universal program) that make up all the 
> processes in the universe.
>
> 5. These processes follow fundamental logico-mathematical rules which are 
> part of what I call the extended fine tuning (the set of  every 
> non-reducible aspect of reality including the rules of logic it follows). 
> These are analogous to the basic machine operations of silicon computers. 
>
> 6. The programs of reality are complex sequences of these elemental 
> operations acting on R-numbers which are just R-bits. In general these 
> sequences incorporate standard routines such as the particle property 
> conservation routine.
>

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes 
different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different 
relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background 
independent of any PARTICULAR frame that all frames are true within..

This unrecognized aspect of relativity is the absolutely necessary 
simultaneous p-time reality that all separate relativistic descriptions of 
reality are true within and can be true within.

I know you won't understand this, but still it is true, and it is critical 
to understanding what reality actually is...

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:45:23 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular 
> coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both 
> equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin 
> B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it 
> does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own 
> frames of A and B. 
>
> Thus when we compare A and B's coordinate systems we do find a 1:1 clock 
> time to the same p-time relationship. That's exactly what I did in my 
> examples.
>
> This is one more of several ways that relativity either implies or 
> requires a common p-time background to all relativistic calculations and 
> phenomena.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first 
> thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present 
> moment background to all relativistic relationships.
>
>
> You mean the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/mHoddIqTX7kJ? But 
> I didn't ignore it at all, I responded to it at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/yDwctm892xMJby 
> pointing out some crucial parts early on I disagreed with, on which the 
> entire argument after that seemed to rest. In particular, "relativistic 
> calculations" do not support the idea of a unique 1:1 relationship between 
> clock times, since different frames give *different* relationships between 
> clock times and clock rates, and all frames are considered equally valid. 
> Of course I realize that p-time *postulates* such a unique 1:1 
> relationship, but you seemed to say relativistic calculations themselves 
> provided one, which just isn't true.
>
>
> Sorry, but I disagree on your second point. P-time simultaneity does NOT 
> have purely spatial analogues.
>
>
> I never asserted p-time simultaneity had spatial analogues. My point was 
> that for any argument you made to try to *establish* the need for p-time 
> using quantitative observations about the twin paradox (as opposed to just 
> assuming p-time as a given), I could point to a spatial analogue. 
>
> If you weren't interested in trying to provide a demonstration to convince 
> others that block time is flawed and that p-time is needed, but were merely 
> talking about what would be true *if* p-time existed, then I wouldn't 
> bother bringing up spatial analogues. But it seems to me you are indeed 
> trying to make an argument for it, not just assume it, so they are quite 
> relevant to that.
>
> So, the question remains: do you think there are any quantitative aspects 
> of the twin paradox scenario (involving clock times, coordinate times, 
> relativistic equations, etc.) which DO NOT have direct spatial analogues in 
> the measuring tape scenario? If so what are they?
>
> Jesse
>
>
>  
>
> Clock time does, at least in your weak sense. I did explain that at 
> length more than once...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that 
> would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the 
> question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that 
> 100%. It's just not p-time...
>
>
> But weren't you trying to use the twin paradox scenario to make an 
> *argument* in favor of p-time, rather than just assuming it from the start? 
> If so, then I'm wondering if the argument just involves pointing to some 
> broad conceptual understanding of what happens in the twin paradox 
> scenario, or if you think there are specific numerical facts that don't 
> have any good interpretation under a purely "geometric" understanding of 
> spacetime (like the fact that they can be at the "same point in spacetime" 
> but have elapsed different ages since their previous meeting). If it's the 
> latter, then it's reasonable to point out that these numerical facts have 
> exact analogues in purely geometric facts about the measuring tapes (like 
> the fact that the ta

Re: Block Universes

Jesse,

Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase your 
condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical 
gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A 
and B. I already gave several examples.

In this case both A's and B's clock will always read the same clock times. 
t will always + t'.. Both A and B will agree to this, and whenever t = t' 
they will be in the same p-time present moment. And this will be true 
retrospectively as well.

Couldn't be clearer!

Edgar

 

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was 
> looking for them in the link you gave.
>
> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even 
> gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a 
> gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's.
>
>
>
> Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you 
> saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with 
> respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual 
> rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the 
> post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou 
> said:
>
> 'Yes is the answer to your question "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?"'
>
> Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there?
>
>  
> Jesse
>  
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
> theory?
>
>
> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover 
> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of 
> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock 
> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account 
> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my 
> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving 
> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous 
> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you 
> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed 
> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about 
> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered 
> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative 
> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments 
> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. 
>
> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to 
> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that 
> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were 
> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't 
> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a 
> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do 
> so myself.
>
>  
>
>
> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>
>
> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that 
> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are 
> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects 
> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are 
> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can 
> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the 
> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous 
> in p-time according to your rules?
>
> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very 
> idea of p-time, but it would probably imply that you have to drop 
> assumption C), which I think would leave you without any rule for 
> empirically deciding which events are simultaneous in p-time, supporting my 
> point t

Re: Discovery of quantum vibrations in brain microtubules confirms Hameroff/Penrose consciousness theory basis

2014-02-11 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:35 PM,  wrote:

>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:36:24 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>   Although it doesn't necessarily follow the digital transformation
>> of consciousness is perfectly consistent with the matter in the desk I'm
>> pounding my hand on right now as simply being a subroutine in the 
>> johnkclak
>> program, and the same is true of the matter in my hand.
>>
>
> >>> Only by a confusion 1p and 3p,
>

>>> >> OK now were getting to the heart of the matter (no pun indented).
 Explain exactly why my statement above is confused and or wrong and you
 will have won this year old debate.

>>>
>>> > UDA is the explanation of this.
>>>
>>
>> You're going to have to more than just type 3 letters to convince me!
>>
>> > You agreed also that consciousness is not localized
>>>
>>
>> Yes I agree, in fact it was me not you who first mentioned it.
>>
>> > but you talk like if the object on your desk are localized.
>>>
>>
>> Are you claiming that a computer can emulate a intelligent conscious
>> being but can't emulate a desk?  If my consciousness is caused by a
>> computer processing information then the world that consciousness interacts
>> with is also cause by information. And information like consciousness has
>> no unique position.
>>
>> > If your consciousness is not localized, and perhaps supported by many
>>> other computations (in a physical universe or in arithmetic) you need to
>>> explain why the object of your desk appear to be made of local matter
>>>
>>
>> Because the desk subprogram was written to appear that way to the John
>> Clark subprogram; the desk could appear however the master programer (or
>> evolution) wished it to appear, he could even ignore the laws of physics if
>> he wished and use Aristotelian physics, or road runner cartoon physics.
>>
>> >> it's been over a year and to be honest I don't even remember what the
 first 2 steps were, they may have been just as silly as step 3.

>>>
>>> > This shows the complete non seriousness of your attitude.
>>>
>>
>>  I promise to give your ideas all the seriousness they deserve.
>>
>> > it means that you have judged from rumors and not personal study.
>>>
>>
>> You and I have never met so the only thing I have to judge you by is by
>> studying the ASCII sequence you have produced.  And I have never heard any
>> rumors about you but now you've got me curious, what are they?
>>
>> > You are an obscurantist religious bigot
>>>
>>
>> Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
>> that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
>>
>> > and parrot
>>>
>>
>> Stop using the exact same ridiculous insult and I'll stop using the exact
>> same rubber stamp reply.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
> probably the kiss of death since I'm a known lunatic,
>

Always a good intro.


> but I vouch for John here but would probably say comp itself as stated in
> Chuch/say-yes-to-doctor thesis
>
>
, already drops the consciousness issue betweee n the cracks.
>

Can you be precise here, or are you just trying to be holy funky Moses?


> Nothing wrong with the UDA after that,
>

Perhaps we'll see about that.


> but consciousness wasn't being 'carried' to begin with.
>

So what would you suggest as ontological primitive and/or responsible for
consciousness? Extinction? Feel free to elaborate. John argues materialist
prohibition 'don't ask, don't tell' in the end and is a bigot with a
consistency macho fetish so huge, that he is forced to bullshit and insult,
to cover it up.

Hypothetically hoping you are high, but not wanting whatever you're on ;-)
PGC


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

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

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-11 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg > 
> wrote: 
>
> >> Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in 
> >> different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn 
> >> out to be false tomorrow. 
> > 
> > 
> > The possibility of continuity seems like it is implicit in almost every 
> kind 
> > of experience. A mouse has an expectation of continuity. The idea of 
> > physical laws though is a much more sophisticated intellectual 
> construct. 
>
> Arguably psychological continuity isn't real for either mice or 
> people. If you were destroyed last night and replaced with a copy the 
> today version of you would declare that he was continuous with the 
> yesterday version. I would say that's correct, the two versions are a 
> continuation of the same person, while you would presumably say that 
> it was a delusion. 
>

I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though. 

>
> >> > That the difference in what language we speak 
> >> > could be 'due to brain difference" I would not say follows as a 
> >> > condition 
> >> > which is plainly evident. 
> >> 
> >> I would say it's plainly evident. The alternative is that we think 
> >> with something other than our brain. 
> > 
> > 
> > Another alternative is that the brain is itself is only a brain-shaped 
> > experience which arises from a consensus of many nested ongoing 
> experiences. 
> > It's a lot easier to explain why a storytelling cosmos evolves a brain 
> than 
> > why a mechanical universe evolves a brain that thinks it is a person. 
>
> If it were possible to have a change in mental state without a change 
> in brain state that would be evidence that we don't think with our 
> brain. 
>

Some claim that NDEs are such changes, and that their experiences have 
occurred during periods without brain activity. Certainly there is evidence 
that correlates decreased brain activity with increased perception with 
psilocybin uses, which would suggest at the very least that a one-to-one 
correspondence of mental to neurological activity is an oversimplification. 
I would not deny that we think with our brain, in the sense that the human 
experience of thought corresponds with the appearance of human brain 
activity, but that doesn't mean that our consciousness and experience of 
living is part of our brain or can be located through our brain.

>
> >> > To the contrary, computational models of 
> >> > consciousness would be hard pressed to explain so many differences in 
> >> > language. Why should we all be able to communicate with each other 
> >> > genetically irrespective of geography and culture, but did not begin 
> >> > from a 
> >> > similarly unified linguistic genome? The fact that human languages, 
> even 
> >> > ones which are tightly related etymologically are incomprehensible to 
> >> > non-speakers suggests that in fact, the characteristics of language 
> are 
> >> > very 
> >> > different from biological systems. If language was closely associated 
> >> > with 
> >> > brain differences, then we might expect certain drugs to work only if 
> >> > you 
> >> > spoke a particular language, or that there could be particular foods 
> or 
> >> > drugs which would aid understanding particular languages. If you want 
> to 
> >> > understand Russian better, you might drink a lot of vodka to 
> condition 
> >> > your 
> >> > brain into a more conducive brain difference. 
> >> 
> >> None of this reasoning is plausible. 
> > 
> > 
> > Why not? 
>
> Why should different languages be comprehensible to different 
> cultures?

Why should there be different languages? If neurons use the same language 
to signal each other, why not humans also?

> Different computer languages run on identical hardware and 
> are mutually incomprehensible. 

That's because we are designing the computer languages, not the hardware. 
We want to use the hardware for different purposes, but if the hardware 
itself were designing its own language, why would we expect multiple 
incompatible designs?

> And why should food and drugs have a 
> differential effect depending on native language?
>

Because you are saying that language is identical to brain changes. Food 
and drugs cause brain changes too, so we should expect conflicts. Drinking 
alcohol should have different effects for speakers of different languages, 
and speaking different languages should alter the effects of different 
drugs.

> There are drugs 
> which have the same effect on species as far apart as humans and 
> bacteria. 
>

Which is why I say that it should be the same case for language if it was a 
product of brain change. There should be words with mean the same thing on 
species as far apart as humans and bacteria, or at least as far apart as 
humans on the other side of the continent. 

Craig

>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are sub

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas



On 11 Feb 2014, at 04:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/10/2014 7:15 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 February 2014 15:59, meekerdb  wrote:
On 2/10/2014 5:35 PM, LizR wrote:

On 11 February 2014 13:42, meekerdb  wrote:
On 2/10/2014 1:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 10 Feb 2014, at 06:08, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/9/2014 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Even on his argument, that nobody understand but him, against  
step 3? Then I invite you to attempt to explain it to us.



I think I understand it.  Asking the question "which will you  
be" in the MW experiment is ambiguous because "you" is duplicated.


But that question is John Clark's invention. I never ask it. The  
question asked is about your FIRST PERSON expectation about 1- 
your future. It cannot be ambiguous when we assume comp.
Sure it is.  What does "your first person expectation" refer to.   
Does it ask what will your 1-p experience be?  Or does it ask what  
is your 1-p feeling about where you will be?


Consider a quantum measurement instead. Do we have an expectation  
of 1p experience when we check if a photon's been reflected or  
transmitted? We assign a probability to each outcome, surely? Why  
is Bruno's duplicator different?
There are two different people you can ask, "How did the experiment  
come out."


Well, likewise with the quantum version. In fact there are two  
versions of you who can ask them (i.e. if you accept the MWI,  
what's the problem?)

(We seem to have been around in a loop on this about 100 times...)


I agree and I'm willing to take it as hypothetical that it doesn't  
make a difference, at least till I understand the whole argument.   
But I suspect that it could.  It might require that in step a whole  
world be created and that I think could make a difference.


The point is that if we take the assumptions of comp, then quantum  
duplication, hypothetical matter transmitter duplication, and  
living from day to day ALL involve the same amount of (or lack of)  
continuity.


In other words, all types of existence appear to be equally  
"Heraclitean" and I'm not sure why Bruno's thought experiment  
should be treated any differently to the nonduplicated and the  
quantum-duplicated versions. He's just using it to point out the  
somewhat disjointed nature of normal existence by putting it into a  
hypothetical situation where we can more easily think about the  
consequences.


The claimed consequence is that consciousness can be instantiated by  
a computation which requires no physical events.




In the 3-1 view, your consciousness (1p) should be associated to an  
infinity of states, those equivalent (from your 1p view) in the  
infinity of different computations going through that state, in the  
whole UD*, or in the whole set of sigma_1 consequences of Robinson  
Arithmetic. Consciousness might be "instantiated" *only* by the  
infinities of the relative states in arithmetic.
That would explain the quantum-Everett multiplication, which prevents  
comp from being solipsist, also.



But I think what is shown is that there can be a world including  
conscious beings which does not require physical events in our  
world, i.e. they can be merely arithmetical or Turing machince  
"events".  In other words it is possible to simulate a world with  
conscious beings.


OK, but their consciousness is not simulated, as the consciousness of  
the being is in all arithmetical simulations. The machine you build  
makes only that consciousness manifestable relatively to you.




But that's not so surprising and doesn't imply that physics in this  
world is derivative from arithmetic (but it doesn't imply the  
contrary either).


Er well ... Then there is a flaw in the UDA.







It's all very well having reservations that X might make a  
difference, but as Bruno keeps saying, show him where he's gone  
wrong so he can stop worrying about comp and spend his time keeping  
bees instead!


And I keep saying show me a significant prediction (not  
retrodiction) of comp.


Liz gave a good answer.

Comp is not proposed as an answer, but as a problem, and even a  
sequences of problems. It is illuminating as the problems can be made  
more and more precise and this gives  flashes on a different but still  
rational way to conceive "reality".


What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that on any  
universal system, and comp predicts that this will always give the  
same physics.
If the physical laws are really laws they don't depend on the "base"  
used to define the phi_i.


From a physicist point of view, computationalism suggests a new deep  
invariant, universality, and its conservation law (perhaps of the 1p  
or consciousness).


Keep in mind that I searched a TOE which don't put the mind under the  
rug. With comp, this becomes: don't put your infinitely many  
consistent extension in arithmetic under the rug.


Bruno



Brent

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

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas



On 11 Feb 2014, at 05:21, Russell Standish wrote:


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:


You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with  
it! :-)


(Sorry!)

I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before  
it's
likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string  
theory
retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a  
positive

result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently...



I don't see how he does. He does have the existence of incommunicable
facts (the G*\G thing), but that's not the same as qualia ISTM.


You are right, the qualia are in X1* \  X1, like we get quanta in  
S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.


Of course the splittings x-x* are all consequences of the splitting  
between G and G*, so that we can say that incompleteness is the reason  
of qualia, but only indirectly, through some intensional nuances.


Best,

Bruno





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.


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

Jesse,

Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase 
> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical 
> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A 
> and B. I already gave several examples.
>
> In this case both A's and B's clock will always read the same clock times. 
> t will always + t'.. Both A and B will agree to this, and whenever t = t' 
> they will be in the same p-time present moment. And this will be true 
> retrospectively as well.
>
> Couldn't be clearer!
>
> Edgar
>
>  
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was 
> looking for them in the link you gave.
>
> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even 
> gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a 
> gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's.
>
>
>
> Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you 
> saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with 
> respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual 
> rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the 
> post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou 
> said:
>
> 'Yes is the answer to your question "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?"'
>
> Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there?
>
>  
> Jesse
>  
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
> theory?
>
>
> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover 
> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of 
> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock 
> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account 
> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my 
> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving 
> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous 
> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you 
> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed 
> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about 
> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered 
> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative 
> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments 
> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. 
>
> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to 
> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that 
> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were 
> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't 
> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a 
> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do 
> so myself.
>
>  
>
>
> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>
>
> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that 
> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are 
> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects 
> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are 
> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can 
> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the 
> individual numbered statements 1-4 about which events must be simultaneous 
> in p-time according to your rules?
>
> If I have found a contradiction of course this doesn't disprove the very 
> idea of p-time, but it would probably i

Re: Block Universes

Darn, t' NOT t''!

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
>
> Edgar
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase 
>> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical 
>> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A 
>> and B. I already gave several examples.
>>
>> In this case both A's and B's clock will always read the same clock 
>> times. t will always + t'.. Both A and B will agree to this, and whenever t 
>> = t' they will be in the same p-time present moment. And this will be true 
>> retrospectively as well.
>>
>> Couldn't be clearer!
>>
>> Edgar
>>
>>  
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was 
>> looking for them in the link you gave.
>>
>> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even 
>> gave an example in which it was NOT true. Specifically when A is in a 
>> gravitational field and his clock is running slower than B's.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but my example was one from SR with no gravitational fields. Are you 
>> saying you never meant to claim that for two SR observers at rest with 
>> respect to each other, if their clocks are synchronized in their mutual 
>> rest frame that means their clocks are synchronized in p-time? But In the 
>> post at 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/vfnF3MS7WsUJyou 
>> said:
>>
>> 'Yes is the answer to your question "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?"'
>>
>> Do you wish to retract your answer of "yes" to my quoted question there?
>>
>>  
>> Jesse
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've 
>> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is 
>> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since 
>> you say your mind is already made up and you believe in block time) but 
>> presumably just to try to uncover any contradictions that would falsify the 
>> theory?
>>
>>
>> No, it's mainly been to show that your own attempts to uncover 
>> contradictions that falsify block time--like the idea that the notion of 
>> the twins meeting "at the same point in spacetime" with different clock 
>> times requires some new idea of time that block time can't account 
>> for--don't actually succeed in doing so. This has been the point of my 
>> spatial analogies, to show that any such argument you could make involving 
>> quantitative facts about the twin paradox would have a directly analogous 
>> argument involving quantitative facts about the measuring tape, yet you 
>> wouldn't agree that there is any new idea of "same point in y" needed 
>> there, I believe you think ordinary geometry can handle spatial facts about 
>> the measuring tape just fine. On that subject, you still haven't answered 
>> my question about whether you think there are any particular quantitative 
>> facts about the twin paradox that you would make use of in such arguments 
>> that *don't* have direct spatial analogies. 
>>
>> Another thing I have been doing in my discussions with you was to try to 
>> show that p-time would have to be purely "metaphysical" in the sense that 
>> there'd be no empirical procedure for deciding whether events were 
>> simultaneous in p-time, but that isn't the same as falsifying it, I don't 
>> think there's anything logically wrong with adopting presentism as a 
>> metaphysical "interpretation" of relativity theory, even though I don't do 
>> so myself.
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> Well, that's fine, and a useful exercise, but apparently after all this 
>> discussion you haven't been able to do that so far. Is that correct?
>>
>>
>> In fact I think I may have found a contradiction in your statements that 
>> A) there's a unique objective truth about whether two events are 
>> simultaneous in p-time, B) this truth is transitive, and C) if two objects 
>> are at rest relative to each other, readings on their clocks that are 
>> simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are simultaneous in p-time. Can 
>> you please consider the scenario I described in the post at 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJwith 
>> the two pairs of twins, and tell me if you disagree with any of the 
>> individual

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>>>
>>
>> Correctly, I assume.
>>
>>
>>>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
>>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>>>

>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have
>> a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably
>> have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you
>> can do it very simply anyway?
>>
>
> And how can it be done very simply?
>
> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for
the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).

-- 
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

On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/11/2014 12:42 AM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 11 February 2014 17:21, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:57:50PM +1300, LizR wrote:
>> >
>> > You wouldn't need to say that if you could show what's wrong with it!
>> :-)
>> >
>> > (Sorry!)
>> >
>> > I think the chances are a TOE will have to go a looong way before it's
>> > likely to make predictions rather than retrodictions. Didn't string
>> theory
>> > retrodict the graviton or something, and everyone said that was a
>> positive
>> > result? Well, Bruno's got qualia, apparently...
>> >
>>
>>  I don't see how he does. He does have the existence of incommunicable
>> facts (the G*\G thing), but that's not the same as qualia ISTM.
>>
>
>  I said "apparently" because I have no idea how he does it.
>
>
> I think a simpler form of the argument is that it must be possible to
> simulate consciousness because (we think) any physical process can be
> simulated and consciousness necessarily accompanies the physical processes
> of one's brain.  This is the bet of "saying yes to the doctor".  But
> there's a catch.  When we simulate an aircraft flying or a weather system
> those have a reference in the 'real' world and that's why they are
> simulations.  But if we simulate a conscious brain the consciousness will
> be 'real' consciousness. So simulating conscious is in a sense impossible;
> we may be able to produce it but we can't simulate it.  Consciousness must
> be consciousness of something, but it need not be anything physical; it
> could just be consciousness of arithmetical truths.  This explains why
> aspects of consciousness are ineffable.  It's because conscious processes
> can prove Goedel's theorem and so know that some truths are unprovable.
> Bruno takes "qualia are ineffable" and "some arithmetical truths are
> unprovable" and postulates "ineffable=unprovable".  This allows him to
> identify specifically what makes some computer program conscious: it's the
> ability to do induction and diagnoalization and prove Goedel's theorems.
>
> My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
> the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
> consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
> physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  That's
> why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
> are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another way,
> I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation simulate
> a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
> that world.
>

Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!

-- 
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

2014-02-11 Thread John Clark

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

 >> My question was "what is the unique consistent definition of "the 1p"
>> after the duplication has been performed?".
>>
>
> > In the 3-1 view, that does not exist,
>

Then "the 1p" is of no use to anyone and neither is "the 3-1 view" whatever
the hell that is supposed to be.

> There are posts which illustrates that you did understand this.
>

You're goddamn right!

>>> For the guy in W, it is the same definition, but obviously, the content
>>> is different.
>>>

>>>
>> >> So the definition is the same but its different.
>>
>
> > The definition is "content of the diary which go in the box". It is
> duplicated. After each copy self-localizes themselves, they write their
> unique result and compare with the prediction already written in the diary.
>

That is a great answer, too bad its not the answer to the question that I
asked. My question was "what is the unique consistent definition of "the
1p" after the duplication has been performed?".

> The definition of "dog" is the same for the different dogs Medor and
> Ralph.
>

Yes, the definition of "dog" remains the same regardless of what  Medor or
Ralph write in their diary.

> The guy is Helsinki knows, by comp, that he will survive
>

Well good for "comp".

>>If consciousness helps the predator then it must effect behavior and if
>> it effects behavior then the Turing Test works for consciousness as well as
>> intelligence.
>>
>
> > That does not follow.
>

Like hell it doesn't! If it changes objective external behavior then the
Turing Test can see it and so can Evolution. Please explain how Evolution
can select for consciousness, or anything else for that matter, if it makes
no change in some objective external attribute.

> Consciousness helps the predator in a long range
>

No! "the long range" is not nearly good enough. Evolution has no foresight,
it doesn't understand one step backward 2 steps forward; if a change
doesn't provide an immediate advantage to an animal right NOW it will not
be selected for regardless of how advantageous that attribute may turn out
to be sometime down the road. This is one of the great weaknesses of
Evolution and is why designers do a much better job; but until Evolution,
after 3 billion years of fumbling, finally got around to making brains it
was the only way complex things could get assembled.

> the Turing test does not make much sense to me. Some machine can already
> pass it relatively to some human, and some human does not succeed in it.
>

Yes, but what is nonsensical in that?

> Zombie can exist in the sense that someday it will be relatively easy to
> make a machine imitating perfectly drunk people, or a fanatics or
> something.
>

But why do you believe they'd be zombies? You're not infected with the
popular but silly Mr. Spock/Star Trek syndrome are you, the idea that
consciousness is harder to achieve than intelligence?

>>> Consciousness is needed for making sense of pleasant and unpleasant,
>>
>>
>> >> Evolution has no need of that,
>>
>
>
> I cannot make sense of evolution needing something.
>

Don't be an ass.  My iMac needs electricity to work and Evolution needs
heredity, mutation, and external objective attributes for natural selection
to select for or against for it to work.

>> So if animals can nevertheless at least sometimes manage to make sense
>> out of things then that ability can only be the byproduct of something else
>> that Evolution does care about, like intelligent behavior that lets the
>> animals genes get into the next generation.
>>
>
>
> Why byproduct?
>

Because you can't directly detect consciousness in others and neither can
Evolution, so the undeniable fact that Evolution nevertheless managed to
produce consciousness at least once means that the only logical conclusion
is that consciousness is like a spandrel in a cathedral, it's a byproduct.

> If consciousness is a byproduct of material activity, then consciousness
> AND material activity are a byproduct of addition and multiplication.
>

Maybe, but to prove it you're going to have to find something analogous to
heredity and natural selection in addition and multiplication. And although
I personally rather doubt it it's possible that it's the other way round
and addition and multiplication are a byproduct of material activity.

>>> To get this, though, you need steps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
>>>
>>
>> >> First fix the blunders in the first 3 steps.
>>
>
>
> Which blunders.
>

Which blunders? Oh I don't know, maybe the blunders I've been talking about
almost every day for the last 2 years.

  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 m

Re: What are numbers? What is math?

2014-02-11 Thread Craig Weinberg

I think that the opposite of everything that you are saying makes more 
sense.:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:07:07 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>
>
> So the take away is that :
>
> 1. The universe, and everything in it, consists of information only. And 
> that information consists only of different arrangements of elemental 
> R-bits. And these elemental R-bits are the actual numbers on the basis of 
> which R-math continually computes the current state of the universe.
>

The universe, and everything in it, consists of no information, but only 
experiences which are informed through aesthetic acquaintance. Information 
consists of no elemental structures at all, but rather is distributed 
metaphorically in gaps between experiences using a variety quantitative 
shortcuts. 


> 2. Thus everything in the universe is made up of numbers and only numbers.
>

Thus nothing in the universe is made up of "numbers", which is why we have 
developed mathematics to enumerate what has no number itself.
 

>
> 3. All the things in the universe are just various arrangements and 
> relationships between these numbers.
>

Nothing in the universe is merely an arrangement or relationship between 
"numbers".
 

>
> 4. These are continually being recomputed by all the interactive programs 
> (all just aspects of a single universal program) that make up all the 
> processes in the universe.
>

There are no processes in the universe which are only computations. Nothing 
in the universe depends on a continuous computation and nothing that 
interacts can be purely a "program".
 

>
> 5. These processes follow fundamental logico-mathematical rules which are 
> part of what I call the extended fine tuning (the set of  every 
> non-reducible aspect of reality including the rules of logic it follows). 
> These are analogous to the basic machine operations of silicon computers. 
>

Logico-mathematical rules are abstracted from approximation and 
insensitivity, and are appropriate only for controlling forms and functions 
from the outside in.
 

>
> 6. The programs of reality are complex sequences of these elemental 
> operations acting on R-numbers which are just R-bits. In general these 
> sequences incorporate standard routines such as the particle property 
> conservation routine.
>
>
The reality of programs is simple logical elements operating on each other 
with no profoundly meaningful application to the actual presence of the 
universe or ourselves.
 

>
> The aggregate result is the universe we exist within which consists 
> entirely of different types of information, a fact  which can be verified 
> by direct objective observation.
>

The result is that the concepts we call number and information consist 
entirely of the same type of reductive expectations, a fact which can be 
verified by direct subjective participation.
 

>
> Our minds each internally simulate this information universe as the 
> physical, dimensional universe in which mind tells us we live. These 
> simulations are a convenient evolutionary illusion that enables us, as 
> programs within a universe of programs, to more effectively compute our 
> lives and function more successfully. They enable our survival as 
> individuals and as a species. That is why they have evolved, even as they 
> conceal the true underlying information nature of reality.
>
>
Our internal experience is informed directly by opportunities for 
quasi-veridical sensory entanglement from within, without, and beyond our 
neurology. It is the idea of information and numbers which is a 
meta-simulative technology that allows us to project our control beyond our 
physical limitations. Computation accelerates and amplifies existing 
tendencies of individual and collective users, both threatening and 
supporting our survival.  

Craig


> Edgar
>
>

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

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical
> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A
> and B. I already gave several examples.
>

But I gave a different example where it leads to inconsistent conclusions,
are you going to address that? In my example, Alice and Bob have no
relative motion and are both in identical gravitational fields (zero
gravitational fields, since this is an SR flat spacetime example).
Likewise, Arlene and Bart have no relative motion and are both in identical
gravitational fields (again, zero). The only comparisons I made between
members of different pairs were ones that involved their passing next to
each other and comparing clock readings at the same point in spacetime, so
their relative motion shouldn't be an issue (I'm pretty sure you've said
before that you agree that if SR predicts two clocks meet at a single point
in spacetime, their two readings at that point must be simultaneous in
p-time).

Please just look over the Alice/Bob/Arlene/Bart example I gave at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJand
tell me if you disagree with any of the numbered conclusions about
p-time simultaneity 1-4.

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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes
> different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different
> relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background
> independent of any PARTICULAR frame that all frames are true within..
>

In a sense I agree, because I think there is a geometric background
involving coordinate-independent truths about path lengths and when paths
meet at the "same point in spacetime". I just don't agree that the fact
that different frames disagree about which events are assigned the same
t-coordinate means there must be a coordinate-independent analogue to
t-simultaneity.

As always, you haven't addressed my question about whether you think any of
the facts you point to in order to make an argument for
coordinate-independent simultaneity (without assuming it from the start)
fail to have direct analogues in spatial facts about the measuring tape
setup. One can assign coordinates to points on the tapes using different
coordinate systems that are BOTH equally valid, and yet the coordinate
systems disagree about which pairs of points on the tapes are assigned the
same y-coordinate, but you DON'T believe this implies there must be a
coordinate-independent analogue to y-matching. So there must be something
wrong with the structure of your argument about spacetime and simultaneity
if there's an argument about space and y-matching that has a perfectly
identical structure, yet leads to conclusions you yourself would agree are
in error. The only way out of this would be to show the spatial argument
*doesn't* have a perfectly identical structure, because if you laid out the
argument as a series of steps, there would be some step where we couldn't
come up with an analogous step in a spatial argument.

 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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>

 String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity
 of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured

>>>
>>> Correctly, I assume.
>>>
>>>
  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
 Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.

>
>>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
>>> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
>>> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR
>>> when you can do it very simply anyway?
>>>
>>
>> And how can it be done very simply?
>>
>> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for
> the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).
>

Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.

>
>
> --
> 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

On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
 On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity
> of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>

 Correctly, I assume.


>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>
>>
 That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
 have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
 presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR
 when you can do it very simply anyway?

>>>
>>> And how can it be done very simply?
>>>
>>> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for
>> the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).
>>
>
> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
>
>>
>> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
non-locality).

This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume
it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).

-- 
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.

Nagel on Explanation

2014-02-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


>
> "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event 
> under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an 
> event *of that type* occurred." - Thomas Nagel
>

This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why 
there is any such type of thing as qualities which are felt, seen, heard, 
etc, only that there are gaps in what can be understood about how machines 
logically operate.

-- 
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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
>>> have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
>>> climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
>>> fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
>>> 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
>>> this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
>>> temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture to
>> flourish, and with it civilisation.
>>
>> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
>> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
>> department...
>>
>
> That we are currently in an interglacial period
> suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)
>

It certainly would normally. I don't know if it does now we've bumped up
atmospheric CO2 50% in 2 centuries (and we *have *had the hottest years on
record with monotonous regularity over the last couple of decades, so, so
far the effect is a warming trend - though that could have unexpected /
counter-intuitive consequences of course - I mean above those it's already
having!)

>
> In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
> continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
> So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.
>

> The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased
> CO2
> results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
> in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
> reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
> thereby cooling the earth significantly.
>

Hmm, that seems possible I suppose. Most of the thermal energy is stored in
the oceans, however, so we would expect them to expand (and possibly
release dissolved CO2, methane, etc) so this is rather hypothetical (and in
conflict with the opinions of 99.7% of climate scientists, if I remember
correctly).

>
> Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
> so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.
>

I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from the
atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at which
point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren will).
It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming around
the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release

-- 
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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On 12 February 2014 05:18, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl  wrote:
>
>> Hi Liz:
>>
>> I am not sure I understand your comment.
>> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that
>> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches
>> it accelerate.
>> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating
>> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an
>> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
>> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be
>> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable
>> boundaries.]
>>  In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus
>> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective
>> absent an "unnatural" earlier one.
>>
>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if
> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even
> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on
> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>
> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and
> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at
> justifying ourselves.
>
> It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by
> the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
> It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to
> avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm
> the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey
> the physical laws.
>
> "naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a
> role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's God will".
> I think this has a name: fatalism.
>

I guess my instinct to protect my offspring (and their offspring...etc)
from the results of the wild party the human race has been throwing since
we discovered all this "cool tech stuff" is also natural.

(So the hangover won't be too extreme...)

-- 
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 12 February 2014 05:29, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
>> coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
>> equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin
>> B, relativity clearly DOES imply a notion of p-time simultaneity because it
>> does allow a 1:1 relationship between the comoving clock times in their own
>> frames of A and B.
>>
>
> You mean even if twins A and B are in relative notion you think "comparing
> both equations of the two coordinate systems ... does allow a 1:1
> relationship between the comoving clock times in their own frame of A and
> B"? If so, I have no idea what you mean. Say twin B and twin A start moving
> away from each other with a relative speed of 0.6c at birth, so in each
> one's rest frame the other one's clock is running slow by a factor of 0.8.
> Then in twin A's inertial rest frame, the event of A turning 50 is
> simultaneous with twin B turning 40, but in B's inertial rest frame, the
> event of B turning 40 is simultaneous with A turning 32. So what is the
> "1:1 relationship" here, and what event on A's worldline does it pair with
> the event of B turning 40?
>

I don't have time to plough through Edgar's posts to find out the answer to
this, but (brave soul that you are) you have obvisouly done so... and it is
a simple, straightforward question...

So, did he answer this in a simple, unambiguous, non-hand-waving,
non-pompous, non-spluttering-with-indignation fashion that actually gave
you a sensible and convincing answer?

(I have a little bet with myself about your answer to this question :-)

-- 
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: Human brain artificially created in laboratory

2014-02-11 Thread John Mikes

Richard:
I salute every step forward, trhey may (or may not) further our cognitive
and operative advancement. This work is in the line of a positive trend -
maybe overestimated in its efficiency - as most are. If they wll be able to
'evolve' smarter individuals, I place all my blessings on their heads.

The "brain" is a great mystery, we measure some physical - physiological
data upon it's function and assign them to factors - (also assigned to
brainfubction) furthering bodily and/or mental activity. What do we know
indeed? (Don't ask an agnostic!)
There are no specially marked physical (or physiological) data indicating
the domain of mental activity they belong to. No 'green' mAmps for
emotional, no 'orange' mAmps for scientific, no 'blue' ones for sports, or
'square' ones for love.
 Not even differentiated blood-flow measurements indicate domains they are
said to indicate. Bodily activation is easier to follow, although ASK A
PHYSICIAN...
There is some early try to decipher(?) the different connectivity of
brain-parts into topical differentiation - a good try, but far from
touching the complexity of what we assign to brainfunction - and even that
is a limited model of what may be.

I confess: I consider the human brain a relay station from source unknown
into human activity and am happy when they find medicament (material, or
treatment) to eliminate (reduce?) pathological consequences.
Of course it is hard to dampen the enthusiasm of the inventor...

There are so many dimensions etc. we know nothing about and all of them may
influence our 'technology'.
Agnostically yours
John Mikes

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> The title of this article is a bit of a reach.
> But these lab results regarding self-organizing
> may be of interest to this list. Richard
>
>
> Human brain artificially created in laboratory
> Published on Mon, Feb 10, 2014 by livia rusu
>
> Post filled in: Genetics, Mind & Brain
>
>
> Human embryonic stem cells can be induced into forming a developing brain
> tissue. The brain development process represents one of the most specific
> processes; during it, neuroepithelium, formed as a flat sheet by the
> nervous system, grows on the exterior layer of the embryo, after which it
> folds in to create a neural tube giving rise to the brain and the spinal
> cord. The process implicates the migration and proliferation of undeveloped
> nerve cells from the brain at one end and the spinal cord at the other.
>
> Human embryonic stem cells spontaneously organize into neuroepithelial
> tissue containing multiple zones after growing for 70 days in culture. Via
> RIKEN.
>
> The discovery made by Yoshiki Sasai, Taisuke KAdoshima and their
> colleagues from RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology consisted in
> treating human embryonic stem (ES) cells by the use of a system with
> signaling molecules inducing the formation of nervous tissue from the outer
> embryonic layer. The thesis of their scientific project was that the cells
> have the capacity of spontaneously organizing into cerebral cortical
> tissues - forming at the front of the developing neural tube.
>
> The previous research of Sasai's team had proven that a new culture
> technique could involve growing ES cells in suspension, showing this way
> that the cells are capable of self-organizing into complex
> three-dimensional structures. The finding served as a methodology
> throughout which pieces of cerebral cortex and embryonic eyes from mouse ES
> cells were grown. Another more recent study has shown that there is a
> complete compatibility with human embryonic stem cells that can also
> organize into embryonic eyes that contain retinal tissue and
> light-sensitive cells.
>
> The last study of Sasai's team showed that the formation of nervous tissue
> from the outer embryonic layer can be induced by treating human ES cells to
> grow using the cell culture system with signaling molecules. This was
> doubled by the finding that the cells spontaneously organize into
> neuroepithelial tissue which folds up immediately after this, to give a
> multilayered cortex.
>
> During the thickening of the front end of the neural tube that happens
> along with the embryonic development at both ends, waves of cells migrate
> outward to mold the layered cerebral cortex as well as other parts of the
> brain. What this study correlates along with this scientific fact is that
> the reason for which the front end of the neural tube's thickening is the
> growth of the glial fiber, spanning the thickness of the tube and guiding
> migrating cells more than due to the accumulation of immature cells within
> the tube, as the scientific community had previously commonly agreed upon.
>
> Another critical difference highlighted by the scientific research between
> the development of the neuronal tube in mice in humans is that in humans
> the inner surface of the neural tube and the intermediate neuroepithelial
> zone underneath it contain dist

Re: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 00:38, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:41 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 February 2014 19:01, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
 The Vostok ice core data, from which Atm. temperature and CO2 content
 have been extracted, suggests that at least for the last half million years
 climate change has been a natural occurrence, apparently based on
 fluctuations on earth-incident solar radiance. That is except for the last
 10,000 years, when the climate has been relatively stable. My fear is that
 this relative stability will come to an end and we may return to the
 temperature fluctuations that typified the ice ages.

>>>
>>> Yes, imho it was most likely the interglacial that allowed agriculture
>>> to flourish, and with it civilisation.
>>>
>>> As far as returning to fluctuating temperatures goes, increasing
>>> atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 50% since 1800 won't have helped in that
>>> department...
>>>
>>
>> That we are currently in an interglacial period
>> suggests that another glacial period is coming(;<)
>>
>
> It certainly would normally. I don't know if it does now we've bumped up
> atmospheric CO2 50% in 2 centuries (and we *have *had the hottest years
> on record with monotonous regularity over the last couple of decades, so,
> so far the effect is a warming trend - though that could have unexpected /
> counter-intuitive consequences of course - I mean above those it's already
> having!)
>
>>
>> In previous plunges into glacial periods, the CO2 atm content
>> continued to increase for up to 1000 years after the temperature peaked.
>> So IMO an increasing CO2 may actually be responsible for the plunge.
>>
>
>> The mechanism is that the increased atm energy abs produced by increased
>> CO2
>> results in fluctuations in the jet stream down to most of the landmass
>> in North America, and northern Europe and Asia, significantly increasing
>> reflection from snow (rather than absorption) of solar radiation over land
>> thereby cooling the earth significantly.
>>
>
> Hmm, that seems possible I suppose. Most of the thermal energy is stored
> in the oceans, however, so we would expect them to expand (and possibly
> release dissolved CO2, methane, etc) so this is rather hypothetical (and in
> conflict with the opinions of 99.7% of climate scientists, if I remember
> correctly).
>
>>
>> Oceanic absorption would be relatively constant
>> so climate change would be a Northern Hemisphere effect.
>>
>
> I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from the
> atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at which
> point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren will).
> It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming around
> the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release
>

The climate in the so-called
Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
lasted
for 20 million years.
Compared to the recent ice ages for only 1/2 million years, it was a very
stable climate.
That may be where we are headed. But I fear that we will return to more
glaciation.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.meltonengineering.com/Zachos%25202001%2520PETM%252072%2520dpi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.concord.org/what-caused-the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum&h=285&w=177&sz=1&tbnid=6QMv8FTf8uJhzM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__wTlZHQ6Tyy42yi8HlCVB2eoB-ck=&docid=LavOcNHQ3o3thM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=mJf6Ur6sKMuQ0QH_q4HgBw&ved=0CKUBEPwdMAo



>
>  --
> 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: Human brain artificially created in laboratory

"ASK A PHYSICIAN". I went to med school until I was too sick to continue.
But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Richard:
> I salute every step forward, trhey may (or may not) further our cognitive
> and operative advancement. This work is in the line of a positive trend -
> maybe overestimated in its efficiency - as most are. If they wll be able to
> 'evolve' smarter individuals, I place all my blessings on their heads.
>
> The "brain" is a great mystery, we measure some physical - physiological
> data upon it's function and assign them to factors - (also assigned to
> brainfubction) furthering bodily and/or mental activity. What do we know
> indeed? (Don't ask an agnostic!)
> There are no specially marked physical (or physiological) data indicating
> the domain of mental activity they belong to. No 'green' mAmps for
> emotional, no 'orange' mAmps for scientific, no 'blue' ones for sports, or
> 'square' ones for love.
>  Not even differentiated blood-flow measurements indicate domains they are
> said to indicate. Bodily activation is easier to follow, although ASK A
> PHYSICIAN...
> There is some early try to decipher(?) the different connectivity of
> brain-parts into topical differentiation - a good try, but far from
> touching the complexity of what we assign to brainfunction - and even that
> is a limited model of what may be.
>
> I confess: I consider the human brain a relay station from source unknown
> into human activity and am happy when they find medicament (material, or
> treatment) to eliminate (reduce?) pathological consequences.
> Of course it is hard to dampen the enthusiasm of the inventor...
>
> There are so many dimensions etc. we know nothing about and all of them
> may influence our 'technology'.
> Agnostically yours
> John Mikes
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> The title of this article is a bit of a reach.
>> But these lab results regarding self-organizing
>> may be of interest to this list. Richard
>>
>>
>> Human brain artificially created in laboratory
>> Published on Mon, Feb 10, 2014 by livia rusu
>>
>> Post filled in: Genetics, Mind & Brain
>>
>>
>> Human embryonic stem cells can be induced into forming a developing brain
>> tissue. The brain development process represents one of the most specific
>> processes; during it, neuroepithelium, formed as a flat sheet by the
>> nervous system, grows on the exterior layer of the embryo, after which it
>> folds in to create a neural tube giving rise to the brain and the spinal
>> cord. The process implicates the migration and proliferation of undeveloped
>> nerve cells from the brain at one end and the spinal cord at the other.
>>
>> Human embryonic stem cells spontaneously organize into neuroepithelial
>> tissue containing multiple zones after growing for 70 days in culture. Via
>> RIKEN.
>>
>> The discovery made by Yoshiki Sasai, Taisuke KAdoshima and their
>> colleagues from RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology consisted in
>> treating human embryonic stem (ES) cells by the use of a system with
>> signaling molecules inducing the formation of nervous tissue from the outer
>> embryonic layer. The thesis of their scientific project was that the cells
>> have the capacity of spontaneously organizing into cerebral cortical
>> tissues - forming at the front of the developing neural tube.
>>
>> The previous research of Sasai's team had proven that a new culture
>> technique could involve growing ES cells in suspension, showing this way
>> that the cells are capable of self-organizing into complex
>> three-dimensional structures. The finding served as a methodology
>> throughout which pieces of cerebral cortex and embryonic eyes from mouse ES
>> cells were grown. Another more recent study has shown that there is a
>> complete compatibility with human embryonic stem cells that can also
>> organize into embryonic eyes that contain retinal tissue and
>> light-sensitive cells.
>>
>> The last study of Sasai's team showed that the formation of nervous
>> tissue from the outer embryonic layer can be induced by treating human ES
>> cells to grow using the cell culture system with signaling molecules. This
>> was doubled by the finding that the cells spontaneously organize into
>> neuroepithelial tissue which folds up immediately after this, to give a
>> multilayered cortex.
>>
>> During the thickening of the front end of the neural tube that happens
>> along with the embryonic development at both ends, waves of cells migrate
>> outward to mold the layered cerebral cortex as well as other parts of the
>> brain. What this study correlates along with this scientific fact is that
>> the reason for which the front end of the neural tube's thickening is the
>> growth of the glial fiber, spanning the thickness of the tube and guiding
>> migrating cells more than due to the accumulation of immature cells within
>> the tube, as the scientific community had p

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity
>> of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>>
>
> Correctly, I assume.
>
>
>>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>>
>>>
> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR
> when you can do it very simply anyway?
>

 And how can it be done very simply?

 By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric
>>> (for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).
>>>
>>
>> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
>>
>>>
>>> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
> non-locality).
>
> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume
> it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).
>


Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist

>
>
>  --
> 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: Nagel on Explanation

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
>> under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an
>> event *of that type* occurred." - Thomas Nagel
>>
>
> This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain why
> there is any such type of thing as qualities which are felt, seen, heard,
> etc, only that there are gaps in what can be understood about how machines
> logically operate.
>

I value comp because it points out in the starkest terms how MWI logically
results in the multiple duplication of human beings.   Something I reject
intuitively.


>
>  --
> 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

On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
 On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the
>>> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>>>
>>
>> Correctly, I assume.
>>
>>
>>>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
>>> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>>>

>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
>> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
>> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain 
>> EPR
>> when you can do it very simply anyway?
>>
>
> And how can it be done very simply?
>
> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric
 (for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).

>>>
>>> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
>>>

 It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
>> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
>> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
>> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
>> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
>> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
>> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
>> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
>> non-locality).
>>
>> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
>> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
>> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically
>> assume it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).
>>
>
> Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist
>

That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation
is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't
*me*showing this - it's been looked into by various people, from
Wheeler-Feynman
absorber 
theoryonwards).

It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's
Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.

-- 
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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
>>> the atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at
>>> which point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren
>>> will). It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming
>>> around the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release
>>>
>>
> The climate in the so-called 
> Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>  lasted
> for 20 million years.
>

200,000 according to that article. Also from that article:

"At the start of the PETM, average global temperatures increased by
approximately 6 °C (11 °F) within about 20,000 years."

That was the result of natural processes. The human race is doing a lot
"better" than 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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

2014-02-11 Thread Hal Ruhl

Hi Bruno and Liz:
 
I think it is not fruitful to look further at the words "natural" and 
"unnatural".  They seem to carry too much baggage.  I should not have used 
them.
 
I suggest looking at my post I pointed to:   

*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*
and go through it and discuss it one step at a time.  It uses the term 
"inherent".
 
After that we could explore how the collection of universes in the 
"Everything" permits the result of the discussion.
 
For example if the result is that life appears always inherently self 
extinguishing how does this lack of choice influence the origin and 
structure [if this is a reasonably applicable term] of the Everything. 
Hal Ruhl
 
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl 
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Liz:
>>  
>> I am not sure I understand your comment.
>> As to "rate" I posit a positive feedback loop in the life system that 
>> forces "natural" ecocide that also makes the rate at which life approaches 
>> it accelerate.
>> There is always a chance that an essentially "outside" originating 
>> influence could terminate the "natural" extinction process with an 
>> "unnatural" one [cometary impact, etc.].
>> By "natural" here I mean inherent in life itself.  "Unnatural" would be 
>> external to life. [I suppose that these distinctions may have permeable 
>> boundaries.]
>>  In any event my point is that my argument supports a "natural" and thus 
>> unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective 
>> absent an "unnatural" earlier one. 
>>
>> I still don't think we should be killing off all the species we are, if 
> only for our own sake. I think we benefit from biodiversity, probably even 
> more so than the next species since we have occupied almost every niche on 
> the planet apart from deep sea smokers.
>
> I also don't like the suggestion that ecocide is a "natural and 
> unavoidable aspect of life" because that appears to be an attempt at 
> justifying ourselves.
>
>
>
> It is the same error than the lawyer who justified his client's murder by 
> the fact that it just obeys the laws of physics. It is natural!
> It is empty also, in this case, as we can say that the human reaction to 
> avoid the natural ecocide is natural too, like the jury member can condemm 
> the murderer to any pain, by justifying them by the fact that they too obey 
> the physical laws. 
>
> "naturality" add nothing on each sides of the debate. Here nature plays a 
> role of the "gap", and some others could just say "Oh, that's God will".
> I think this has a name: fatalism. 
>
> Invoking God or Matter in this way, is, in comp+Theaetetus, a theological 
> error. 
>
> Comp explains why this is false, even if true at the non justifiable 
> "truth level", but it becomes false when asserted (it put us in a 
> cul-de-sac world, which can satisfies []A -> ~A.)
>
> We do exist, as human or Löbian person, and we do have partial control, 
> and thus relative responsibilities. If comp is true.
>
>
>
>
> I doubt if the species that came through the k-t boundary with some 
> members alive had an easy time of it for the next few million years, and I 
> don't particularly want the same for our children.
>
>
> OK.
>
> 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-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.

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

On 12 February 2014 06:31, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> Smullyan's brother, if I remember well, told to the little Raymond
> --'tonight, I will surprise you, I promise!'
> Little Raymond waited all the night, but got nothing, so at morning he
> complained to his brother "I thought you would surprise me!".
> The brother replied: "If you thought that, are you not surprised by the
> fact that nothing happened". "You got me!", Smullyan said, and he was very
> pleased, and surprised.
>
> Yes I remember that story. I think he said to Raymond the day before April
Fool's day - "Tomorrow I will fool you like you've never been fooled
before." And the rest was as you said.

-- 
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,

Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm pretty 
sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two clocks meet 
at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that point must be 
simultaneous in p-time)." That is NOT true. Only if there is no relative 
motion or acceleration is it true. I really wish you could just get the 
basics of the theory straight.

Let me just give you the general method for all cases and see if you can 
understand it:

If you are just trying to figure out the method of determining p-time 
simultaneity between any two observers in any combination of relativistic 
circumstances here it is.

The general case of determining p-time simultaneity between any two 
relativistic observers. Assume observers A and B, both accelerating 
relative to each other, with different rates of relative motion and in 
different gravitational fields. Assume all possible relativistic effects 
between A and B.

The method is trivially simple. I'll give two approaches:

1. Instantaneously pause all relativistic effects at any time t on A's 
clock and read the time t' on B's clock. These clock times are a point when 
A and B were/are in the same p-time current moment.

2. Do the same thing for any t you wish. The t' that corresponds will be 
the clock time in the same present moment of p-time as the t you paused at.

3. In general if you want to know what clock time t' of B occurred in the 
same p-time as any time t on A's clock, all you have to do is pause the 
experiment at t so that all relative motion ceases and just read t' on B's 
clock. 

Because this can be done at any point t on A's clock we can always 
determine what t' on B's clock occurred in the same p-time as that t simply 
by reading B's clock. 

Note this is exactly what happens when the twins meet up in the same p-time 
present moment and read each other's clocks to determine what clock times 
occurred at the same p-time, in that same common present moment. 

You can also do this with a calculation as well as by pausing the 
experiment.

1. Note there are two classes of relativistic effects in the general case:
a. Reciprocal temporary effects of relative motion in which A and B each 
see the other's clock slow by the same amount. These effects vanish when 
relative motion ceases and A and B do NOT agree on these effects because 
they are equal and opposite. No permanent actual age differences are 
produced by this type of effect.
b. Persistent and agreed effects of acceleration and gravitation in which 
one clock slows permanently relative to the other and both A and B agree on 
the amount of slowing. These effects persist after the relativistic 
differences vanish. They are permanent. And both A and B agree on these 
effects. These effects manifest as real permanent age differences.

2. At any desired time t on A's clock, identify, calculate and discard the 
effects of relative motion of type a. so that the only effects between A 
and B left are of type b., the actual real actual age differences up to 
point t on A's clock. We keep only the effects that would be/are permanent 
(type b. above) and disregard those that are not (type a. above).

This is effectively the same as pausing the experiment at any t, because 
that is just a simpler method of eliminating effects of type a.

Again all we have to do now is compare t and t' to see what t' of B 
occurred at the same p-time as t on A's clock. This will be the real age B 
is when A is t years old, which is the test of the same p-time. Both A and 
B agree on this age difference because it is real and persistent after all 
relativistic effects cease. 

3. This can be done either in A's frame for any t, or in B's frame for any 
t'.

4. This process is transitive between any number of arbitrary observers in 
any relativistic situation. We can always find the clock time t-values of 
each that occurred in the same p-time, the same present moment of p-time.

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:00:23 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase 
>> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical 
>> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A 
>> and B. I already gave several examples.
>>
>
> But I gave a different example where it leads to inconsistent conclusions, 
> are you going to address that? In my example, Alice and Bob have no 
> relative motion and are both in identical gravitational fields (zero 
> gravitational fields, since this is an SR flat spacetime example). 
> Likewise, Arlene and Bart have no relative motion and are both in identical 
> gravitational fields (again, zero). The only comparisons I made between 
> members of different pairs were ones that involved their passing next to 
> each other and comparing clock readings at t

Re: Human brain artificially created in laboratory

Richard,

I agree. As I recall physicians and hospitals are the 4th leading cause of 
DEATH in the US.

Edgar


On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:52:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
> "ASK A PHYSICIAN". I went to med school until I was too sick to continue.
> But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM, John Mikes 
> > wrote:
>
>> Richard:
>> I salute every step forward, trhey may (or may not) further our cognitive 
>> and operative advancement. This work is in the line of a positive trend - 
>> maybe overestimated in its efficiency - as most are. If they wll be able to 
>> 'evolve' smarter individuals, I place all my blessings on their heads.
>>
>> The "brain" is a great mystery, we measure some physical - physiological 
>> data upon it's function and assign them to factors - (also assigned to 
>> brainfubction) furthering bodily and/or mental activity. What do we know 
>> indeed? (Don't ask an agnostic!)  
>> There are no specially marked physical (or physiological) data indicating 
>> the domain of mental activity they belong to. No 'green' mAmps for 
>> emotional, no 'orange' mAmps for scientific, no 'blue' ones for sports, or 
>> 'square' ones for love.
>>  Not even differentiated blood-flow measurements indicate domains they 
>> are said to indicate. Bodily activation is easier to follow, although ASK A 
>> PHYSICIAN...
>> There is some early try to decipher(?) the different connectivity of 
>> brain-parts into topical differentiation - a good try, but far from 
>> touching the complexity of what we assign to brainfunction - and even that 
>> is a limited model of what may be.
>>
>> I confess: I consider the human brain a relay station from source unknown 
>> into human activity and am happy when they find medicament (material, or 
>> treatment) to eliminate (reduce?) pathological consequences. 
>> Of course it is hard to dampen the enthusiasm of the inventor...
>>
>> There are so many dimensions etc. we know nothing about and all of them 
>> may influence our 'technology'. 
>> Agnostically yours
>> John Mikes
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Richard Ruquist 
>> 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The title of this article is a bit of a reach.
>>> But these lab results regarding self-organizing 
>>> may be of interest to this list. Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Human brain artificially created in laboratory
>>> Published on Mon, Feb 10, 2014 by livia rusu
>>>
>>> Post filled in: Genetics, Mind & Brain
>>>
>>>
>>> Human embryonic stem cells can be induced into forming a developing 
>>> brain tissue. The brain development process represents one of the most 
>>> specific processes; during it, neuroepithelium, formed as a flat sheet by 
>>> the nervous system, grows on the exterior layer of the embryo, after which 
>>> it folds in to create a neural tube giving rise to the brain and the spinal 
>>> cord. The process implicates the migration and proliferation of undeveloped 
>>> nerve cells from the brain at one end and the spinal cord at the other.
>>>
>>> Human embryonic stem cells spontaneously organize into neuroepithelial 
>>> tissue containing multiple zones after growing for 70 days in culture. Via 
>>> RIKEN.
>>>
>>> The discovery made by Yoshiki Sasai, Taisuke KAdoshima and their 
>>> colleagues from RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology consisted in 
>>> treating human embryonic stem (ES) cells by the use of a system with 
>>> signaling molecules inducing the formation of nervous tissue from the outer 
>>> embryonic layer. The thesis of their scientific project was that the cells 
>>> have the capacity of spontaneously organizing into cerebral cortical 
>>> tissues – forming at the front of the developing neural tube.
>>>
>>> The previous research of Sasai’s team had proven that a new culture 
>>> technique could involve growing ES cells in suspension, showing this way 
>>> that the cells are capable of self-organizing into complex 
>>> three-dimensional structures. The finding served as a methodology 
>>> throughout which pieces of cerebral cortex and embryonic eyes from mouse ES 
>>> cells were grown. Another more recent study has shown that there is a 
>>> complete compatibility with human embryonic stem cells that can also 
>>> organize into embryonic eyes that contain retinal tissue and 
>>> light-sensitive cells.
>>>
>>> The last study of Sasai’s team showed that the formation of nervous 
>>> tissue from the outer embryonic layer can be induced by treating human ES 
>>> cells to grow using the cell culture system with signaling molecules. This 
>>> was doubled by the finding that the cells spontaneously organize into 
>>> neuroepithelial tissue which folds up immediately after this, to give a 
>>> multilayered cortex.
>>>
>>> During the thickening of the front end of the neural tube that happens 
>>> along with the embryonic development at both ends, waves of cells migrate 
>>> outward to mold the layered cerebral cortex as well as other parts of the 
>>> brain. What t

Re: Nagel on Explanation

Richard,

And that must be rejected logically as well...

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:03:21 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event 
>>> under a description. An explanation must show why it was likely than an 
>>> event *of that type* occurred." - Thomas Nagel
>>>
>>
>> This quote applies to my rejection of Comp since Comp does not explain 
>> why there is any such type of thing as qualities which are felt, seen, 
>> heard, etc, only that there are gaps in what can be understood about how 
>> machines logically operate.
>>
>
> I value comp because it points out in the starkest terms how MWI logically 
> results in the multiple duplication of human beings.   Something I reject 
> intuitively.  
>  
>
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>

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

RE: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 Thread chris peck

Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc

>> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I 
>> invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did not 
>> comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named 
>> "Chris".

I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me, firstly because 
he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it will save me the 
embarrassment if I have him wrong. I've elaborated at length on my own 
criticisms of step 3 and stand by them. 

I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way through 
Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that Clark's 
erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or difficult to 
follow. That the person who actually devised the steps themselves remains 
confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief. There;s something very 
odd about that.

There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to MWI. Like 
some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when (if?) he defends the 
notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI context. I can see though that in 
Comp people are duplicated within worlds whereas in MWI they are duplicated 
between worlds, and there possibly are some repercussions vis a vis the proper 
use of pro-nouns because of that. Im not sure it matters much, because Clark 
could be right about Comp and just inconsistent about MWI. So this complaint, 
loudly pursued by Quentin, has always seemed impotent to me and not worth 
bothering about.

Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because, mentioning no 
names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm wavey about people 
criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least, I'll limit myself to 
recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet Earth (1985) is 
a little known gem, btw.

All the best
Chris.

Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300
Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR  wrote:

On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:

On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:

On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of the 
quark-gluon plasma before it was measured

Correctly, I assume.

 and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen 
bridges, which is more like a retrodiction. 

That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have a 
nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably have to 
be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you can do it very 
simply anyway?

And how can it be done very simply?
By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for the 
particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).

Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR. 

It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the details, 
but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus can 
influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter creates a 
pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at two 
spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a constraint on 
the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that the setting of one 
polariser can therefore influence the polarisation measured in the other branch 
of the experiment (without any FTL signals / non-locality).

This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an assumption 
that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of time being 
asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume it must be true 
of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).

Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist 
That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation is 
possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't me showing this - 
it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory 
onwards).

It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's 
Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.

-- 

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

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

Yeah "The Quiet Earth" is great.and was made in New Zealand, to boot!


On 12 February 2014 13:17, chris peck  wrote:

> Hi Chris dM and Bruno etc
>
>
> >> Once, Chris Peck said that he was convinced by Clark's argument) and I
> invited him to elaborate, as that might give possible lightening. He did
> not comply, and I was beginning that UDA was problematical for people named
> "Chris".
>
> I think Clark should elaborate on his arguments rather than me, firstly
> because he'll do it better than I ever could and secondly it will save me
> the embarrassment if I have him wrong. I've elaborated at length on my own
> criticisms of step 3 and stand by them.
>
> I will say though that I find it astonishing if people work their way
> through Bruno's steps and claim to understand them and then maintain that
> Clark's erudite and ofttimes witty criticisms are in some way obtuse or
> difficult to follow. That the person who actually devised the steps
> themselves remains confused about Clark's comments almost beggars belief.
> There;s something very odd about that.
>
> There is some fuss about Clark's reluctance to apply his argument to MWI.
> Like some others I think Clark possibly makes a misstep when (if?) he
> defends the notion of 1p in-determinism within an MWI context. I can see
> though that in Comp people are duplicated within worlds whereas in MWI they
> are duplicated between worlds, and there possibly are some repercussions
> vis a vis the proper use of pro-nouns because of that. Im not sure it
> matters much, because Clark could be right about Comp and just inconsistent
> about MWI. So this complaint, loudly pursued by Quentin, has always seemed
> impotent to me and not worth bothering about.
>
> Im reluctant to get involved in the step 3 discussions because, mentioning
> no names Quentin and PGC, people can get very emotional and arm wavey about
> people criticizing Bruno's metaphysics. So for now at least, I'll limit
> myself to recommending the odd sci-fi movie on the film thread. The Quiet
> Earth (1985) is a little known gem, btw.
>
> All the best
> Chris.
>
> --
> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:00:42 +1300
> Subject: Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas
> From: lizj...@gmail.com
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
>
> On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured
>
>
> Correctly, I assume.
>
>
>  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
> Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.
>
>
> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials have
> a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that presumably
> have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain EPR when you
> can do it very simply anyway?
>
>
> And how can it be done very simply?
>
> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric (for
> the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally photons).
>
>
> Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.
>
>
> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
> non-locality).
>
> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically assume
> it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).
>
>
> Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist
>
>
> That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation
> is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing 
> this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman
> absorber 
> theoryonwards).
>
> It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's
> Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything L

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb  wrote:
> 
> > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
> > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
> > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
> > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  That's
> > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
> > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another way,
> > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation simulate
> > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
> > that world.
> >
> 
> Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
> assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
> 

I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.

I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.

I'm not yet convinced it is a genuine problem for step 8, or not, as I still
don't feel I fully understand what that says yet.


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 Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm
> pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two
> clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that
> point must be simultaneous in p-time)." That is NOT true. Only if there is
> no relative motion or acceleration is it true. I really wish you could just
> get the basics of the theory straight.
>

I thought you agreed on my operational definition of "same point in
spacetime", and that events that satisfied this definition would also occur
at the same point in p-time. I wonder if you actually are correctly
understanding what I say in the quoted sentence, because I find it hard to
believe you would deny it if you understood it correctly.

Let's say we have two twins moving towards each other at some nonzero
velocity, and they pass right next to each other without either one
accelerating. Relativity can be used to predict their respective ages at
the moment they pass (if we idealize them as pointlike observers, the
"moment they pass" can refer to their worldlines passing through precisely
the same position and time coordinates). To use my usual numbers,
relativity might say that twin A is turning 30 and twin B is turning 40 at
the moment they pass. In terms of my operational definition, if A was
sending a continual stream of light signals to B and seeing how long it
took to receive the reflected signal, the time interval on A's clock
between sending a signal and receiving the reflection would approach zero
as his own age clock approached 30, and the age he would see on B's age
clock in the reflected light would approach 40 as he approached 30.
Likewise, if there was a camera at the point in space they passed, and it
took a photo just as they passed, the photo would show A's age clock
reading 30 and B's age clock reading 40. And if A had a bomb that would
destroy anything in his immediate local vicinity but would leave anything
at a distance from him unharmed, then if A set it to go off when he turned
30, B would be killed at age 40, but if A set it to go off at any other
age, B would survive unharmed.

Given that relativity would predict all these things, are you saying these
predictions could all be correct, but that A turning 30 and B turning 40
would *not* be simultaneous in p-time, not even approximately so? Or are
you actually saying relativity would be *wrong* in the predictions above
when it predicts the event of A turning 30 will have the same x,y,z,t
coordinates as the event of B turning 40? Or did you just misunderstand
what I meant when I said "two clocks meet at a single point in spacetime,
their two readings at that point [A turning 30 and B turning 40 in this
example] must be simultaneous in p-time"? Or would you say "none of the
above"? Please give a clear answer to this question.

>
> The method is trivially simple. I'll give two approaches:
>
>
> 1. Instantaneously pause all relativistic effects at any time t on A's
> clock and read the time t' on B's clock. These clock times are a point when
> A and B were/are in the same p-time current moment.
>

"Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
(say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same
instant" that B turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant
A turned 50, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned
50, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't
have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the
question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a
sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A.
Again, do you disagree?

Since the whole rest of your explanation depends on this notion of an
"instantaneous pause", I'll await a response to this question before
dealing with the rest of your discussion of your "method".

Jesse

>
> 2. Do the same thing for any t you wish. The t' that corresponds will be
> the clock time in the same present moment of p-time as the t you paused at.
>
> 3. In general if you want to know what clock time t' of B occurred in the
> same p-time as any time t on A's clock, all you have to do is pause the
> experiment at t so that all relative motion ceases and just read t' on B's
> clock.
>
> Because this can be done at any point t on A's clock we can always
> determine what t' on B's clock occurred in the same p-time as that t simply
> by reading B's clock.
>
> Note this is exactly what happens when the twins meet up in the same
> p-time present moment and read each other's clocks to determine what clock
> times occurred at the same p-time, in that same common present moment.
>
>
> You can also do this with a calculation

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

2014-02-11 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> You are right, the qualia are in X1* \  X1, like we get quanta in
> S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.

The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of
X1*\X1, (and even that supposes that Z captures all observations,
which I think is debatable), not that your model generates qualia, as
Liz was suggesting.

There may well be other things in X1*\X1 that are not qualia.

This is not a critique of you - I don't recall you ever claiming your
model "got qualia", I was mainly responding to Liz's comment of 11/2/14.

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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> > On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb  wrote:
> >
> > > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
> > > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
> > > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> > > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> > > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
> > > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.
>  That's
> > > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of
> arithmetic?)
> > > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another
> way,
> > > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation
> simulate
> > > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
> > > that world.
> > >
> >
> > Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
> > assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
> >
>
> I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
> computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
> senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
> reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.
>
> I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.
>
> Well, Brent seems to think it does (it was the AR bit he was rejecting, or
the Peano subset thereof I think?).

However, I agree that "I think consciousness depends of (sic) consciousness
*of* an external world" is simply an opinion, and the other related
objections seem to be "arguing from incredulity".

-- 
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

On 12 February 2014 14:02, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 07:31:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > You are right, the qualia are in X1* \  X1, like we get quanta in
> > S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*.
>
> The only thing you can say is that qualia ought to obey the axioms of
> X1*\X1, (and even that supposes that Z captures all observations,
> which I think is debatable), not that your model generates qualia, as
> Liz was suggesting.
>
> There may well be other things in X1*\X1 that are not qualia.
>
> This is not a critique of you - I don't recall you ever claiming your
> model "got qualia", I was mainly responding to Liz's comment of 11/2/14.
>

My unreserved apologies if I misrepresented Bruno. I was under the
impression that comp has at least some sort of claim to explain qualia, but
since I haven't got that far in the argument I wasn't able to say any more
than I did.

-- 
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


On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What Everett did for the quantum universal wave, we can do that on any universal system, 
and comp predicts that this will always give the same physics. 


How does it predict that?

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

2014-02-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 12 February 2014 02:18, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> I don't agree. I think it *can* be proved that replacing the brain
>> neuron by neuron will preserve consciousness with the only assumption
>> being that the observable behaviour of the neuron is preserved. This
>> holds whatever theory of consciousness you have; for example, it holds
>> even if you believe that the brain is animated by God.
>
>
>
> So you say that Behavioral mechanism entails computationalism?

Not computationalism specifically, for it is possible that the brain
utilises some non-computational process, but rather functionalism. I'm
not sure how to conceptualise abstract "function"; it seems even
harder than abstract computation.

> I will resist asking in you in which theory.

The result does not depend on any particular theory of consciousness,
except that the consciousness is generated by the brain or at least
strictly tied to behaviour. We can assume that the brain has special,
God-given properties, and it is still the case that if the brain's
behaviour is preserved, consciousness is preserved. If consciousness
resides in a spiritual realm apart from the brain and is not
necessarily tied to behaviour then it would be possible to produce a
partial or full zombie: the person would behave normally but his mind
would continue on a different track, noting with horror that he can't
control his body. I think it's implausible, if not impossible, that
consciousness could reside outside of the brain and brain behaviour be
merely contingently tied to it.

> That result would also prove the logical impossibility of zombie.

It is obvious, I think, that a partial zombie is impossible. I think
that by extension a full zombie can also be show to be impossible: you
continue the replacement until there is none of the original person
left.

> My feeling is that you might use comp somehow.

I agree that comp is true provided that the observable behaviour of
brain tissue is computable, which it probably is. The sticking point
is whether computability of the observable behaviour entails
computability of consciousness, in the sense that if you run the
appropriate computations consciousness will ensue. People like John
Searle and Craig Weinberg think not, but I believe that the above
argument proves them wrong.

> But it is easy to find a counter-example. Take the theory according to which
> the brain is animated by God, as you suggest, and God decides to stop
> consciousness when 88% of the brain get digital. The person is transformed
> in one nanosecond from full consciousness to full zombihood when that 88%
> treshold is passed.

As above, that would be possible if consciousness were only
contingently related to the brain.

>> Think about what it would mean if, say, the neural pathways
>> responsible for pain were replaced but the replacement parts were
>> zombified, dead or impostors. We can imagine that God, who is
>> omnipotent, creates these parts. If you were subjected to a painful
>> stimulus you would also honestly believe that you felt the pain, you
>> would experience anxiety associated with pain, you would yell out and
>> try to withdraw from the source of the pain, and so on. However, you
>> would not actually feel any pain!
>
>
> My point is that this is more easy to conceive for an epiphenomenalist than
> for a phenomenalist.
>
> If my 3p-behavioral attempt to withdraw from the source of the pain is not
> caused, or at least rationally related to the unpleasant feeling I am
> experiencing, am I not already close to a zombie?

I believe that my withdrawal from the painful stimulus is caused by
the underlying physics and that the associated wish to avoid an
unpleasant feeling is also associated with the underlying physics, or
at least the computations or function, and associated with it in a
necessary way which prevents me from being a zombie.

> If you follow the AUDA "super-thread" (modal logic,
> self-reference/diagonalization, ...), my question to you should be
> "are the logic of "[°]p = []p & p epiphenomenal on the logic of []p?". May
> be I should as you if the truth or falsity that "the machines 678 stops on
> input 200796" is epiphenomenal on the truth  Arithmetic">. Is G itself epiphenomenal?
>
> It seems to me that the UDA would support that the entire couplings
> consciousness/physical-realities is an epiphenomena of arithmetic.

Yes, it is.

> Like "free" in free-will, "epi" does not seem to add something clear.
> usually it is sustain by dualist who grasp that interactionist dualism is
> inconsistent. But arithmetic can explains the truth of many statements on
> the machine that the machine sometimes "know" (by other and diverse means
> than proof) and the logic (+UDA/comp) suggests they describe phenomena, with
> primitive materiality being a delusion (no ontologically primitive time,
> space, energy, particles, waves, fields, etc.).

Interactionalist dualism, parallelism, eliminativism are false and
this leaves epiphenomenalis

Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
> you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
> (say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same
> instant" that B turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant
> A turned 50, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned
> 50, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't
> have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the
> question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a
> sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A.
> Again, do you disagree?
>

Sorry, I got the numbers and letters a little mixed up here, the paragraph
should read:

"Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A turns some age
(say 60), then different frames disagree on what age B is "at the same
instant" that A turns 60. So if one frame said B was 48 at the same instant
A turned 60, and another frame said B was 75 at the same instant A turned
60, then at what age should B's motion relative to A be "paused"? We don't
have an "objective instantaneous pause machine" that can settle the
question empirically, it has to be *our choice* when to subject B to a
sudden acceleration to instantaneously bring him to rest relative to A.
Again, do you disagree?

-- 
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


On 2/11/2014 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But I think what is shown is that there can be a world including conscious beings which 
does not require physical events in our world, i.e. they can be merely arithmetical or 
Turing machince "events".  In other words it is possible to simulate a world with 
conscious beings.


OK, but their consciousness is not simulated, as the consciousness of the being is in 
all arithmetical simulations. The machine you build makes only that consciousness 
manifestable relatively to you.


But that assumes what you are trying to argue, that consciousness is a purely arithmetical 
phenomenon.


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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 2/11/2014 4:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:

On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb wrote:

My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
the sense required for this argument. I think consciousness depends of
consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
"ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous. There are obvious
physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable. That's
why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another way,
I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation simulate
a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
that world.

Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!

I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.

Exactly. One may still say yes to the doctor who give you an artificial brain that
functions within this world (and cannot be the 'inert' brain of step 8).

I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.

If you accept AR *and* the identification of "unprovable arithmetical truth"="qualia" then
it is relevant because a computer can, with the right program, recognize unprovable truths
and therefore have ineffabel qualia. But I see no reason to accept this identification.
The only thing they have in common is that they are inexpressible in their respective domains.

Brent

I'm not yet convinced it is a genuine problem for step 8, or not, as I still
don't feel I fully understand what that says yet.

Cheers

--
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

On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish > wrote:

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical realism in
> > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends of
> > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are obvious
> > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  
That's
> > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of arithmetic?)
> > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another 
way,
> > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation 
simulate
> > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative* to
> > that world.
> >
>
> Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
> assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
>

I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.

I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.

Well, Brent seems to think it does (it was the AR bit he was rejecting, or the Peano 
subset thereof I think?).

However, I agree that "I think consciousness depends of (sic) consciousness *of* an 
external world" is simply an opinion,

Is it?  Can you be conscious without being conscious of something?

and the other related objections seem to be "arguing from incredulity".

Yes, I am incredulous that "arithmetical provability" = "knowledge" and "unprovable 
arithmetical truth" = "qualia".  Are you credulous on those two points?

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

Jesse,

Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.

First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time 
ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.

The question is what clock times of various observers correspond to a same 
point of p-time?

The answer is that to find out what t of any observer in any relativistic 
frame corresponds to any t' of any other relativistic frame you just pause 
the experiment so that all relativistic effects freeze at that instant. 

When you do that all clocks of all observers begin running in synchrony. 
However the previous relativistic differences could have resulted in real 
permanent clock time age differences. So what you do then you just compare 
what t value A has on his clock to what t' value B has on his clock. Those 
clock times will be in the same p-time, whether they are the same or 
different.

Since you can pause at any t or any t', you can always tell what t value 
and what t' value occurred in the same p-time.

That's the method to tell what clock times for various observers correspond 
to (occurred at) the same p-time.

NOTE; Though I know you don't want to really understand the principles 
behind the theory, that this is something relativity itself can't do. 
Relativity is always frame dependent. It can't compare frames because it 
assumes everything happens in term of one frame at a time.

It is only when one steps back into the necessary p-time background context 
of p-time, that different relativistic frames can be COMPARED, and the 
insight of p-time like I present here become clear.

If all there is is just non-accelerated, non-gravitational relative motion, 
you don't even have to pause the experiment. All you have to do is note 
that A's clock in his frame will be the same as B's clock in his frame, for 
all t and t' values, so observers in only non-accelerated relative motion 
ALWAYS have synchronized clocks in of the readings of their own clocks, so 
that t in one frame always corresponds to the same clock time in t' frame, 
which indicates that whenever t=t' for any value that occurs in a common 
p-time, a common shared present moment of p-time.

Hope that clarifies it...

Edgar

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:46:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm 
> pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two 
> clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that 
> point must be simultaneous in p-time)." That is NOT true. Only if there is 
> no relative motion or acceleration is it true. I really wish you could just 
> get the basics of the theory straight.
>
>
> I thought you agreed on my operational definition of "same point in 
> spacetime", and that events that satisfied this definition would also occur 
> at the same point in p-time. I wonder if you actually are correctly 
> understanding what I say in the quoted sentence, because I find it hard to 
> believe you would deny it if you understood it correctly.
>
> Let's say we have two twins moving towards each other at some nonzero 
> velocity, and they pass right next to each other without either one 
> accelerating. Relativity can be used to predict their respective ages at 
> the moment they pass (if we idealize them as pointlike observers, the 
> "moment they pass" can refer to their worldlines passing through precisely 
> the same position and time coordinates). To use my usual numbers, 
> relativity might say that twin A is turning 30 and twin B is turning 40 at 
> the moment they pass. In terms of my operational definition, if A was 
> sending a continual stream of light signals to B and seeing how long it 
> took to receive the reflected signal, the time interval on A's clock 
> between sending a signal and receiving the reflection would approach zero 
> as his own age clock approached 30, and the age he would see on B's age 
> clock in the reflected light would approach 40 as he approached 30. 
> Likewise, if there was a camera at the point in space they passed, and it 
> took a photo just as they passed, the photo would show A's age clock 
> reading 30 and B's age clock reading 40. And if A had a bomb that would 
> destroy anything in his immediate local vicinity but would leave anything 
> at a distance from him unharmed, then if A set it to go off when he turned 
> 30, B would be killed at age 40, but if A set it to go off at any other 
> age, B would survive unharmed.
>
> Given that relativity would predict all these things, are you saying these 
> predictions could all be correct, but that A turning 30 and B turning 40 
> would *not* be simultaneous in p-time, not even approximately so? Or are 
> you actually saying relativity would be *wrong* in the predictions above 
> when it predicts the event of A turning 30 will have the same x,y,z,t 
> coordinat

Re: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 14:43, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
>> > On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb  wrote:
>> >
>>  > > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical
>> realism in
>> > > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness depends
>> of
>> > > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
>> > > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
>> > > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are
>> obvious
>> > > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.
>>  That's
>> > > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of
>> arithmetic?)
>> > > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at another
>> way,
>> > > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation
>> simulate
>> > > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist *relative*
>> to
>> > > that world.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
>> > assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
>> >
>>
>>  I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
>> computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
>> senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
>> reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.
>>
>> I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.
>>
>>  Well, Brent seems to think it does (it was the AR bit he was rejecting,
> or the Peano subset thereof I think?).
>
> However, I agree that "I think consciousness depends of (sic)
> consciousness *of* an external world" is simply an opinion,
>
>  Is it?  Can you be conscious without being conscious of something?
>

Not without being conscious of something, no, but you specified an external
world. Dreaming is arguably a case where you aren't conscious of an
external world.

  and the other related objections seem to be "arguing from incredulity".

 Yes, I am incredulous that "arithmetical provability" = "knowledge" and
> "unprovable arithmetical truth" = "qualia".  Are you credulous on those two
> points?
>

I'm agnostic, at least pending (a lot of) further investigation. But it
sounded to me as though you were incredulous that "dreams (of arithmetic?)
are possible independent of any external world". i.e. the whole "UDA being
able to exist in Platonia" thing.

Which I have to admit seems a fairly incredible idea to me most of the
time, especially when I stub my toe.

-- 
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 12 February 2014 15:23, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Jesse,
>
> Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
>
> First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
> ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
>
> The question is what clock times of various observers correspond to a same
> point of p-time?
>
> The answer is that to find out what t of any observer in any relativistic
> frame corresponds to any t' of any other relativistic frame you just pause
> the experiment so that all relativistic effects freeze at that instant.
>
> You seem to be assuming what you want to prove. What does "at that
instant" mean?

-- 
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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:00 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 10:55, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 08:50, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 00:41, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:45 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11 February 2014 18:40, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>

 String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the
 viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured

>>>
>>> Correctly, I assume.
>>>
>>>
  and more recently explained the mechanism behind EPR based on
 Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a retrodiction.

>
>>> That seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, although the initials
>>> have a nice near-symmetry. Why would one need to have ERBs - that
>>> presumably have to be kept open by some exotic mechanicsm - to explain 
>>> EPR
>>> when you can do it very simply anyway?
>>>
>>
>> And how can it be done very simply?
>>
>> By dropping Bell's assumption that time is fundamentally asymmetric
> (for the particles used in an EPR experiment, which are generally 
> photons).
>

 Please explain how dropping asymmetric time explains EPR.

>
> It makes it logically possible. I will have to ask a physicist for the
>>> details, but it is a mechanism whereby the state of the measuring apparatus
>>> can influence the state of the entire system. If we assume the emitter
>>> creates a pair of entangled photons and their polarisation is measured at
>>> two spacelike-separated locations, then the polarisers can act as a
>>> constraint on the state of the photons and hence of the system, and that
>>> the setting of one polariser can therefore influence the polarisation
>>> measured in the other branch of the experiment (without any FTL signals /
>>> non-locality).
>>>
>>> This preserves realism and locality at the expense of dropping an
>>> assumption that most physicists think is untrue anyway (though the idea of
>>> time being asymmetric is so deeply ingrained that we automatically
>>> assume it must be true of systems it doesn't apply to, like single photons).
>>>
>>
>> Your explanation is hardly satisfactory for this physicist
>>
>
> That's because I'm not a physicist. I'm merely showing that an explanation
> is possible, and hence should be investigated (although it isn't *me*showing 
> this - it's been looked into by various people, from Wheeler-Feynman
> absorber 
> theoryonwards).
>
> It has been considered a satisfactory basis for an explanation of Bell's
> Inequality by some physicists, including John Bell.
>

Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR. The
Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles maintain
their connection.

>
>
>  --
> 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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:45 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 10:48, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I don't see that. Warming oceans have less capacity to absorb gas from
 the atmosphere, and would eventually start to release it back again, at
 which point we'll really be into runaway feedback (or our grandchildren
 will). It's possible that's what happened in the relatively fast warming
 around the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See for example
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Methane_release

>>>
>> The climate in the so-called 
>> Palaeocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>  lasted
>> for 20 million years.
>>
>
> 200,000 according to that article. Also from that article:
>
> "At the start of the PETM, average global temperatures increased by
> approximately 6 °C (11 °F) within about 20,000 years."
>
> That was the result of natural processes. The human race is doing a lot
> "better" than that!
>

That is not what the data shows. Take a look:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.meltonengineering.com/Zachos%25202001%2520PETM%252072%2520dpi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.concord.org/what-caused-the-paleocene-eocene-thermal-maximum&h=285&w=177&sz=1&tbnid=6QMv8FTf8uJhzM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=115&zoom=1&usg=__wTlZHQ6Tyy42yi8HlCVB2eoB-ck=&docid=LavOcNHQ3o3thM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=EOr6UvCqF7Th0AH2k4GACw&ved=0CKUBEPwdMAo

>
>
>  --
> 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: Better Than the Chinese Room

2014-02-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On 12 February 2014 05:21, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 10, 2014 7:51:58 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> On 11 February 2014 11:23, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>>
>> >> Continuity and the idea that physical laws will be consistent in
>> >> different times and places are definitely assumptions. They could turn
>> >> out to be false tomorrow.
>> >
>> >
>> > The possibility of continuity seems like it is implicit in almost every
>> > kind
>> > of experience. A mouse has an expectation of continuity. The idea of
>> > physical laws though is a much more sophisticated intellectual
>> > construct.
>>
>> Arguably psychological continuity isn't real for either mice or
>> people. If you were destroyed last night and replaced with a copy the
>> today version of you would declare that he was continuous with the
>> yesterday version. I would say that's correct, the two versions are a
>> continuation of the same person, while you would presumably say that
>> it was a delusion.
>
>
> I don't think that my experience can be replaced with a copy though.

So how would you know you were a copy? Here you are today, incredulous
about the story of your destruction last night, but we produce
witnesses and videotapes and whatever other proof you need. What are
you going to say to that?

>> If it were possible to have a change in mental state without a change
>> in brain state that would be evidence that we don't think with our
>> brain.
>
>
> Some claim that NDEs are such changes, and that their experiences have
> occurred during periods without brain activity. Certainly there is evidence
> that correlates decreased brain activity with increased perception with
> psilocybin uses, which would suggest at the very least that a one-to-one
> correspondence of mental to neurological activity is an oversimplification.

Obviously, since maximal brain activity occurs during an epileptic
fit, during which there may be no consciousness.

> I would not deny that we think with our brain, in the sense that the human
> experience of thought corresponds with the appearance of human brain
> activity, but that doesn't mean that our consciousness and experience of
> living is part of our brain or can be located through our brain.

No, I would not use those terms. But I don't believe that an
experience can occur in the absence of all brain activity, for example
if the brain is frozen in liquid nitrogen.

>> Why should different languages be comprehensible to different
>> cultures?
>
>
> Why should there be different languages? If neurons use the same language to
> signal each other, why not humans also?

Why are lakes different in shape if they all contain water?

>> Different computer languages run on identical hardware and
>> are mutually incomprehensible.
>
>
> That's because we are designing the computer languages, not the hardware. We
> want to use the hardware for different purposes, but if the hardware itself
> were designing its own language, why would we expect multiple incompatible
> designs?

If computers developed in isolated groups and chose words randomly or
on the basis of environmental sounds, they would have different
languages. It would be incredible if they did not, like finding an
alien civilization where people spoke English.

>> And why should food and drugs have a
>> differential effect depending on native language?
>
>
> Because you are saying that language is identical to brain changes. Food and
> drugs cause brain changes too, so we should expect conflicts. Drinking
> alcohol should have different effects for speakers of different languages,
> and speaking different languages should alter the effects of different
> drugs.

Not at all. Computers may have identical hardware but completely
different software. The software differences are still encoded as
physical differences in the computer, for example different electrical
charges at different physical locations on a memory chip. Similarly,
language is encoded differently in the fine structure of the synaptic
connections even if the brains belong to identical twins raised in
different countries.

>> There are drugs
>> which have the same effect on species as far apart as humans and
>> bacteria.
>
>
> Which is why I say that it should be the same case for language if it was a
> product of brain change. There should be words with mean the same thing on
> species as far apart as humans and bacteria, or at least as far apart as
> humans on the other side of the continent.

Not at all.


-- 
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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR. The
> Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles maintain
> their connection.
>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an explanation,
it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR experiments.

-- 
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

In case my explanation isn't clear...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_inequality#Original_Bell.27s_inequality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality

-- 
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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>>
>> Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
>> The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
>> maintain their connection.
>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an
> explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR
> experiments.
>

You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that using
Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. Bell's Inequality
does not explain the mechanism. Seems you trust math more than physics or
even data as in the other thread.

>
>  --
> 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: Vote to make ecocide illegal

You'll have to explain what you mean. The spike for the PETM is very thin,
I can't tell exactly because the scale is too large but it looks to me as
if it's around the specified 0.2 Myr. (It's the little horizontal line
sticking out to the right, with an arrow pointing to it labelled PETM). On
the temperature scale shown it sticks out about 4 degrees above the mean
(red line) at that point.

[image: Inline images 1]

-- 
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

Oops editing too fast, remove the last "of".


On 12 February 2014 16:45, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>

 Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
 The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
 maintain their connection.

>
>  I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an
>>> explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that
>> using Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's
>> Inequality does not explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more
>> than physics or even data as in the other thread.
>>
>
> Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said.
>
> What you said was:
>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently explained
>> the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more
>> like a retrodiction.
>>
>
> So you are, or appear to be, saying that string theory predicts the
> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma based on Maldacena's conjecture, and
> that it also explains the EPR mechanism using ERBs. Or at least that is the
> most reasonable way to parse of your sentence.
>
>
>

-- 
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

On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
>>> The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
>>> maintain their connection.
>>>

 I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an
>> explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR
>> experiments.
>>
>
> You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that using
> Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's Inequality
> does not explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more than physics
> or even data as in the other thread.
>

Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said.

What you said was:

String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently explained
> the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more
> like a retrodiction.
>

So you are, or appear to be, saying that string theory predicts the
viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma based on Maldacena's conjecture, and
that it also explains the EPR mechanism using ERBs. Or at least that is the
most reasonable way to parse of your sentence.

-- 
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

On 2/11/2014 7:12 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 14:43, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:

On 2/11/2014 4:56 PM, LizR wrote:

On 12 February 2014 13:50, Russell Standish mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:48AM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 12 February 2014 02:55, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> > My problem with this is that I don't believe in arithmetical 
realism in
> > the sense required for this argument.  I think consciousness 
depends of
> > consciousness *of* an external world and thoughts just about Peano's
> > arithmetic is not enough to realize consciousness and the
> > "ineffable=unprovable" identification is gratuitous.  There are 
obvious
> > physical and evolutionary reasons that qualia would be ineffable.  
That's
> > why I think step 8 is invalid because it assumes dreams (of 
arithmetic?)
> > are possible independent of any external world - or looked at 
another way,
> > I think to make it work would require that the 'inert' computation 
simulate
> > a whole world in which the consciousness would then exist 
*relative* to
> > that world.
> >
>
> Well, you have already rejected step 0 - (at least one of) the initial
> assumptions - so I wouldn't worry about step 8!
>

I don't see how it rejects step 0. Provided that the artificial
computational brain offered by the doctor is connected to the actual
senses, and not just placed in a vat connected to some simulated
reality, it certainly satisfies the Yes Doctor postulate.

I don't see the relevance of AR or CT to Brent's argument.

Well, Brent seems to think it does (it was the AR bit he was rejecting, or 
the
Peano subset thereof I think?).

However, I agree that "I think consciousness depends of (sic) consciousness 
*of* an
external world" is simply an opinion,

Is it?  Can you be conscious without being conscious of something?

Not without being conscious of something, no, but you specified an external world. 
Dreaming is arguably a case where you aren't conscious of an external world.

Not directly, but then it's never *directly*.  I think dreams are about the world too, 
about concepts and events you learned or which were hardwired into your brain by evolution.

and the other related objections seem to be "arguing from incredulity".

Yes, I am incredulous that "arithmetical provability" = "knowledge" and 
"unprovable
arithmetical truth" = "qualia".  Are you credulous on those two points?

I'm agnostic, at least pending (a lot of) further investigation. But it sounded to me as 
though you were incredulous that "dreams (of arithmetic?) are possible independent of 
any external world". i.e. the whole "UDA being able to exist in Platonia" thing.

I'm not sure they are impossible.  If you wrote a theorem proving, Lobian program then 
maybe it would dream arithmetic.  But I'm very doubtful that is the source of human dreams.

Brent

Which I have to admit seems a fairly incredible idea to me most of the time, especially 
when I stub my toe.

--
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

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>
>>> On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>>

 Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
 The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
 maintain their connection.

>
>  I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an
>>> explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR
>>> experiments.
>>>
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that
>> using Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's
>> Inequality does not explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more
>> than physics or even data as in the other thread.
>>
>
> Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said.
>
> What you said was:
>
> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently explained
>> the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more
>> like a retrodiction.
>>
>
> So you are, or appear to be, saying that string theory predicts the
> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma based on Maldacena's conjecture, and
> that it also explains the EPR mechanism using ERBs. Or at least that is the
> most reasonable way to parse of your sentence.
>

You brought up Bell's Inequality, not me. Happy to see that you now get it.


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

-- 
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


On 2/11/2014 7:45 PM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist > wrote:


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of 
EPR. The
Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles 
maintain
their connection.


I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an 
explanation, it's a
number which is violated in the measured results of EPR experiments.


You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that using
Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's Inequality 
does not
explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more than physics or even data 
as in
the other thread.

Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said.

What you said was:

String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of the
quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently explained the 
mechanism
behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more like a 
retrodiction.



An EBR bridge, which is a classical GR concept is not an adequate explanation of EPR Bell 
violation until you can explain how an EBR is formed and maintained and how that produces 
the extra correlation.  Otherwise it's just hand-waving "there's a connection".


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: Suicide Words God and Ideas

On 12 February 2014 17:16, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 12 February 2014 16:33, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
 On 12 February 2014 16:23, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

>
> Bell's Inequality in my opinion does not explain the mechanism of EPR.
> The Einstein-Rosen bridge does. It explains how entangled particles
> maintain their connection.
>
>>
>>  I don't understand what you mean. Bell's inequality isn't an
 explanation, it's a number which is violated in the measured results of EPR
 experiments.

>>>
>>> You seem to have forgotten my original claim for string theory, that
>>> using Maldacena's duality it explains the mechanism of EPR. *Bell's
>>> Inequality does not explain the mechanism. *Seems you trust math more
>>> than physics or even data as in the other thread.
>>>
>>
>> Shorn of the ad hominem nonsense, that's what I just said.
>>
>> What you said was:
>>
>> String theory based on Maldacena's conjecture predicted the viscosity of
>>> the quark-gluon plasma before it was measured and more recently explained
>>> the mechanism behind EPR based on Einstein-Rosen bridges, which is more
>>> like a retrodiction.
>>>
>>
>> So you are, or appear to be, saying that string theory predicts the
>> viscosity of the quark-gluon plasma based on Maldacena's conjecture, and
>> that it also explains the EPR mechanism using ERBs. Or at least that is the
>> most reasonable way to parse of your sentence.
>>
>
> You brought up Bell's Inequality, not me. Happy to see that you now get it.
>

You mentioned EPR. The point of EPR is that the results violate Bell's
inequality.

>
>

-- 
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