date:20140221

"I wouldn't ride in the damn thing!" -- Larry Niven, "The theory and
practice of teleportation" (from memory, I may not have got that quote 100%
right)


On 22 February 2014 14:39, David Nyman  wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc
>
>
>  --
> 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

What is it like to be Daniel Dennett?



On 22 February 2014 19:19, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>  What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do> 
> differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of the observer> 
> which does not enter in the telebox.> I am not sure what sense to give to 
> your statement.> Likewise, the math 3p ([]p) and 1p ([]p & p) **does** obey 
> different logic.> And, yes, it is due to a failure of the machine to see that 
> they are> equivalent (as seen by G*), but it is not a failure of imagination, 
> it is a> requirement to remain consistent.
>
>  That the diary is different and that the observer will experience only
> M or W and not both is a 3p describable phenomenon. The essentially
> different thing about 1p is that it is private: I can read your diary,
> but even then I don't really know how you feel. I can only know how
> you feel by **being** you, or so it goes.
>
>
>
> But suppose you M-brain and your W-brain were connected by RF in such a
> way that your consciousness shifted between M and W like you shift your
> attention from one sense to another?  This must be what the Borg are like.
> :-)
>
> Brent
> "We are the Dyslexic of Borg. Futility is persistent. Your ass will be
> laminated."
>
> --
> 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-21 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 21 Feb 2014, at 19:07, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>  if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is  
simple: we have to interview all the copies.

Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to  
disprove the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND  
Washington because the Moscow Man, the one and only person you  
talked to, says he didn't see Washington.

I said that we have to interview all copies.

Not that predictions have any relevance to matters of self identity.

Self-identity is not what we talk about.

>> I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag of ideas  
you call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention not mine  
and you're the only one who seems to know exactly what it means.

> You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times.

I've told you a billion times don't exaggerate!

> Comp is the quite standard hypothesis [...]

"Comp" is NOBODY'S standard hypothesis, I have never in my life  
heard a scientist use the word "comp". Not once. And don't tell me  
that it means Computationalism

It is. I have used so often computationalism on this list that I  
called it "comp", but I call it indexical mechanism in "conscience &  
mécanisme", and "computationalism" in most other text.

and you're just too lazy to type the extra letters, if it were just  
that then after I had complained about it "an infinite" number of  
times I think you would have stopped being so lazy. I think there is  
much more to it than that, there must be because I agree with  
Computationalism but I sure as hell don't agree with "comp".

Computationalism is what we assume. What you don't admit are the  
consequence. tell what do add or retrieve for comp to get the  
consequence, if you think we don't get them from comp. But we know why  
you don't get the consequence: you confuse, or deliberately ignore the  
1-3 p distinctions.

>> you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the Helsinki man,  
well that description would fit 2 people because both remember being  
the Helsinki man.

> yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people.

Exactly, there are 2 people not just 1 who will inhabit "the future  
1p" , or more precisely "a future 1p" of the Helsinki Man, so  
interviewing just one man would not provide enough information to  
know if the prediction "John Clark will see both Moscow and  
Washington" was correct or not, but after interviewing both you  
would know enough to be able to judge the truth or falsehood of the  
prediction, and in this case you'd know that the prediction was  
correct.

Which one? Yours "W & M"?
Not at all. You have already agreed that both feel to be in one city.  
So if I interview both, they will both confirm "W v M", and they will  
both refute "W & M".

Not that predictions, good or bad, would matter in the slightest,  
not if you're talking about consciousness and the nature of self  
identity.

But I am not. I talk about prediction. It is the main notion to  
understand that physics has to be redefined as a probability calculus  
on first person view associated to computation.

So to sum up, did the Washington Man see Moscow? No. Did the Moscow  
Man see Washington? No. Was the Washington Man once the Helsinki  
Man? Yes. Was the Moscow Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Is the  
Moscow Man the Washington Man? No. Is the Washington Man the Moscow  
Man? No.

Good.

Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes.

In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view. Your persistent 1-3 confusion  
again. 

>> I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves  
math and it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2  
to the number 3 and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't  
predict if it will end up as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery  
is just as profound as yours. Not very.

> So you accept that step 3 is a discovery?

I think my "discovery" is virtually identical to yours and is just  
as profound. Not very.

So that's it. You blow the candle of another because you are jealous  
he published it and exploit to get something, and you don't even look  
at that something?

You know, to discover something is not enough. The real discovery is  
in the understanding that something apparently "not deep" is actually  
very deep. In this case it shows that Aristotle theology must be  
replaced by Plato's theology, when assuming computationalism, and  
that, consequently, physics, or physics' core non geographical truth,  
must be retrieved from the logic of self-reference, which is done in  
the Arithmetical UDA (AUDA, once for all).

Again, if you accept the point (even have discovered it) please tell  
us if you agree with the step 4, and then 5 and 6.  And 7.

Bruno

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

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

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 2/21/2014 9:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
>differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of the observer
>which does not enter in the telebox.
>I am not sure what sense to give to your statement.
>Likewise, the math 3p ([]p) and 1p ([]p & p)*does*  obey different logic.
>And, yes, it is due to a failure of the machine to see that they are
>equivalent (as seen by G*), but it is not a failure of imagination, it is a
>requirement to remain consistent.

That the diary is different and that the observer will experience only
M or W and not both is a 3p describable phenomenon. The essentially
different thing about 1p is that it is private: I can read your diary,
but even then I don't really know how you feel. I can only know how
you feel by*being*  you, or so it goes.

But suppose you M-brain and your W-brain were connected by RF in such a way that your 
consciousness shifted between M and W like you shift your attention from one sense to 
another?  This must be what the Borg are like. :-)

Brent
"We are the Dyslexic of Borg. Futility is persistent. Your ass will be 
laminated."

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

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?


On 2/21/2014 3:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:11:56PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

Just to clarify, it is *space* that is flat, but spacetime is still
curved, i.e. expansion of the universe is accelerating.


That could only be true in one particular inertial reference
frame? Surely, it can't be the case that spacetime is flat along all
space-like trajectories, whilst at the same time being curved along
time-like trajectories.


The metric for a isotropic, homogenous universe (FRW) is

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2{dr^2/(1-kr^2) + r^2[dtheta^2 + sin(theta)^2 dphi^2]}

  Where a(t) must satisfy the Friedman equations.

(da/dt)^2 - (8/3)piG*a^2 = -k

(d^2a/dt^2) = -(4/3)piG(rho + 3p)a(t)

For k=0 the space part {...} is just Euclidean.  But it's not a flat spacetime because of 
the time dependent a(t)^2 factor.




If so, then the orthogonal time axis that makes the spatial subspace
flat could be a candidate for Edgar's mysterious p-time.


Yes, I suggested to Edgar that the coordinate time in co-moving coordinates, which is what 
t is in the FRW equation, could serve as a physically distinguished time.  A global 
simultaneity is defined by the same value of a(t) everywhere.  But of course that doesn't 
solve his problem, which occurs already in special relativity.


Brent



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: Digital Neurology

On 22 February 2014 13:00, LizR  wrote:
> Looks like the start of the famous "piecemeal replacement" - any bets on
> whether this will cause fading qualia (or fading emotions for the
> hippocampus) ?
>
>
>
> Or to quote the cybermen "You will be like uzzz..."

If we make a bet we can never settle, since the idea is that if the
replacement is technically perfect the subject's behaviour will be
normal, and behaviour includes displays of emotion and verbal
descriptions of internal states.


-- 
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: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 20 February 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 18/02/2014, David Nyman  wrote:
>>
>> >> I think if I say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biochemistry I
>> >> should also say that life is.
>> >
>> >
>> > And should you not go on to say that biochemistry is an epiphenomenon of
>> > physics and physics is an epiphenomenon of  well, something that is
>> > not
>> > itself epiphenomenal, I guess? The way you formulate the problem seems
>> > to
>> > tend to the conclusion that any and all appearances should strictly be
>> > considered an epiphenomenon of something more fundamental that cannot
>> > possibly be encountered directly. And, moreover, there is no entailment
>> > that any such something be straightforwardly isomorphic with any of
>> > those
>> > appearances. I'm not saying that this view is incoherent, by the way,
>> > but
>> > do you agree that something like this is entailed by what you say?
>>
>> I'm making a case for reductionism. If biochemistry necessarily leads to
>> consciousness
>>
>>
>> Biochemistry or anything Turing universal.
>>
>>
>>
>> then I don't think this is any different to the situation where
>> biochemistry necessarily leads to life.
>>
>>
>> Ah!
>> But then life is clearly a 3p phenomenon, so why make consciousness an
>> epiphenomenon? Of course consciousness is "only" a 1p phenomenon, but it can
>> make sense (indeed as a sense maker or receptor).
>>
>> Bruno
>
>
> Maybe the 1p/3p distinction is a failure of imagination.
>
>
> What could that mean? The diary of the M-guy and of the W-guy do
> differentiate, and are different from the memory and records of the observer
> which does not enter in the telebox.
> I am not sure what sense to give to your statement.
> Likewise, the math 3p ([]p) and 1p ([]p & p) *does* obey different logic.
> And, yes, it is due to a failure of the machine to see that they are
> equivalent (as seen by G*), but it is not a failure of imagination, it is a
> requirement to remain consistent.

That the diary is different and that the observer will experience only
M or W and not both is a 3p describable phenomenon. The essentially
different thing about 1p is that it is private: I can read your diary,
but even then I don't really know how you feel. I can only know how
you feel by *being* you, or so it goes.

> It's obvious that the phenomenon of life is "no more" than the biochemistry,
>
>
> Actually I disagree with this. Life can be implemented in biochemistry, but
> is much more than biochemistry, for the same reason that Deep blue chess
> abilities is much more than the logic of NAND used to implement it. Life and
> chess ability can be implemented by other means, and *are* implemented by
> infinitely many other means in arithmetic. Eventually we face the problem of
> justifying biochemistry, and matter appearance, from a statistic on
> arithmetic, and this can explain where matter appearance come from.
> To say hat life is no more than biochemistry makes local sense, but if taken
> too much seriously, you will condemn yourself to say that biochemistry is no
> more than addition and multiplication of integers, or is no more than
> reduction and application of combinators.

Yes, that's what I would say that life and biochemistry are if a TOE
can generate all of reality from something basic.

> but maybe if we could simulate the biochemistry in our heads we would
> intuitively see any 1p aspect it has as well.
>
>
> Are you not doing "Searle" error?  A person can simulate the chinese person
> does not entail that the person can experience the chinese person feeling.
> Robinson Arithmetic can simulate Peano Arithmetic, but this does not entail
> that Robinson Arithmetic can prove what Peano Arithmetic can prove. And all
> the points of view will depend on proof, not on computation or imitation,
> even if they play a big role. I hope I will be able to clarify this
> important point in the modal thread.
> You seem to push reductionism too far (too far with respect to
> computationalism).

Yes, you can simulate something without really understanding it, like
the Chinese Room. But maybe if we had godlike cognitive abilities we
could simulate another mind and literally see things from their point
of view.


-- 
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: Better Than the Chinese Room

On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>>> You're assuming that precise molecular assembly will necessarily yield a
>>> coherent dynamic process, but that may not be the case at all. If you put
>>> random people in the proper places in a baseball diamond, and give the one
>>> in the middle a baseball, they don't necessarily play a baseball game.
>>
>>
>> If you're right then there would be something missing, something
>> mysterious, and there would be evidence for it much simpler experiments than
>> complete assembly of a human body. For example, you might be able to
>> substitute some chemical on a cell for an equivalent chemical and observe
>> the cell stop functioning even though everything seems to be biochemically
>> in order. That would be direct evidence for your theory. It's scientifically
>> testable.
>
>
> What's missing is the entire history of experiences which relate to whatever
> it is that you think you're copying.
>
> We don't exist on the levels of cells or molecules. If there were no human
> looking down at cells in a microscope, and we had only the microcosmic
> perspective to go from, there would be nothing that could be done to build a
> human experience. No configuration of proteins and ion channels is going to
> taste like strawberries to any of the molecules or cells. All of these
> structures relate only to a particular level of description. If you copy the
> sheet music of "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" you don't know if it is the
> Rolling Stones version or the Devo version, and neither could be predicted
> or generated purely from the notes.

That's your theory, but the theory should have some straightforward
observational consequences. For example, if some of the matter in a
cell is replaced in a laboratory, then the cell would stop
functioning. This would confound the scientists because according to
current theories it ought to function normally provided all the matter
is there in the right configuration.


-- 
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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

On 21 February 2014 14:48, chris peck  wrote:
> Hi Liz
>
>
>>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you to
>>> another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
>>> Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
>>> "transported" :) A malfunction causes you to be duplicated and sent to both
>>> destinations, but you will never meet your doppelganger in the other solar
>>> system, or find out that he exists.
>
> Does this make any difference to how you assign probabilities? If so, why?
>
> My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
> system A is 1. I can't assign a probability of seeing Solar System B if I
> don't know about the possibility of accidents. But,
> If I know that there is a small chance of the accident you describe then the
> probabilities end up:
>
> Solar System A : 1
> Solar System B : small chance.
>
> Note that the probability of seeing Solar System A doesn't end up (1-small
> chance) as far as I am concerned.
>
> Also note that in the MWI example, where small chances require a world of
> their own, the probabilities end up:
>
> Solar System A : 1
> Solar System B : 1.
>
> So the probabilities work out slightly differently. I'm sure its an
> unpopular view but as I see it probabilities, however small, get rounded up
> to 1 in MWI scenarios.
>
> All the best

Since in the world we live in probabilities for everything don't seem
to be 1, is this evidence that the MWI is false? Is it even logically
possible to be an observer in a multiverse where everything happens
with probability 1, and if so, what would it be like?


-- 
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: Digital Neurology

Looks like the start of the famous "piecemeal replacement" - any bets on
whether this will cause fading qualia (or fading emotions for the
hippocampus) ?



Or to quote the cybermen "You will be like uzzz..."

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On 2/21/2014 2:27 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I am in agreement but I am guessing humankind does not yet possess a working LTFR that
could power a large city. Nor, is a MSR (molten salt reactor) to accomplish the goodies
we all need, abundant and comparatively safe. Like fusion, like solar, it needs
development, and beyond a few bits of work here and there, little is happening.

Human kind did possess a LFTR for a few years at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. It was
a research reactor and was not used to produce electrical power. It was rejected as the
powerplant for nuclear submarines because the Oak Ridge director had Adm Rickover thrown
out of the lab for interfering with his directives. Rickover, who was famously arrogant,
contracted with Westinghouse to build a powerplant using their technology. And that's how
the world ended up with uranium fission power reactors.

There are a few companies pursuing development of LFTRs. One is proposing to do the
actual development in Brazil to avoid the anti-nuclear political activists in the U.S.

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.

Turning the tables on the doctor

2014-02-21 Thread David Nyman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

-- 
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.

Digital Neurology

2014-02-21 Thread David Nyman

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

Interesting wiki on the state of the art in partial substitution /
emulation of brain function (check out "recent development"). Looks like
somebody's going to have the opportunity to say yes to the doctor as early
as next year.

David

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

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

2014-02-21 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Friday, February 21, 2014 10:28:47 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
>
> On 20 February 2014 22:00, Craig Weinberg 
> > wrote:
>
> I'm still unsure whether you don't grasp the relevance of my point, or are 
>>> consciously or unconsciously side-stepping it. It's really peculiar.
>>>
>>
>> It's peculiar because you are the one who doesn't understand my point. I 
>> understand your points perfectly.
>>
>
> You are right and I am wrong. You are the true heir of Galileo. I should 
> apologize.
>

I am Iron Man.

Craig
 

>
> David
>
>
>

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


On 2/21/2014 11:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors 
with thorium
fuel?


If it were a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and the cowardly operators saw the 
Tsunami coming and ran for the hills and completely abandoned the plant then the liquid 
Thorium fuel (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) would get hot, 
and that would expand the liquid, and that would cause the fuel to get less dense, and 
that would cause the nuclear reaction to slow down. Then a freeze plug at the bottom of 
the reactor would melt and the liquid fuel would drain out by gravity (no pumps would be 
needed) into a holding tank and the reaction would stop completely and the reactor would 
enter a safe mode. All this is assuming that the operators were completely incompetent 
and never lifted a finger to help the situation.


And because the liquid Fluoride salt is not under pressure as water is in the Fukushima 
plant  leaks would be far less likely and much less catastrophic even if they did occur.


And also thorium fluoride salt is not water soluble so it wouldn't pollute the 
water table.

Brent

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

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

2014-02-21 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 03:11:56PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
> 
> Just to clarify, it is *space* that is flat, but spacetime is still
> curved, i.e. expansion of the universe is accelerating.
> 

That could only be true in one particular inertial reference
frame? Surely, it can't be the case that spacetime is flat along all
space-like trajectories, whilst at the same time being curved along
time-like trajectories.

If so, then the orthogonal time axis that makes the spatial subspace
flat could be a candidate for Edgar's mysterious p-time.

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: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

On 2/21/2014 8:50 AM, John Clark wrote:
Astronomers proved that, although there are certainly local variations, on the very
largest scale the universe is in general flat. They did this by looking at the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), it is the most distant and oldest thing we have
ever seen and was formed just 380,000 years after the Big Bang, so if we look at a map
of that background radiation the largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000
light years across, spots larger than this wouldn't have had enough time to form because
nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump wouldn't even have
enough time to know it was a lump. So how large would a object 13.8 billion light years
away appear to us if it's size was 380,000 light years across? The answer is one degree
of arc, but ONLY if the universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines converge
or diverge then the image of the largest structures we can see in the CMBR could appear
to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on how the image was distorted, and
that would depend on if the universe is positively or negatively curved. But we see no
distortion at all, in this way the WMAP and Planck satellite proved that the universe is
in general flat, or at least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light
years if the universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.

Just to clarify, it is *space* that is flat, but spacetime is still curved, i.e. expansion
of the universe is accelerating.

Brent

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-02-21 Thread Chris de Morsella

Based on reading the white papers on the LFTR design proposals (that I have 
been able to see) they all seem to  incorporate a fail-safe (lower melting 
point) plug that will melt if the reactor begins to overheat (and well before 
it melts down) and the liquid salt/fuel mix will rapidly drain into a dispersed 
catchment area in which all reactions will come to a very rapid stop (by the 
liquid salt fuel mixture getting physically spread out and also potentially 
dampened down by neutron absorbing casing materials)

LFTR reactor designs have been tested (a long time ago at Oak Ridge) and these 
types have the potential to burn up over 99% of the fertile material (e.g. the 
Thorium) as it is transmuted into U233 and the decay products.

Of all the GenIV breeder types LFTR seems to me to be the variant with the best 
safety profile and resource availability profile (lots of recoverable Thorium). 
However even if a big country like the US went all out to develop this electric 
energy generation technology -- the question remains how many years (decades 
more realistically) would it take to develop a reference design that has been 
engineered, tested etc. and has had all the kinks worked out (at the pilot 
plant level) and then to build out the LFTR infrastructure (from mining, 
refining, to re-refining, to the plants themselves and the waste processing and 
long term storage of the wastes that are not burned up in the breeder (medium 
term waste can still present half lives of a hundred years or so)

I am not sure what the energy landscape of our world will be in twenty to 
thirty years -- but based on the peaking of all liquid fuels and of high grade 
coal as well it is going to have to be very different than the current fossil 
fuel based electric energy generation infrastructure we all depend on. Because 
the lead times are so long (at least 20-30 years) it is hard to predict how far 
the per unit cost of the market leader in solar PV will be at that point. If it 
continues to fall along the trend lines for decreasing unit costs that have 
prevailed for the last four or five decades then it may not even make sense to 
invest in them as Solar PV will become the low cost supply.

Chris

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors with 
> thorium fuel?
>

If it were a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and the cowardly operators 
saw the Tsunami coming and ran for the hills and completely abandoned the plant 
then the liquid Thorium fuel (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride 
salts) would get hot, and that would expand the liquid, and that would cause 
the fuel to get less dense, and that would cause the nuclear reaction to slow 
down. Then a freeze plug at the bottom of the reactor would melt and the liquid 
fuel would drain out by gravity (no pumps would be needed) into a holding tank 
and the reaction would stop completely and the reactor would enter a safe mode. 
All this is assuming that the operators were completely incompetent and never 
lifted a finger to help the situation.  

And because the liquid Fluoride salt is not under pressure as water is in the 
Fukushima plant  leaks would be far less likely and much less catastrophic even 
if they did occur.

  John K Clark

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

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-02-21 Thread spudboy100

I am in agreement but I am guessing humankind does not yet possess a working 
LTFR that could power a large city. Nor, is a MSR (molten salt reactor) to 
accomplish the goodies we all need, abundant and comparatively safe. Like 
fusion, like solar, it needs development, and beyond a few bits of work here 
and there, little is happening. 

-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Feb 21, 2014 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors with 
> thorium fuel?

If it were a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and the cowardly operators 
saw the Tsunami coming and ran for the hills and completely abandoned the plant 
then the liquid Thorium fuel (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride 
salts) would get hot, and that would expand the liquid, and that would cause 
the fuel to get less dense, and that would cause the nuclear reaction to slow 
down. Then a freeze plug at the bottom of the reactor would melt and the liquid 
fuel would drain out by gravity (no pumps would be needed) into a holding tank 
and the reaction would stop completely and the reactor would enter a safe mode. 
All this is assuming that the operators were completely incompetent and never 
lifted a finger to help the situation.  

And because the liquid Fluoride salt is not under pressure as water is in the 
Fukushima plant  leaks would be far less likely and much less catastrophic even 
if they did occur.

  John K Clark

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

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

Re: MODAL 5 (was Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Hi Liz,
>
> On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote:
>
> On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Liz, Others,
>>
>> I was waiting for you to answer the last questions to proceed. Any
>> problem?
>>
>
> Well, nothing apart from going on a mini holiday with an old friend for
> the last 4 days. Sadly she hasn't changed over the last 30 years, so it
> wasn't much fun, but she'd flown all the way from the UK to NZ so I
> couldn't really refuse.
>
> Actually my brain has died after all the nonsense I have been through over
> the last few days. It may take a little while to come back. I will try to
> answer this post properly, maybe tomorrow.
>
>
>
> Thanks for letting me know. Take your time, as the fun is what matter the
> most.
> Feel free to do meta-remarks, or to suggest that I change the pedagogy, or
> that I sum up better where we are going.
>
> You have no problem in understanding logical (modal or not) semantics, but
> I know, from older posts, that you do have some weakness in deducibility.
> "deducing" is usually not an easy task, but you will never been obliged to
> deduce, only to understand what is a deduction, why they can be automated,
> and checked mechanically, and above all, what are their relation with
> semantics.
>
> Then we will be able to begin the interview of the Löbian machine in
> arithmetic, and the derivation of physics. that's the real thing, and
> eventually you will see that modal logic is what make possible to be quite
> short on this.
>
> Take the time needed for your brain to recover. Thanks for telling me, so
> that I avoid any paranoia, like "did I say something impolite or what ...".
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bruno
>

You're one of the most patient and polite people on the Internet, Bruno.


-- 
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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

2014-02-21 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-02-21 19:07 GMT+01:00 John Clark :

> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> >  if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
>> have to interview all the copies.
>>
>
> Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove
> the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND Washington because
> the Moscow Man, the one and only person you talked to, says he didn't see
> Washington.  Not that predictions have any relevance to matters of self
> identity.
>
>
>> >> I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag of ideas you
>>> call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention not mine and you're
>>> the only one who seems to know exactly what it means.
>>>
>>
>> > You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times.
>>
>
> I've told you a billion times don't exaggerate!
>
> > Comp is the quite standard hypothesis [...]
>>
>
> "Comp" is NOBODY'S standard hypothesis, I have never in my life heard a
> scientist use the word "comp". Not once. And don't tell me that it means
> Computationalism and you're just too lazy to type the extra letters, if it
> were just that then after I had complained about it "an infinite" number of
> times I think you would have stopped being so lazy. I think there is much
> more to it than that, there must be because I agree with Computationalism
> but I sure as hell don't agree with "comp".
>
> >> you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the Helsinki man, well
>>> that description would fit 2 people because both remember being the
>>> Helsinki man.
>>>
>>
>>
> > yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people.
>>
>
> Exactly, there are 2 people not just 1 who will inhabit "the future 1p" ,
> or more precisely "a future 1p" of the Helsinki Man, so interviewing just
> one man would not provide enough information to know if the prediction
> "John Clark will see both Moscow and Washington" was correct or not, but
> after interviewing both you would know enough to be able to judge the truth
> or falsehood of the prediction, and in this case you'd know that the
> prediction was correct. Not that predictions, good or bad, would matter in
> the slightest, not if you're talking about consciousness and the nature of
> self identity.
>
> So to sum up, did the Washington Man see Moscow? No. Did the Moscow Man
> see Washington? No. Was the Washington Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Was
> the Moscow Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Is the Moscow Man the Washington
> Man? No. Is the Washington Man the Moscow Man? No. Did the Helsinki Man see
> Washington and Moscow? Yes.
>
> >> I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves math
>>> and it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2 to the
>>> number 3 and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't predict if it will
>>> end up as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery is just as profound as
>>> yours. Not very.
>>>
>>
>>
>  > So you accept that step 3 is a discovery?
>>
>
> I think my "discovery" is virtually identical to yours and is just as
> profound. Not very.
>
>
As usual, you go from denial, to not "profound"... you know why it is
called *step* three ? I'll tell you a real discovery your big brain still
didn't found... it is a step because *that's not the discovery*. Anyway,
you've decided long ago to dismiss anything coming from Bruno, Bruno is too
patient with you, you'll never accept continuing reading/discussing the
argument, it would be an admittance that you lost your game. So keep your
belief in probability and MWI and dismiss anything else with all your heart
even when it's obviously inconsistent  (I await your theory explaining how
meeting a doppelganger render the probabilty calculus null) , everybody
knows that if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes truth... or maybe not.

Quentin



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



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
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: Wikipedia-size maths proof too big for humans to check

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> If no human can check a proof of a theorem, does it really count as
> mathematics?
>

Good question, sometimes I wonder if we're getting close to that point.
When Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem it took another world class
mathematician nearly a full year to understand it and say it was correct.
If I had a valid proof of the Riemann Hypothesis but would take as much
brainpower for you to understand it as it took for me to write it is that
really a proof, would there be any reason you should to bother to look at
it? You might as well forget about me and start working on it from
scratch.

  John K Clark

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:50 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Would this have happened if Japan had been using subcritical reactors
> with thorium fuel?
>

If it were a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and the cowardly
operators saw the Tsunami coming and ran for the hills and completely
abandoned the plant then the liquid Thorium fuel (Thorium dissolved in
un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) would get hot, and that would expand
the liquid, and that would cause the fuel to get less dense, and that would
cause the nuclear reaction to slow down. Then a freeze plug at the bottom
of the reactor would melt and the liquid fuel would drain out by gravity
(no pumps would be needed) into a holding tank and the reaction would stop
completely and the reactor would enter a safe mode. All this is assuming
that the operators were completely incompetent and never lifted a finger to
help the situation.

And because the liquid Fluoride salt is not under pressure as water is in
the Fukushima plant  leaks would be far less likely and much less
catastrophic even if they did occur.

  John K Clark

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

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen  wrot

> I don't see how your CMB spot example works. Any 'spots' = features would
> not necessarily be caused by gravitation but could be caused by initial
> inhomogeneities as space itself expanded. Those are not necessarily ruled
> out. So I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows unless completely
> homogeneity is assumed, which it isn't in other theories such as brane
> traces and even enormously magnified = inflated quantum phenomena.
>

No, complete homogeneity is not assumed. Quantum Mechanics says that an
unimaginably short time after the Big Bang the tiny cosmic fireball would
be very very homogenous but due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle not
perfectly so, some parts of the fireball would be very slightly hotter and
denser than others. And the great thing about Quantum Mechanics is it
allows you to calculate numbers about all this, it can tell you just how
big the region would be and just how much denser and hotter it should be
and it can tell you how common variations from the norm will be. As the
universe expands these once tiny regions would enlarge too, and given
enough time gravity could make them grow too because slightly denser
regions would suck matter in from places that were slightly less dense so
with enough time there is no limit on how big they could get.

But when we're looking at the CMBR we know how much variation to expect
from Heisenberg and we know that gravity had only 380,000 years to make
them bigger. And so we can figure out not just how large the biggest spots
should be but also how common spots of all sizes should be. And what we
predict the spectrum of spot sizes should be is exactly the same as what we
do in fact see. But we'd see something different if space were not flat,
the picture would be distorted and we'd see a different distribution of hot
and cold spots on the CMBR. But we see no such distortion so the Universe
at the largest scale must be flat, or at least nearly so, it's flat to at
least one part in 100,000 and could be absolutely flat.

So regardless of how big our telescopes get at best the most of our
Universe we will ever observe is 0.0001% because 13.8 billion years is not
enough time for light from more distant parts of our universe to reach us.
And current observations are consistent with the universe being not merely
astronomically large but literally infinite.

  John K Clark

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

Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>  if it is about a prediction on 1p events, the specificity is simple: we
> have to interview all the copies.
>

Then don't just talk to the Moscow Man and say that is enough to disprove
the prediction that the Helsinki Man will see Moscow AND Washington because
the Moscow Man, the one and only person you talked to, says he didn't see
Washington.  Not that predictions have any relevance to matters of self
identity.

> >> I don't give a hoot in hell if the incoherent grab bag of ideas you
>> call "comp" is false or not. The word is your invention not mine and you're
>> the only one who seems to know exactly what it means.
>>
>
> > You have repeated that sentence an infinity of times.
>

I've told you a billion times don't exaggerate!

> Comp is the quite standard hypothesis [...]
>

"Comp" is NOBODY'S standard hypothesis, I have never in my life heard a
scientist use the word "comp". Not once. And don't tell me that it means
Computationalism and you're just too lazy to type the extra letters, if it
were just that then after I had complained about it "an infinite" number of
times I think you would have stopped being so lazy. I think there is much
more to it than that, there must be because I agree with Computationalism
but I sure as hell don't agree with "comp".

>> you once said something abut "the future 1p" of the Helsinki man, well
>> that description would fit 2 people because both remember being the
>> Helsinki man.
>>
>
>
> yes, and that is why the confirmation is asked to the 2 people.
>

Exactly, there are 2 people not just 1 who will inhabit "the future 1p" ,
or more precisely "a future 1p" of the Helsinki Man, so interviewing just
one man would not provide enough information to know if the prediction
"John Clark will see both Moscow and Washington" was correct or not, but
after interviewing both you would know enough to be able to judge the truth
or falsehood of the prediction, and in this case you'd know that the
prediction was correct. Not that predictions, good or bad, would matter in
the slightest, not if you're talking about consciousness and the nature of
self identity.

So to sum up, did the Washington Man see Moscow? No. Did the Moscow Man see
Washington? No. Was the Washington Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Was the
Moscow Man once the Helsinki Man? Yes. Is the Moscow Man the Washington
Man? No. Is the Washington Man the Moscow Man? No. Did the Helsinki Man see
Washington and Moscow? Yes.

>> I too have discovered a new sort of indeterminacy that involves math and
>> it is very very similar to the sort you discovered; I add 2 to the number 3
>> and I add 8 to the number 3. The number 3 can't predict if it will end up
>> as a 5 or as a 11. I believe my discovery is just as profound as yours. Not
>> very.
>>
>
>
> So you accept that step 3 is a discovery?
>

I think my "discovery" is virtually identical to yours and is just as
profound. Not very.

  John K Clark

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

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

2014-02-21 Thread Edgar L. Owen

John,

I don't see how your CMB spot example works. Any 'spots' = features would 
not necessarily be caused by gravitation but could be caused by initial 
inhomogeneities as space itself expanded. Those are not necessarily ruled 
out. So I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows unless completely 
homogeneity is assumed, which it isn't in other theories such as brane 
traces and even enormously magnified = inflated quantum phenomena.

Edgar

 

On Friday, February 21, 2014 11:50:27 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jesse Mazer 
> > wrote:
>
> >> It's true that SR says nothing about gravity, but incorrect that it 
>>> deals only with "objects in uniform motion". Special relativity can handle 
>>> acceleration just fine too, either by analyzing it in the context of an 
>>> inertial frame, or by using a non-inertial coordinate system like Rindler 
>>> coordinates. See for example this section of the Usenet Physics FAQ, hosted 
>>> on the site of physicist John Baez:
>>>
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>>
>> "It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle 
>> accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.  It is claimed that 
>> general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to 
>> inertial frames.  This is not true.  Special relativity treats accelerating 
>> frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them. 
>>  Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon 
>> accelerating frames."
>>
>>  Are you claiming the above is incorrect?
>>
>
> No, you are entirely correct, I was being sloppy. But you still need 
> General Relativity if gravity is involved.
>  
>
>>  >> If you could never tell experimentally if spacetime was curved or 
>>> not then the very idea of curved spacetime would become an idea as as 
>>> useless as the concept of the luminiferous aether.
>>>
>>
>> > I didn't say in the post you're responding to that "you could never 
>> tell experimentally if spacetime was curved or not", I said you couldn't 
>> tell *if* you were only measuring the laws of physics to the first order,
>>
>
> I was assuming you were talking about things like tidal effects, but you 
> can tell if spacetime is curved even without that. Euclidean spacetime is 
> flat while non euclidean spacetime is curved, and according to General 
> Relativity matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter 
> how to move. On the surface of the spherical Earth an ant, or even one of 
> Abbott's 2D creatures from his novel "Flatland", could tell that the 
> surface it was crawling over was not flat by measuring the angles of a 
> triangle, if they added up to more than 180 degrees then the surface must 
> have a positive curvature like  the surface of a sphere and the 2D creature 
> would know that this must be true even if it was curved in a third 
> direction that the creature couldn't visualize. And if the angles of a 
> triangle added up to less than 180 degrees the creature would know that the 
> surface must have a negative curvature like the surface of a saddle. 
>
> Astronomers proved that, although there are certainly local variations, on 
> the very largest scale the universe is in general flat. They did this by 
> looking at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), it is the most 
> distant and oldest thing we have ever seen and was formed just 380,000 
> years after the Big Bang, so if we look at a map of that background 
> radiation the largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light 
> years across, spots larger than this wouldn't have had enough time to form 
> because nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump 
> wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump. So how large would a 
> object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us if it's size was 380,000 
> light years across? The answer is one degree of arc, but ONLY if the 
> universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines converge or diverge 
> then the image of the largest structures we can see in the CMBR could 
> appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on how the image 
> was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is positively or 
> negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this way the WMAP 
> and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general flat, or at 
> least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light years if the 
> universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.
>  
>
>> >> Pick any 3 points inside that sealed elevator. Place a Laser pointer 
>>> at each of the 3 points and form a triangle with the light beams. Measure 
>>> the 3 angles of the triangle in degrees. Add up the 3 measurements. If the 
>>> sum comes out to be exactly 180 then you know that the spacetime within 
>>> your sealed elevator is flat.
>>>
>>
>> > Do you have any

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>> It's true that SR says nothing about gravity, but incorrect that it
>> deals only with "objects in uniform motion". Special relativity can handle
>> acceleration just fine too, either by analyzing it in the context of an
>> inertial frame, or by using a non-inertial coordinate system like Rindler
>> coordinates. See for example this section of the Usenet Physics FAQ, hosted
>> on the site of physicist John Baez:
>>
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html
>
> "It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle
> accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames.  It is claimed that
> general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to
> inertial frames.  This is not true.  Special relativity treats accelerating
> frames differently from inertial frames but can still deal with them.
>  Accelerating objects can be dealt with without even calling upon
> accelerating frames."
>
>  Are you claiming the above is incorrect?
>

No, you are entirely correct, I was being sloppy. But you still need
General Relativity if gravity is involved.

> >> If you could never tell experimentally if spacetime was curved or not
>> then the very idea of curved spacetime would become an idea as as useless
>> as the concept of the luminiferous aether.
>>
>
> > I didn't say in the post you're responding to that "you could never tell
> experimentally if spacetime was curved or not", I said you couldn't tell
> *if* you were only measuring the laws of physics to the first order,
>

I was assuming you were talking about things like tidal effects, but you
can tell if spacetime is curved even without that. Euclidean spacetime is
flat while non euclidean spacetime is curved, and according to General
Relativity matter tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells matter
how to move. On the surface of the spherical Earth an ant, or even one of
Abbott's 2D creatures from his novel "Flatland", could tell that the
surface it was crawling over was not flat by measuring the angles of a
triangle, if they added up to more than 180 degrees then the surface must
have a positive curvature like  the surface of a sphere and the 2D creature
would know that this must be true even if it was curved in a third
direction that the creature couldn't visualize. And if the angles of a
triangle added up to less than 180 degrees the creature would know that the
surface must have a negative curvature like the surface of a saddle.

Astronomers proved that, although there are certainly local variations, on
the very largest scale the universe is in general flat. They did this by
looking at the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), it is the most
distant and oldest thing we have ever seen and was formed just 380,000
years after the Big Bang, so if we look at a map of that background
radiation the largest structure we could see on it would be 380,000 light
years across, spots larger than this wouldn't have had enough time to form
because nothing, not even gravity can move faster than light, a larger lump
wouldn't even have enough time to know it was a lump. So how large would a
object 13.8 billion light years away appear to us if it's size was 380,000
light years across? The answer is one degree of arc, but ONLY if the
universe is flat. If it's not flat and parallel lines converge or diverge
then the image of the largest structures we can see in the CMBR could
appear to be larger or smaller than one degree depending on how the image
was distorted, and that would depend on if the universe is positively or
negatively curved.  But we see no distortion at all, in this way the WMAP
and Planck satellite proved that the universe is in general flat, or at
least isn't curved much, over a distance of 13.8 billion light years if the
universe curves at all it is less than one part in 100,000.

> >> Pick any 3 points inside that sealed elevator. Place a Laser pointer at
>> each of the 3 points and form a triangle with the light beams. Measure the
>> 3 angles of the triangle in degrees. Add up the 3 measurements. If the sum
>> comes out to be exactly 180 then you know that the spacetime within your
>> sealed elevator is flat.
>>
>
> > Do you have any reference for the idea that this is a valid way to
> measure spacetime curvature in general relativity?
>

The following quote is from:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l10_p7.html

"In principle, if there was a large enough triangular object in the
universe and you could measure its interior angles, you could determine the
local geometry of the Universe. There are other tests you could also
conceive. For example, in our familiar flat geometry, two parallel lines
remain parallel for their entire length. In a spherical geometry, parallel
lines converge, and in a hyperbolic geometry parallel lines diverge. Note
that if the Universe is spherical, if you could travel in one direction
l

Re: How Wolves Change Rivers

2014-02-21 Thread David Nyman

On 20 February 2014 22:00, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

I'm still unsure whether you don't grasp the relevance of my point, or are
>> consciously or unconsciously side-stepping it. It's really peculiar.
>>
>
> It's peculiar because you are the one who doesn't understand my point. I
> understand your points perfectly.
>

You are right and I am wrong. You are the true heir of Galileo. I should
apologize.

David

-- 
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.

For all the p-zombie, p-doll, and p-copy devotees on the list

2014-02-21 Thread Edgar L. Owen

Monkey Mind Control

The brain activity of one monkey dictated movements of a second, sedated 
animal, a study shows.

By Jef Akst | February 19, 2014

*Rhesus monkeyFLICKR, SHANKAR S. 
*

Researchers have used two rhesus monkeys in an intriguing 
proof-of-principle experiment testing the ability to control a paralyzed 
body or limb. They used a machine to covert the brain activity of one 
monkey, called the master, into electrical impulses applied to the spinal 
cord of a sedated animal, called an avatar, which moved in response to the 
stimulation.

The results, published this week (February 17) in *Nature 
Communications*, 
could provide insight for how thoughts might be translated into movement of 
paralyzed patients.

“This work in primates shows how this disconnection between brain and 
controlled movement could be overcome using brain machine interfaces that 
have the ability to identify the user’s intention or desire to perform a 
specific movement and, once identified, how this intended action can be 
translated through neural stimulation into the muscle activations that 
achieve the final goal of the movement,” biomedical engineer Bernard Conway 
of the University of Strathclyde said in a statement. “The work is a key 
step forward that demonstrates the potential of brain machine interfaces to 
be used in restoring purposeful movement to people affected by paralysis.”

The scientists, who hailed from Harvard Medical School, implanted a brain 
chip capable of monitoring 100 neurons into the master monkey, recorded the 
cells’ electrical activity during training, and then matched the patterns 
of neural activity with the physical actions of the monkey. The researchers 
also implanted 36 electrodes in the spinal cord of the avatar monkey, then 
tested how the activation of the electrodes could elicit different 
movements from the animal.

Finally, the team connected the two monkeys to each other, such that the 
activity being recorded from the master’s brain controlled the movements of 
the avatar in real time. The master was to control the movement of a cursor 
using a joystick held by the avatar, and, 98 percent of the time, it 
succeeded.

“The goal is to take people with brain stem or spinal cord paralysis and 
bypass the injury,” Ziv Williams, told *BBC 
News*. 
“The hope is ultimately to get completely natural movement, I think it’s 
theoretically possible, but it will require an exponential additional 
effort to get to that point.”

“Whilst the control of limbs is sophisticated, it is still rather crude 
overall,” Christopher James of the University of Warwick agreed in a 
statement. Additionally, increased muscle rigidity following paralysis, as 
well as changes in blood pressure, pose challenges for restoring precise 
control.

Nevertheless, James said that the implications of the new research were 
profound, “especially for controlling limbs in spinal cord injury, or 
controlling prosthetic limbs with limb amputees.”

Source: TheScientist
http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/39220/title/Monkey-Mind-Control/

-- 
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.

New understanding of the basic equations of life

2014-02-21 Thread Edgar L. Owen

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140217161106.htm

How evolution shapes the geometries of life
New research suggests that the shapes of both plants and animals evolved in 
response to the same mathematical and physical principles. By working 
through the logic underlying Kleiber’s Law (metabolism equals mass to the 
three-quarter power) and applying it separately to the geometry of plants 
and animals, researchers were able to show that plants and animals display 
equivalent energy efficiencies.

These questions have puzzled life scientists since ancient times. Now an 
interdisciplinary team of researchers from the University of Maryland and 
the University of Padua in Italy propose a thought-provoking answer based 
on a famous mathematical formula that has been accepted as true for 
generations, but never fully understood. In a paper published the week of 
Feb. 17, 2014 in the *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, the 
team offers a re-thinking of the formula known as Kleiber's Law. Seeing 
this formula as a mathematical expression of an evolutionary fact, the team 
suggests that plants' and animals' widely different forms evolved in 
parallel, as ideal ways to solve the problem of how to use energy 
efficiently.

If you studied biology in high school or college, odds are you memorized 
Kleiber's Law: metabolism equals mass to the three-quarter power. This 
formula, one of the few widely held tenets in biology, shows that as living 
things get larger, their metabolisms and their life spans increase at 
predictable rates. Named after the Swiss biologist Max Kleiber who 
formulated it in the 1930s, the law fits observations on everything from 
animals' energy intake to the number of young they bear. It's used to 
calculate the correct human dosage of a medicine tested on mice, among many 
other things.

But why does Kleiber's Law hold true? Generations of scientists have hunted 
unsuccessfully for a simple, convincing explanation. In this new paper, the 
researchers propose that the shapes of both plants and animals evolved in 
response to the same mathematical and physical principles. By working 
through the logic underlying Kleiber's mathematical formula, and applying 
it separately to the geometry of plants and animals, the team was able to 
explain decades worth of real-world observations.

"Plant and animal geometries have evolved more or less in parallel," said 
UMD botanist Todd Cooke. "The earliest plants and animals had simple and 
quite different bodies, but natural selection has acted on the two groups 
so the geometries of modern trees and animals are, remarkably, displaying 
equivalent energy efficiencies. They are both equally fit. And that is what 
Kleiber's Law is showing us."

Picture two organisms: a tree and a tiger. In evolutionary terms, the tree 
has the easier task: convert sunlight to energy and move it within a body 
that more or less stays put. To make that task as efficient as possible, 
the tree has evolved a branching shape with many surfaces -- its leaves.

"The tree's surface area and the volume of space it occupies are nearly the 
same," said physicist Jayanth Banavar, dean of the UMD College of Computer, 
Mathematical, and Natural Sciences. "The tree's nutrients flow at a 
constant speed, regardless of its size."

With these variables, the team calculated the relationship between the mass 
of different tree species and their metabolisms, and found that the 
relationship conformed to Kleiber's Law.
To nourish its mass, an animal needs fuel. Burning that fuel generates 
heat. The animal has to find a way to get rid of excess body heat. The 
obvious way is surface cooling. But because the tiger's surface area is 
proportionally smaller than its mass, the surface is not up to the task. 
The creature's hide would get blazing hot, and its coat might burst into 
flames.

So as animals get larger in size, their metabolism must increase at a 
slower rate than their volume, or they would not be able to get rid of the 
excess heat. If the surface area were the only thing that mattered, an 
animal's metabolism would increase as its size increased, at the rate of 
its mass to the two-thirds power. But Kleiber's Law, backed by many sets of 
observations, says the actual rate is mass to the three-quarters power.

Clearly there's a missing factor, and scientists have pored over the data 
in an attempt to find out what it is. Some have proposed that the missing 
part of the equation has to do with the space occupied by internal organs. 
Others have focused on the fractal, or branching, form that is common to 
tree limbs and animals' blood vessels, but added in new assumptions about 
the volume of fluids contained in those fractal networks.

The UMD and University of Padua researchers argue a crucial variable has 
been overlooked: the speed at which nutrients are carried throughout the 
animals' bodies and heat is carried away. So the team members calculated 
the rate

Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)

On 21 February 2014 16:48, chris peck  wrote:

> Hi Liz
>
>
>
> *>>Suppose for the sake of argument that the matter transmitter sends you
> to another solar system where you will live out the reminder of your life.
> Maybe you committed some crime and this is the consequence, to be
> "transported" :) A malfunction causes you to be duplicated and sent to both
> destinations, but you will never meet your doppelganger in the other solar
> system, or find out that he exists. Does this make any difference to how
> you assign probabilities? If so, why?*
>
> My probabilities get assigned in the same way. ie: chance of seeing solar
> system A is 1. I can't assign a probability of seeing Solar System B if I
> don't know about the possibility of accidents.
>

OK, Fair enough. I didn't quite phrase my scenario as I intended. Let's
also suppose you don't know which solar system you will be sent to, and
that in fact the matter transmitter is supposed to send you to A or B with
equal probability based on some "quantum coin flip". But by accident it
duplicates you, and sends you to both. This effectively conflates the comp
and MWI versions IMHO, so you can't easily disentangle them in this thought
experiment.

> But,
> If I know that there is a small chance of the accident you describe then
> the probabilities end up:
>

> Solar System A : 1
> Solar System B : small chance.
>
> Note that the probability of seeing Solar System A doesn't end up (1-small
> chance) as far as I am concerned.
>
> Also note that in the MWI example, where small chances require a world of
> their own, the probabilities end up:
>
> Solar System A : 1
> Solar System B : 1.
>
> So the probabilities work out slightly differently. I'm sure its an
> unpopular view but as I see it probabilities, however small, get rounded up
> to 1 in MWI scenarios.
>

This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures in
the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course, the version of me
in each branch will be different, and it always *seems* to me,
retrospectively, as though I only experienced one outcome. So even if you
believe the MWI to give the correct explanation of probability, you will
still tend to say something like "there is a 50% chance of rain tomorrow"
rather than "it will both rain and not rain tomorrow". Which is I think
what Bruno is getting at with the FPI.

>
> All the best
>
> Chris.
>
>

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

Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?