Re: MODAL 5 (was Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 21 Feb 2014, at 23:08, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Hi Liz, On 20 Feb 2014, at 08:49, LizR wrote: On 19 February 2014 23:00, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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. Thanks Stathis. You are the one who focus always directly on the point, without any rhetorical tricks and that is quite appreciated. 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.
Philosophy experiments
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/frankfurt/Default.aspx -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 22 Feb 2014, at 06:53, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 20 February 2014 20:43, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Feb 2014, at 22:50, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Thursday, February 20, 2014, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Feb 2014, at 17:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 18/02/2014, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com 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. Yes. That is why there is nothing controversial in the FPI, as it needs only a very crude 3p definition of 1p, illustrated with personal memories or diaries accompanying the experiencer in the telebox. 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. Yes. But distinguishing 1p and 3p, by outside/inside a teleportation box already gives the gist why we cannot experience the private experience of someone else, as the threads WWMM... will be particular for each individual, even for a consciousness eliminativist. Two observers get entangled, and share the same indeterminacies, when going both in the same telebox. That's the first person plural. 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. OK. Normally, UDA shows already that if comp is correct such a TOE *has to* to be like that. I think. 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, That is a key point. It is
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On 22 Feb 2014, at 07:19, 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. :-) A precise answer here would need a precise description of how you related the two brains. Of course this is not relevant for step 3 where the protocol makes clear that the two brains are reconstituted in an independent way, at their correct substitution level. I guess you know that, and you were not suggesting this as a refutation of the FPI. Bruno 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. 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 Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 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. We don't see it at the sub-cellular level, we see it beginning at the biological level as tissue-rejection. The richer the experience, the longer the history, and the more important it is in defining itself exclusively. Biology is more proprietary than chemistry, zoology is more proprietary than biology, anthropology is more proprietary than zoology, etc. It's not that some material fragment of a cell should be irreplaceable, it's that living cells should be easily created from primordial soup. Your theory misses the whole other half of the universe which coheres from the top down. We can take out small words or skip letters of a sentence and still be understood, but we can't understand a sentence as a whole if we don't know what the bigger words in it mean. Craig -- 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: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
John, Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post. However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add +1) rather than an actual number is understood. I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense of just really really big! There simply are and can be no physical infinities. It's an impossible notion by its very definition. Edgar On Friday, February 21, 2014 2:16:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion and simulation is absolute. Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and-overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend our rigid attention and unexamine the forms presented within consciousness and the world that we can become the understanding that we expect. On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, 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.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: John, Yes, that's my understanding, but that wasn't clear in your original post. However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add +1) rather than an actual number is understood. I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense of just really really big! There simply are and can be no physical infinities. It's an impossible notion by its very definition. Edgar Even worse Edgar when physicists substitute -1/12 for infinity. Mathematica apparently rules our universe. Richard On Friday, February 21, 2014 2:16:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. and simulation is absolute. Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of substitution). Hope that helps. David Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and-overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend our rigid attention and unexamine the forms presented within consciousness and the world that we can become the understanding that we expect. On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. If it is invariant then it can't be original. Invariant means that it remains fixed across a multiplicity of variations. To be original means that it undergoes no variation. It is uncopied and uncopyable. and simulation is absolute. Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of substitution). Hope that helps. I'm saying that the idea of a level of substitution is absolute. I wish I could hope that helps, but I expect that it will only be twisted around, dismissed, and diluted. Craig David Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and-overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend our rigid attention and unexamine the forms presented within consciousness and the world that we can become the understanding that we expect. On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 22 Feb 2014, at 02:39, David Nyman wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc Ha ha! I love when he shows the identity cards! Note that this is among the thought experiences that I call forbidden on this list, some years ago. They are shortcuts, and can also provide arguments against either the truth of comp or its ethical consequences. They share this with the thought experiments involving amnesia. The movie prestige exploits one such experience too. Step five is close, but we don't ask the original to commit suicide though! 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 11:27:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not at all. Your 1p-originality is preserved all the time. I'm not thinking of 1p originality though, I'm talking about originality itself - absolute uniqueness. The idea that something can occur for the first, last, and only time, and perhaps, by extension that everything is in some sense utterly unique and irreplacable. In the H-WM duplication experience, the experiencers get all a unique experience of the type I am the H-guy I am the H-guy-Washington guy I am the H-guy-Washington guy, then Moscow guy I am the H-guy-Washington guy, then Moscow guy, then again Moscow guy I am the H-guy-Washington guy, then Moscow guy, then again Moscow guy and again Moscow guy ... He never feel the split, and keeps its originality all along. he get doppelgangers who also keep up their originality and develop their personality. I understand, but I think it is based on the assumption that I am the H-guy comes along for the ride when you reproduce a description of his body, or the blueprints for his behaviors. My point has been from the start that this is false. No lifetime or event within a lifetime can be reproduced wholly - there is no such thing. All that can be reproduced is a representation within some sensory context. Outside of that context, it is a facade. Of course in your theory that is an illusion, as they are all zombies, and the H-guy is dead. Never zombies - always dolls. Zombies are supernatural fiction, dolls are ordinary. The consciousness of dolls is not at the level of the plastic figure - there is consciousness there but on the level which holds the plastic together, and perhaps which on the metaphenomenal level of synchronicity, poetry, etc. and simulation is absolute. Emulation is absolute by Church thesis, and a correct simulation is what comp assumes the existence through the existence of the substitution level. Yes, I am saying that C-t and CTM have only to do with representations of a particular kind of logic and measurement. It is measurement which provides the local appearance of substitution. In reality, theory can never substitute for consciousness, and consciousness can have no theories outside of consciousness. Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. That is ambiguous. I don't think it is. Arithmetic is based on recursive enumeration. There is no one and only time that any number can appear. Every number can be arrived at by many different routes - every number is always repeatable and transferable. Numbers can't own anything, they are generic addresses in a theoretical schema that appears again and again. All conscious present instant are done once, in arithmetic. Where do we find a conscious present instant in arithmetic? If you assume that, then you would be begging the question of consciousness. Trivially in the bloc mindscape of the numbers possible extensional and intensional relations. What is making relations possible, other than sense? Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. From inside arithmetic that's necessarily the case. Then how can it be said to have a substitution level? It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. The UD, and arithmetic determines all effective endings and non endings (by Church's thesis). Then the internal views put colors on this. Why and how would internal views put anything non-arithmetic on it though? Why and how does the UD develop the idea of endings and non-endings? It is not clear that there can be any endings or beginnings within arithmetic. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. OK. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and- overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. OK. By OK I mean that the correct Lôbian machines roughly agree with you (stretching definitions enough ... Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense of just really really big! I hate that too, in fact I take pride in not using the word infinite unless a proper subset of the thing can be put into a one to one correspondence with the entire thing; and as a result I sometime struggle to come up with the correct word when astronomical seems too small but infinite is too big. But I stand by what I said, the CMBR data is consistent with the universe being infinite and not just very very very big. Of course that doesn't prove it is in fact infinite but it doesn't rule it out either. There simply are and can be no physical infinities. Nobody has found a infinite number of any physical object, but even if there were such things how would we know? It's an impossible notion by its very definition. Physical infinity might not exist, but if it doesn't it wouldn't be because it was impossible by its very definition. However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add +1) Maybe, maybe not. Alan Guth's Inflation theory is by far the most successful in modern cosmology, it solves many problems that have plagued the Big Bang idea such as the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Guth postulated an inflation field (sometimes called a inflation substance) that for a very brief time caused the universe to expand exponentially, astronomically (insert a stronger word if you can find one) faster than the speed of light. This doesn't violate Relativity because Einstein only talked about how fast things could move in space not on how fast space itself could expand. Guth said the field was such that after a short time the inflation field (or substance) decayed away in a process somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it Eternal Inflation. Linde showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 others, and it goes on forever. So what we call The Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending PROCESS. If Linde is correct then each universe that a Big Bang creates may or may not be infinitely large, but it doesn't really matter because there are a infinite (and not just astronomical) number of them. 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 Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes. In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view. In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's, but his view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future 1 view of the Helsinki Man. If so then anybody who can remember having the past 1 view of the Helsinki Man would fit that description; so the Helsinki Man will see both Washington and Moscow. I said that we have to interview all copies. Good, then I never want to hear you say again that the Washington Man saying that he didn't see Moscow contradicts the claim that the Helsinki man will see both Washington AND Moscow. 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 What the hell!!? Did you really think I was serious? Did you really think I believed the above pap was a major discovery?! John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Better Than the Chinese Room
On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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. We don't see it at the sub-cellular level, we see it beginning at the biological level as tissue-rejection. The richer the experience, the longer the history, and the more important it is in defining itself exclusively. Biology is more proprietary than chemistry, zoology is more proprietary than biology, anthropology is more proprietary than zoology, etc. It's not that some material fragment of a cell should be irreplaceable, it's that living cells should be easily created from primordial soup. Your theory misses the whole other half of the universe which coheres from the top down. We can take out small words or skip letters of a sentence and still be understood, but we can't understand a sentence as a whole if we don't know what the bigger words in it mean. Tissue rejection is caused by well understood mechanisms whereby the body recognises foreign protein markers on the transplanted tissue. That's the only thing you have said above which is close to an observational consequence of your theory, and it doesn't support it. -- 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb 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. Thanks for the interesting back story on the Oak Ridge LFTR program; the why of how that program got de-funded and shut down was always a little murky. Chris 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. There are many reasons why nuclear power is dead in the water. The sector would have never existed without massive government subsidies. the cost overruns in nuclear facilities are legendary. The reason they are not getting built has less to do with political activists and a more to do with the negative economic profile, especially once one factors in the ultimate costs of long term (and perhaps absurdly long term) waste sequestration. Additionally, when one looks at the global recoverable uranium-235 reserve picture - not the rosy scenario in the red book (the quoted source for these figures and which has been shown to be unrealistically optimistic) - it becomes clear that there is no future for single pass through reactors, and that the world is nearing peak recoverable uranium. Naturally this is different for breeder types, such as LFTR (which IMO is the best option of all the breeder proposals, both for the relative abundance of the needed resources and for the inherent passive safety features - as compared to the hellish example of what can go wrong with say a Mark II type reactor (Fukushima and all across this country as well Mark II are ubiquitous bad designs (at the time of their release by GE I recall that two of the chief engineers on the design team resigned in protest because their reservations about this design were ignored). However realistically - the lead time to bring working LFTR reactors to market and to build out enough of them to begin to make an impact on the global (or some important regional) energy market is long and should be measured in decades at least. Decades from today is as soon as the first LFTRs could begin to come online. By that time - they will need to compete with solar PV and the per unit costs for PV that are achieved over the next two or three decades. If one projects the future per unit cost for PV based on extrapolating current long established trend lines the economics for LFTR seem questionable - IMO. Chris Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
John, First Linde didn't prove eternal inflation as you claim. Eternal inflation is a theory. In fact you yourself admit this when you write IF Linde is correct... Basically the bounding problem of any physical infinity is that it would take infinite energy over infinite time to 'achieve' (though it is not really something subject to being achieved since by definition it's the result of an unending process) which I don't think anyone agrees exists. Though, on second thought judging by some of the other nonsense they believe, there is probably some physicist somewhere that believes in anything. The other approach, which you hint at, is that even if a physical infinity existed it would be unobservable. And since we can make a good case that only observables exist (or their direct effects) we can say that even if a physical infinite existed it wouldn't actually exist. Edgar On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:13:14 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: I hate it when otherwise intelligent physicists use infinite in the sense of just really really big! I hate that too, in fact I take pride in not using the word infinite unless a proper subset of the thing can be put into a one to one correspondence with the entire thing; and as a result I sometime struggle to come up with the correct word when astronomical seems too small but infinite is too big. But I stand by what I said, the CMBR data is consistent with the universe being infinite and not just very very very big. Of course that doesn't prove it is in fact infinite but it doesn't rule it out either. There simply are and can be no physical infinities. Nobody has found a infinite number of any physical object, but even if there were such things how would we know? It's an impossible notion by its very definition. Physical infinity might not exist, but if it doesn't it wouldn't be because it was impossible by its very definition. However it is simply impossible for anything physical to be literally infinite when the nature of infinity as an unending PROCESS (forever add +1) Maybe, maybe not. Alan Guth's Inflation theory is by far the most successful in modern cosmology, it solves many problems that have plagued the Big Bang idea such as the horizon problem and the flatness problem. Guth postulated an inflation field (sometimes called a inflation substance) that for a very brief time caused the universe to expand exponentially, astronomically (insert a stronger word if you can find one) faster than the speed of light. This doesn't violate Relativity because Einstein only talked about how fast things could move in space not on how fast space itself could expand. Guth said the field was such that after a short time the inflation field (or substance) decayed away in a process somewhat analogous to radioactive half life, and after the decay the universe expanded at a much much more leisurely pace. But then Andre Linde proved that for Guth's idea to work the inflation field had to expand faster than it decayed, Linde called it Eternal Inflation. Linde showed that for every volume in which the inflation field decays away 2 other volumes don't decay. So one universe becomes 3, the field decays in one universe but not in the other 2, then both of those two universes splits in 3 again and the inflation field decays away in one and doesn't decay in 2 others, and it goes on forever. So what we call The Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything it's just the end of inflation in our particular part of the universe. So according to Linde this field created one Big Bang, then 2, then 4, then 8, then 16 etc in a unending PROCESS. If Linde is correct then each universe that a Big Bang creates may or may not be infinitely large, but it doesn't really matter because there are a infinite (and not just astronomical) number of them. 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: Block Universes
Jesse, I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow, that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring yourself to agree that you are actually some particular age right now, or were at any time in the past. If you don't even believe that I can't see any hope of agreement or having a meaningful discussion. It's quite clear from all the numerous examples I gave that it is possible to determine a 1:1 correlation between the twin's actual ages in terms of their own clock time readings (what you call their proper times). This is their 'true actual age' because both twins agree on both actual ages and how their clock times correlate. They do this not by OBSERVING the other's age, but by calculating it from knowledge of how relativity works in both their frames. This is the frame independence I point out that is a fundamental (though unstated) assumption of relativity. It is only in this background notion of frame independence that frame DEPENDENCE of relativity makes any sense. But that concept remains beyond you But since you can't even bring yourself to admit the twins were actually alive with a particular actual age at every point on their world lines I see no useful way to continue the discussion. Thus the basic disagreement is not really about whether p-time is incompatible with relativity (it isn't) but that p-time is incompatible with block time, which for you seems a matter of faith which you are unable to set aside. Best, Edgar On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:30:11 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, OK, I'm back... Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were simultaneous in p-time The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins 1. Do you agree that each twin always has a real actual age defined as how old he actually is (to himself)? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that at each point on his worldline he has an actual age at that point, which is just the proper time between his birth and that point. But if you're suggesting a unique true actual age, as opposed to just each point having its own actual age, then I would have to change my answer to no. 2. Do you agree that this real actual age corresponds by definition to the moment of his actually being alive, to his actual current point in time? (As a block universe believer you can just take this as perception or perspective rather than actuality if you wish - it won't affect the discussion). Yes or no? If by perspective you mean that each point on his worldline takes his experiences at that point (including his age) to be the current point in time, then yes. Now assume a relativistic trip that separates the twins 3. Do you agree that IF, for every point of the trip, we can always determine what ACTUAL age of one twin corresponds to the ACTUAL age of the other twin, and always in a way that both twins AGREE upon (that is frame independent), that those 1:1 correspondences in actual ages, whatever they are, must occur at the same actual times? That this would give us a method to determine what (possibly different) actual ages occur at the same actual p-time moment in which the twins are actually alive with those (possibly different) actual ages? Yes or no? IF we had a method to determine a unique 1:1 correspondence in ages for separated twins, then yes, that could reasonably be interpreted as a demonstration of absolute simultaneity, telling us which ages occur at the same actual times. But I don't believe you can find any such method for determining a unique frame-independent 1:1 correspondence in relativity. Since I am answering your questions, are you willing to answer mine? In the post that you are responding to I requested that you respond to my questions at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/xtjSyxxi4awJ, especially the part at the end about the meaning of same point in spacetime (i.e. whether two events happening at the same space and time coordinates in a single coordinate system automatically implies that they satisfy the operational definitions of same point in spacetime I had given, and whether you'd agree that this means they must have happened at the same moment in p-time). You ignored that request in your response. I'll even narrow it down to a single question I asked in that post: 'If we have some coordinate system where relativity predicts the event of Alice's clock reading 30 happens at exactly the same space and time coordinates as the event of Bob's
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, 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: Block Universes
Ghibbsa, Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES reality. It doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it clarifies many points that relativity can't on its own, such as how the twins can have different clock times and different real ages in an agreed upon and empirically observable single present moment. Only p-time can explain that. Relativity on its own just can't explain that... My theory makes it all clear, and directly leads to the clarification of many other mysteries as well, from cosmology to how spaceclocktime is created by quantum events. By doing that it resolves quantum paradox, conceptually unifies GR and QT, and explains the source of quantum randomness. So rather than complicating things, it simplifies and clarifies things. Edgar On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:54:33 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:40:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, OK, I'm back... Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were simultaneous in p-time The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins 1. Do you agree that each twin always has a real actual age defined as how old he actually is (to himself)? Yes or no? 2. Do you agree that this real actual age corresponds by definition to the moment of his actually being alive, to his actual current point in time? (As a block universe believer you can just take this as perception or perspective rather than actuality if you wish - it won't affect the discussion). Yes or no? Now assume a relativistic trip that separates the twins 3. Do you agree that IF, for every point of the trip, we can always determine what ACTUAL age of one twin corresponds to the ACTUAL age of the other twin, and always in a way that both twins AGREE upon (that is frame independent), that those 1:1 correspondences in actual ages, whatever they are, must occur at the same actual times? That this would give us a method to determine what (possibly different) actual ages occur at the same actual p-time moment in which the twins are actually alive with those (possibly different) actual ages? Yes or no? Edgar The thing is, if one twin ages by just a week because he's near the speed of light, and the other twin ages 10 years. OK you can always accomplish an exact 1:1 correlation between literally any two things just so long as you are allowed to stretch or contract the dimension of measurement in one of them. That's a given. I could 1:1 correlate each tick of age in either one of those twins with the time it took the Titanic to sink having hit the ice burg. Appreciated mine aren't sensible ideas, whereas yours does have a sense in which it might be true. But the sensible point is that the 1:1 correlation argument may not be meaningful if you are allowed to adjust the interval experienced by one so as to match the other. You could argue no adjustment takes place in p-time, but if the same argument could be reflected in the titanic model - which it can - the problem stays the same. What I'd recommend is that you choose a moment, and for a short period enter into a process of setting the objections to p-time into their strongest possible form. Reason being, firstly it's a great way to identify the knock down argument that objection needs to hear, and can't ignore even in its strongest form. Secondly, I'm still not really of a sense you've faced the big and small questions that p-time raises. Why does Nature bother going to all that trouble making relativistic overlays, why is the speed of light finite that we see only history in the skies. Why do universes need to begin from a tiny hole. Why would she do any of that if she had already had a pure integrated absolute space perfectly in synch to beats of one drum? I mean, if she had that absolute nature in place, then that was her, her nature. There's no computational need for any of that, not if there were no inherently problematic status in reality underlying, which all of that were necessary in combination to solve. sWhy not absolute vision one side of everything to the other, in p-time? By some other aurrangement than what we have here, much simpler and much more in keeping with the only conception that she, nature, knew. The absolute. Where would she even aquire, or see any point to, all theses fussy fangled relativistic wildly complex messcake of laws? Edgar, I just want to say I respect you, and that you feel sure in your own mind. These questions can always be cock-sure answered by a rehash of the already much stated, take that as a given
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. Correct? Edgar Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:32:07 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: The curvature of spacetime is understood in a coordinate-invariant way, in terms of the proper time and proper length along paths through spacetime, so it doesn't depend at all on what coordinate system you use to describe things. Physicists do sometimes talk about the curvature of space distinct from the curvature of spacetime, I'm not sure if you meant to distinguish the two or were treating them as synonymous. But defining the curvature of space depends on picking a simultaneity convention which divides 4D spacetime into a series of 3D slices, and then defining the curvature of each slice in terms of proper length along spacelike paths confined to that slice. So the curvature of space is coordinate-dependent, since different simultaneity conventions = different slices with different curvatures. I don't know if there's any meaningful sense in which picking a coordinate system where an object has a higher velocity means it curves space more--if there is, it would presumably depend on a choice to restrict the analysis to some family of coordinate systems where each possible velocity would be associated with a particular choice of simultaneity convention, rather than using any of the arbitrary smooth coordinate systems (with arbitrary simultaneity conventions) that are permitted in general relativity. I found some discussion of the issue of how velocity relates to curvature and gravitational force on these pages: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95023/does-a-moving-object-curve-space-time-as-its-velocity-increases http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=602644 On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Russell, Brent, Jesse, et al, The increased kinetic energy of the particle is not due to its acceleration but to its relative velocity to some observer. Mass also increases with relative velocity, but that apparent increase in mass is only with respect to some observer the motion is relative to. In fact all kinetic energy is only with respect to relative velocity with some observer frame. So this means that any increased curvature of space from that increased kinetic energy and increased mass should be only with respect to observers it is in relative motion with respect to. So in this case we seem to have a case in which the curvature of space is relative rather than being absolute. Would you not agree? Edgar On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:44:58 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:28:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you give. So, by your terminology, does that mean that the acceleration of the elevator IS curving space ? You should stop talking about space, it's 4D spacetime; but yes it's curved, although if you were inside that sealed elevator you couldn't tell if the curvature was caused by rockets accelerating the elevator in deep space or if it was caused by the Earth's gravity. Acceleration is absolute in that there is no need to look outside your reference frame to detect it, but according to General Relativity there is no way to tell the difference
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
Brent,
What problem do you think P-time has in SR? I see none. Have you been
following my discussion with Jesse as to why it is possible to correlate
proper times (the twins own actual ages) 1:1 for the twins all along their
worldlines in a frame independent way simply by comparing the relativistic
descriptions of BOTH twins?
I think your problem is that you are trying to explain P-time from WITHIN
some particular relativistic frame. I agree that simply doesn't work, but
that's not the way to look at it. One needs to know both frames. When this
known a 1:1 correlation can always be found, at that is the same p-time,
the same present moment...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 1:08:20 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. If it is invariant then it can't be original. Invariant means that it remains fixed across a multiplicity of variations. To be original means that it undergoes no variation. It is uncopied and uncopyable. But I think that any serious (i.e. non-eliminitavist) theory of consciousness must find it to be original and indeed uncopyable in the sense that you stipulate. Sense is never copied; rather it is encountered wherever there is a sensible context. One might say that it is encountered wherever what is obscuring it has been sufficiently clarified. It originates perpetually at the centre of a circle whose limits are not discoverable. One shouldn't therefore think of sense as what is copied in the protocol; rather what is copiable is only that which is capable of differentiating one sensible context from another. I think that consciousness, transcendently, is a necessary, original and invariant assumption of any theory of itself. As such it is perpetually capable of self-manifestation, given the sufficient conditions of a sensible context. Always in terms of some theory, of course. David and simulation is absolute. Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of substitution). Hope that helps. I'm saying that the idea of a level of substitution is absolute. I wish I could hope that helps, but I expect that it will only be twisted around, dismissed, and diluted. Craig David Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and-overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend our rigid attention and unexamine the forms presented within consciousness and the world that we can become the understanding that we expect. On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, 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-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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Physicists' misuse of Planck units...
All, I have a big gripe about how physicists misuse (in my judgement) the whole notion of Planck units as if they somehow were the minimum possible units of various physical quantities such as time and length. It has become fashionable whenever physicists want to refer to the minimum sizes of units they have no idea of as Planck time, Planck length, etc. but so far as I can see from the actual definition of these units there is no reason whatsoever to assume these are the minimum units of physical reality. In fact the Planck mass is many times LARGER than the minimum masses known so immediately the whole notion falls apart. So is the Planck charge 11.7 times larger than the elementary charge known. Does anyone else find this an annoying symptom of imprecise speech among physicists that leads to sloppy thinking as it clearly does in the way physicists use the term infinity to mean very very big? 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 Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow, that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring yourself to agree that you are actually some particular age right now, or were at any time in the past. If you don't even believe that I can't see any hope of agreement or having a meaningful discussion. If right now is taken to presume there is a UNIQUE now, then you are simply assuming what you seemed to be trying to prove. On the other hand, if right now is understood to be an indexical term (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/ ) whose meaning depends on who's saying it, like here or mine, then of course I have a definite age right now. It's just that in this case I must be understood to refer to a particular observer-moment among many, the one having the experience of saying the sentence. So the fact that I have a definite age right now does not imply the nonexistence of other Jesse-observer-moments at different ages who could be just as real as I am, and who would mean something different by right now, any more than the sentence I am here in Rhode Island implies the nonexistence of other people at different locations who would mean something different if they used the word here. This is not to say that those other Jesse-observer-moments MUST be just as real as I am, just that the fact I can say I have a definite age right now doesn't prove anything one way or another about whether other Jesse-observer-moments with different nows exist or not. It's quite clear from all the numerous examples I gave that it is possible to determine a 1:1 correlation between the twin's actual ages in terms of their own clock time readings (what you call their proper times). You have never given any *general* rule for determining this, you just gave two rules for specific cases: 1) the rule saying that if observers are at rest relative to one another far from gravity, the ages that are simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time, and 2) the rules saying that if observers start at a common location with clocks synchronized and then travel away from that location inertially, identical subsequent readings on their clocks will be simultaneous in p-time (again assuming no gravity). This doesn't tell us how to determine the 1:1 correlation if one of the observers accelerates during his journey, or if they are in a gravitational field. What's more, you didn't really give any rational *justification* for these rules, you just asserted that they were true. Even a fellow believer in presentism might disagree with these rules (for example, many presentists believe in a preferred reference frame, such that only events that were simultaneous in that frame *truly* happened at the same time)--do you think they should just take your pronouncements on faith? Finally, there is the small matter that rule 1) leads to a paradox where two different points on the same person's worldline would end up being simultaneous in p-time, assuming p-time simultaneity is transitive and that events at the same point in spacetime in relativity also happen at the same p-time. Your only response to my bringing up this paradox (the one with four observers Alice, Bob, Arlene and Bart in https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/pxg0VAAHJRQJ ) was to deny that events at the same point in spacetime happen at the same p-time, but some of your comments made me think you were misunderstanding the meaning of same point in spacetime, so I repeatedly asked you to address some simple questions that would clarify if you were understanding the meaning the same way that I do. But you have been incredibly evasive, continually ignoring my requests to answer my questions on the subject, even when I narrowed it down to a single question at the end of my last post to you at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJ I would think that if an intellectually honest person is told there is a contradiction in something they've proposed, they would want to explore the argument for a contradiction, either showing that it doesn't work or admitting the contradiction is genuine and revising their position. Repeatedly ducking the issue doesn't seem to be the response of someone who is interested in open-minded intellectual exploration, as opposed to paying attention only to arguments that support their current beliefs. This is their 'true actual age' because both twins agree on both actual ages and how their clock times correlate. They do this not by OBSERVING the other's age, but by calculating it from knowledge of how relativity works in both their frames. I don't see how relativity supports either of your
Re: Block Universes
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand, and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper, dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV, of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI. Sincerely, Mitch http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf -Original Message- From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:03 pm Subject: Re: Block Universes Jesse, I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow, that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring yourself to agree that you are actually some particular age right now, or were at any time in the past. If you don't even believe that I can't see any hope of agreement or having a meaningful discussion. It's quite clear from all the numerous examples I gave that it is possible to determine a 1:1 correlation between the twin's actual ages in terms of their own clock time readings (what you call their proper times). This is their 'true actual age' because both twins agree on both actual ages and how their clock times correlate. They do this not by OBSERVING the other's age, but by calculating it from knowledge of how relativity works in both their frames. This is the frame independence I point out that is a fundamental (though unstated) assumption of relativity. It is only in this background notion of frame independence that frame DEPENDENCE of relativity makes any sense. But that concept remains beyond you But since you can't even bring yourself to admit the twins were actually alive with a particular actual age at every point on their world lines I see no useful way to continue the discussion. Thus the basic disagreement is not really about whether p-time is incompatible with relativity (it isn't) but that p-time is incompatible with block time, which for you seems a matter of faith which you are unable to set aside. Best, Edgar On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:30:11 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, I'm back... Let me back up a minute and ask you a couple of general questions with respect to establishing which past clock times of different observers were simultaneous in p-time The only clocks in this example are the real actual ages of two twins 1. Do you agree that each twin always has a real actual age defined as how old he actually is (to himself)? Yes or no? Yes, in the sense that at each point on his worldline he has an actual age at that point, which is just the proper time between his birth and that point. But if you're suggesting a unique true actual age, as opposed to just each point having its own actual age, then I would have to change my answer to no. 2. Do you agree that this real actual age corresponds by definition to the moment of his actually being alive, to his actual current point in time? (As a block universe believer you can just take this as perception or perspective rather than actuality if you wish - it won't affect the discussion). Yes or no? If by perspective you mean that each point on his worldline takes his experiences at that point (including his age) to be the current point in time, then yes. Now assume a relativistic trip that separates the twins 3. Do you agree that IF, for every point of the trip, we can always determine what ACTUAL age of one twin corresponds to the ACTUAL age of the other twin, and always in a way that both twins AGREE upon (that is frame independent), that those 1:1 correspondences in actual ages, whatever they are, must occur at the same actual times? That this would give us a method to determine what (possibly different) actual ages occur at the same actual p-time moment in which the twins are actually alive with those (possibly different) actual ages? Yes or no? IF we had a method to determine a unique 1:1 correspondence in ages for separated twins, then yes, that could reasonably be interpreted as a demonstration of absolute simultaneity, telling us which ages occur at the same actual times. But I don't
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. How so? Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. I don't believe there is any rule which says that gravitational attraction as they quantify it in the paper is proportional to any simple measure of the amount of spacetime curvature, and if there isn't then you can't say that a greater attraction in this sense implies curving spacetime more. I imagine the the attraction depends on the way in which the curvature tensor varies at different points along the object's path through spacetime. Jesse Correct? Edgar Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:32:07 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: The curvature of spacetime is understood in a coordinate-invariant way, in terms of the proper time and proper length along paths through spacetime, so it doesn't depend at all on what coordinate system you use to describe things. Physicists do sometimes talk about the curvature of space distinct from the curvature of spacetime, I'm not sure if you meant to distinguish the two or were treating them as synonymous. But defining the curvature of space depends on picking a simultaneity convention which divides 4D spacetime into a series of 3D slices, and then defining the curvature of each slice in terms of proper length along spacelike paths confined to that slice. So the curvature of space is coordinate-dependent, since different simultaneity conventions = different slices with different curvatures. I don't know if there's any meaningful sense in which picking a coordinate system where an object has a higher velocity means it curves space more--if there is, it would presumably depend on a choice to restrict the analysis to some family of coordinate systems where each possible velocity would be associated with a particular choice of simultaneity convention, rather than using any of the arbitrary smooth coordinate systems (with arbitrary simultaneity conventions) that are permitted in general relativity. I found some discussion of the issue of how velocity relates to curvature and gravitational force on these pages: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/95023/does-a- moving-object-curve-space-time-as-its-velocity-increases http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=602644 On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: Russell, Brent, Jesse, et al, The increased kinetic energy of the particle is not due to its acceleration but to its relative velocity to some observer. Mass also increases with relative velocity, but that apparent increase in mass is only with respect to some observer the motion is relative to. In fact all kinetic energy is only with respect to relative velocity with some observer frame. So this means that any increased curvature of space from that increased kinetic energy and increased mass should be only with respect to observers it is in relative motion with respect to. So in this case we seem to have a case in which the curvature of space is relative rather than being absolute. Would you not agree? Edgar On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:44:58 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 01:28:09PM -0500, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote: You say that You can tell if spacetime is curved or not by observing if light moves in a straight line or not. and then you say that light does NOT travel in a straight line in the accelerating elevator example you give. So, by your terminology, does that mean that the acceleration of the elevator IS
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. How so? Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. I don't believe there is any rule which says that gravitational attraction as they quantify it in the paper is proportional to any simple measure of the amount of spacetime curvature, and if there isn't then you can't say that a greater attraction in this sense implies curving spacetime more. I imagine the the attraction depends on the way in which the curvature tensor varies at different points along the object's path through spacetime. Note that the Schwarzschild metric (or any other metric) around a moving gravitating body becomes shortened in the direction of travel by the Lorentz contraction. So from the standpoint of a stationary test mass the field is stronger but of shorter duration as the gravitating body moves past, so it curves spacetime more. Looked at the other way around, with the Schwarzschild gravitating body stationary and the test mass moving, the test mass gains 4-momentum as it falls toward the gravitating body and hence the gravitational attraction is increased. That's why in GR there is increased precession of the perihelion and there can be plunging orbits. 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?
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:37:06PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. Correct? Edgar In GR, curvature is a rank 2 tensor. Being a tensor, it does not vary according to the inertial reference frame of the observer (ie does not depend on the speed of the observer). However, projections of a tensor onto subspaces does depend the inertial reference frame, as the subspace are defined by the reference frame. For example, the subspaces represent space and time rotate relative to those of another observer travelling at some velocity greater, and significantly so when near the speed of light. The technical name for this is covariance. The components of a tensor will transform covariantly with the reference frame. So the effect being described in the paper you cite can only be due to projecting the force vectors onto a 3D subspace (aka space), which rotates as the inertial reference frame changes. But the curvature of space (as a tensor) does not vary with inertial reference frame. I suspect too many physicists do not understand tensors properly, and as a result the subject was, and probably still is, very poorly taught (my GR lecturer some 30 years ago being a case in point), but can recommend the classic by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, who got it right. 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
I'll give it a go. Us Kiwis have a rep for punching above our weight in physics, what with radioactivity and rotating black holes, to name but two (I hestitate to mention powered flight) so who knows, he may be onto something. On 23 February 2014 12:20, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand, and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper, dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV, of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI. Sincerely, Mitch http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. How so? Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. I don't believe there is any rule which says that gravitational attraction as they quantify it in the paper is proportional to any simple measure of the amount of spacetime curvature, and if there isn't then you can't say that a greater attraction in this sense implies curving spacetime more. I imagine the the attraction depends on the way in which the curvature tensor varies at different points along the object's path through spacetime. Note that the Schwarzschild metric (or any other metric) around a moving gravitating body becomes shortened in the direction of travel by the Lorentz contraction. So from the standpoint of a stationary test mass the field is stronger but of shorter duration as the gravitating body moves past, so it curves spacetime more. What do you mean by curves spacetime more, though? Isn't the curvature of spacetime defined in a coordinate-invariant way in general relativity, in terms of the metric which gives the proper time or proper length of arbitrary timelike or spacelike paths through that spacetime? Are you talking about some specific coordinate-dependent quantity, and if so is it a scalar or a tensor? 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 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand, and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper, dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV, of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI. Sincerely, Mitch http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf Well right off I see he got the quotation wrong. It's J.B.S. Haldane's, It is my supposition that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine. He complains for two pages that modern physics can't be right because it's not comprehensible. But he never explains what comprehensible means or why it disqualifies theories. I think what it really means is like good old Newtonian mechanics. But when explicated it no longer sounds like such a good criterion. He writes What quantum theory describes is in every way physically impossible - but only under naive Aristotelian and Newtonian physics. He claims the virtualism is consistent with physics - but which physics? The physics he objects is impossible and incomprehensible? As a matter of fact yes. That's the physics he cites in describing what virtualism Has or Allows. Notice he doesn't use predicts; and that's because virtualism is like theism, it has and allows anything at all. After eight pages of logical non-sequiturs, I lost patience. 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
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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. We don't see it at the sub-cellular level, we see it beginning at the biological level as tissue-rejection. The richer the experience, the longer the history, and the more important it is in defining itself exclusively. Biology is more proprietary than chemistry, zoology is more proprietary than biology, anthropology is more proprietary than zoology, etc. It's not that some material fragment of a cell should be irreplaceable, it's that living cells should be easily created from primordial soup. Your theory misses the whole other half of the universe which coheres from the top down. We can take out small words or skip letters of a sentence and still be understood, but we can't understand a sentence as a whole if we don't know what the bigger words in it mean. Tissue rejection is caused by well understood mechanisms whereby the body recognises foreign protein markers on the transplanted tissue. That's the only thing you have said above which is close to an observational consequence of your theory, and it doesn't support it. The body's recognition of foreign protein markers is a lower level manifestation of the mismatch of higher level zoological history. It is a sign that on this level of description, tissue is not naively exchangeable. The public side is a spatial story about bodies nested within bodies performing repeating functions. The private side is completely orthogonal. It is an phenomenal story about tension and release, identity, etc. The public side is a closed circuit, but it is closed by the narrowness of the private perspective. The universe fills in the appearance of closure and mechanism, just as our visual perception fills in repeating patterns. Craig -- 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. If it is invariant then it can't be original. Invariant means that it remains fixed across a multiplicity of variations. To be original means that it undergoes no variation. It is uncopied and uncopyable. But I think that any serious (i.e. non-eliminitavist) theory of consciousness must find it to be original and indeed uncopyable in the sense that you stipulate. That is the opposite of what CTM does though. In order to say yes to the doctor, we must believe that we are justified in expecting to be copied into an identical conscious personhood. Sense is never copied; rather it is encountered wherever there is a sensible context. Encountered by what? Nonsense? What is a non-sensible context? One might say that it is encountered wherever what is obscuring it has been sufficiently clarified. It originates perpetually at the centre of a circle whose limits are not discoverable. One shouldn't therefore think of sense as what is copied in the protocol; rather what is copiable is only that which is capable of differentiating one sensible context from another. What else could be capable of differentiating one sensible context from another besides sense? You are saying that sense is not copied, only sense-making is copied. I am saying that nothing is copied except for the ratios of distance between experiences. I think that consciousness, transcendently, is a necessary, original and invariant assumption of any theory of itself. We agree then, but how does that allow for CTM? As such it is perpetually capable of self-manifestation, given the sufficient conditions of a sensible context. Always in terms of some theory, of course. Theory is always in terms of a deeper sense-making substrate. Craig David and simulation is absolute. Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of substitution). Hope that helps. I'm saying that the idea of a level of substitution is absolute. I wish I could hope that helps, but I expect that it will only be twisted around, dismissed, and diluted. Craig David Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible ways through every appreciation of form. The not-even-done-onceness of consciousness and the done-over-and-overness of its self reflection can be made to seem equivalent from any local perspective, since the very act of looking through a local perspective requires a comparison with prior perspectives, and therefore attention to the done-over-and-overness - the rigorously measured and recorded. In this way, the diagonalization of originality is preserved, but always behind our back. Paradoxically, it is only when we suspend our rigid attention and unexamine the forms presented within consciousness and the world that we can become the understanding that we expect. On Friday, February 21, 2014 8:39:47 PM UTC-5, 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-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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: How does acceleration curve space? Can anyone provide an answer?
On 2/22/2014 3:43 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 6:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 3:22 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, But from the links you yourself provide: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985AmJPh..53..661O To quote from the abstract: If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass. If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that Mrel=γ(1+β^2)M. Therefore, in the ultrarelativistic limit, the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not γM but is approximately 2γM. So this reference from the Harvard physics dept. says that the active gravitational mass of a relativistically moving particle DOES INCREASE and has a stronger gravitational attraction to what it is moving relative to. So that seems to contradict your own conclusion. How so? Clearly from Harvard, the increased mass (relativistic mass) of a moving object DOES have an increased gravitational attraction. So since gravitational attraction is due to curvature of spacetime one can say that from the POV (the frame) of the stationary observer, the moving object must be curving spacetime more. I don't believe there is any rule which says that gravitational attraction as they quantify it in the paper is proportional to any simple measure of the amount of spacetime curvature, and if there isn't then you can't say that a greater attraction in this sense implies curving spacetime more. I imagine the the attraction depends on the way in which the curvature tensor varies at different points along the object's path through spacetime. Note that the Schwarzschild metric (or any other metric) around a moving gravitating body becomes shortened in the direction of travel by the Lorentz contraction. So from the standpoint of a stationary test mass the field is stronger but of shorter duration as the gravitating body moves past, so it curves spacetime more. What do you mean by curves spacetime more, though? Isn't the curvature of spacetime defined in a coordinate-invariant way in general relativity, in terms of the metric which gives the proper time or proper length of arbitrary timelike or spacelike paths through that spacetime? Are you talking about some specific coordinate-dependent quantity, and if so is it a scalar or a tensor? It would be coordinate frame dependent, like clock rates in SR. The tensor curvature is an invariant. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
OK, maybe I won't bother with it after all. (My time is a bit limited...!) On 23 February 2014 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand, and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper, dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV, of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI. Sincerely, Mitch http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf Well right off I see he got the quotation wrong. It's J.B.S. Haldane's, It is my supposition that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine. He complains for two pages that modern physics can't be right because it's not comprehensible. But he never explains what comprehensible means or why it disqualifies theories. I think what it really means is like good old Newtonian mechanics. But when explicated it no longer sounds like such a good criterion. He writes What quantum theory describes is in every way physically impossible - but only under naive Aristotelian and Newtonian physics. He claims the virtualism is consistent with physics - but which physics? The physics he objects is impossible and incomprehensible? As a matter of fact yes. That's the physics he cites in describing what virtualism Has or Allows. Notice he doesn't use predicts; and that's because virtualism is like theism, it has and allows anything at all. After eight pages of logical non-sequiturs, I lost patience. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you read this? 2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I write this, whether or not you know what that is? 3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages? 4. Do you agree that if we were at the same location we would be in the same present moment? 5. Since you believe you are actually alive in every moment of your life, including every past and future moment, why is this particular moment the one you experience yourself in right now? 6. Since you no doubt will claim that every one of your moment selves experiences itself in its present moment, then how do you explain your experience of time flowing from those past moments to the present one? And how do you explain that you have no experience of any of your future moment selves? If the past and present moments are equivalent, why are they not symmetrical in this respect? Again I know this conversation won't go anywhere. It's like trying to make a logical argument to a cult member. And yes, our disagreement is p-time versus block time, because all your arguments are basically based on your conviction there is no such thing as an actual now, an actual present moment in which you exist and are actually a particular age. If you could just accept that all my many arguments and examples would follow logically. Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe this and act on it successfully every minute of their lives? Why is everyone in the world so deluded except for the block universe cult? One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that you would be effectively a pre-programmed zombie? One more: If you flash freeze a brain with the exact state of its neural circuitry intact would that brain be alive or dead? Would it know what its state was? Of course not, knowledge, like everything in the universe depends on change, on process, on the actual flow of time. A block universe is a universe of death, a universe populated entirely by deterministic zombies.. And stop labeling my theory presentism. It's not a subset of any other theory type. People label things to keep from actually understanding them. Edgar On Saturday, February 22, 2014 6:07:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow, that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring yourself to agree that you are actually some particular age right now, or were at any time in the past. If you don't even believe that I can't see any hope of agreement or having a meaningful discussion. If right now is taken to presume there is a UNIQUE now, then you are simply assuming what you seemed to be trying to prove. On the other hand, if right now is understood to be an indexical term (see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/indexicals/ ) whose meaning depends on who's saying it, like here or mine, then of course I have a definite age right now. It's just that in this case I must be understood to refer to a particular observer-moment among many, the one having the experience of saying the sentence. So the fact that I have a definite age right now does not imply the nonexistence of other Jesse-observer-moments at different ages who could be just as real as I am, and who would mean something different by right now, any more than the sentence I am here in Rhode Island implies the nonexistence of other people at different locations who would mean something different if they used the word here. This is not to say that those other Jesse-observer-moments MUST be just as real as I am, just that the fact I can say I have a definite age right now doesn't prove anything one way or another about whether other Jesse-observer-moments with different nows exist or not. It's quite clear from all the numerous examples I gave that it is possible to determine a 1:1 correlation between the twin's actual ages in terms of their own clock time readings (what you call their proper times). You have never given any *general* rule for determining this, you just gave two rules for specific cases: 1) the rule saying that if observers are at rest relative to one another far from gravity, the ages that are simultaneous in their inertial rest frame are also simultaneous in p-time, and
Re: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. If it is invariant then it can't be original. Invariant means that it remains fixed across a multiplicity of variations. To be original means that it undergoes no variation. It is uncopied and uncopyable. But I think that any serious (i.e. non-eliminitavist) theory of consciousness must find it to be original and indeed uncopyable in the sense that you stipulate. That is the opposite of what CTM does though. In order to say yes to the doctor, we must believe that we are justified in expecting to be copied into an identical conscious personhood. No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. Sense is never copied; rather it is encountered wherever there is a sensible context. Encountered by what? Nonsense? What is a non-sensible context? There is no precisely apposite vocabulary here. I simply meant the sufficient conditions for the self-relative actualisation of a who, a where, a when, a history and so forth. In short-hand: a sensible context. One might say that it is encountered wherever what is obscuring it has been sufficiently clarified. It originates perpetually at the centre of a circle whose limits are not discoverable. One shouldn't therefore think of sense as what is copied in the protocol; rather what is copiable is only that which is capable of differentiating one sensible context from another. What else could be capable of differentiating one sensible context from another besides sense? You are saying that sense is not copied, only sense-making is copied. I am saying that nothing is copied except for the ratios of distance between experiences. I am only saying, or trying to say, what follows from the assumptions and explicit rules of derivation of a particular theory. I can do no other and no more. Under CTM, what might look like arithmetic, computation and logic from the bird perspective transforms, in terms of those very rules of derivation, into an inter-subjective Multiverse in the frog perspective. In so doing it relies implicitly, as I have suggested, on a notion of consciousness as a transcendent observational invariant. I think that consciousness, transcendently, is a necessary, original and invariant assumption of any theory of itself. We agree then, but how does that allow for CTM? Because if we are on the track of a theory of everything (vainglorious though that may be) we need more than just a transcendent assumption. We need a robust framework that shows at least some early promise of being able to address the formidable conceptual and technical challenges that infest the world-problem, hopefully without sweeping any of them under the rug. As such it is perpetually capable of self-manifestation, given the sufficient conditions of a sensible context. Always in terms of some theory, of course. Theory is always in terms of a deeper sense-making substrate. I would say rather that theory must be capable of situating the required notions of sense both transcendently and contextually. And theory mustn't cheat by assuming a priori that its postulates are real (as opposed to the point of departure of an argument). David and simulation is absolute. Not absolute, but hopefully sufficient (i.e. the idea of a level of substitution). Hope that helps. I'm saying that the idea of a level of substitution is absolute. I wish I could hope that helps, but I expect that it will only be twisted around, dismissed, and diluted. Craig David Arithmetic can do so many things, but it can't do something that can only be done once. Think of consciousness as not only that which can't be done more than once, it is that which cannot even be fully completed one time. It doesn't begin or end, and it is neither finite nor infinite, progressing or static, but instead it is the fundamental ability for beginnings and endings to seem to exist and to relate to each other sensibly. Consciousness is orthogonal to all process and form, but it reflects itself in different sensible
Re: Block Universes
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you read this? Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have repeatedly asked you about the meaning of same point in spacetime, even after I put the question into a form that only requires a simple agree/disagree type answer--again see the last two paragraphs of https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/LF0Xcds_qtQJ . Sorry Edward, but this is really rude behavior, adults having a civil discussion understand that they are each expected to make some effort to address the other's questions and arguments, you can't expect to have the unique power to dictate what will be discussed (especially when the line of discussion you are so stubbornly ignoring is one stemming from an argument of mine that I think shows a basic mathematical contradiction in your ideas about p-time simultaneity). I will be happy to answer all your questions and arguments in detail, just as I have always done in the past, if you are willing to address my question in some way--even if it's not a simple agree/disagree answer, but something else like saying that you find the question unclear and in need of clarification. But if you outright refuse to talk about anything but your own preferred lines of argument, then I'll take that as a sign that you are unwilling to show any basic respect to others who disagree with you, and that you are only interested in lecturing about your ideas rather than engaging in two-way conversation, in which case there'd be no point in my responding to your posts any further. 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
Maybe Edgar should start the Edgar-thing list, where he *does* have the unique power to dictate what will be discussed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 23 February 2014 00:27, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 4:06:39 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 15:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: On 22 February 2014 14:25, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If you say yes to the doctor, you are saying that originality is an illusion Not an illusion, an invariant. If it is invariant then it can't be original. Invariant means that it remains fixed across a multiplicity of variations. To be original means that it undergoes no variation. It is uncopied and uncopyable. But I think that any serious (i.e. non-eliminitavist) theory of consciousness must find it to be original and indeed uncopyable in the sense that you stipulate. That is the opposite of what CTM does though. In order to say yes to the doctor, we must believe that we are justified in expecting to be copied into an identical conscious personhood. No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. But it is directly contradicted by the idea that consciousness is tied to originality. You can't have it both ways. If consciousness can be continued by a computation, then it cannot be considered original. It is no more original than a long IP address. Any computation which can reproduce the complex number must forever instantiate a non-original address of consciousness. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). The world of comp is what is observed, which is why it can never contain even a single observer. Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. Any continuation is a violation of originality/authenticity and is therefore, by my definition, unconscious and impossible. I assure you that there is nothing significant that I misunderstand about comp. You are telling me over and over what I already know, and your responses clearly indicate to me that you are primarily focused on your view being heard rather than considering mine. You are getting some of my view, more than most others on this list have been willing to sit through, but still, your argument is 90% shadow boxing. Sense is never copied; rather it is encountered wherever there is a sensible context. Encountered by what? Nonsense? What is a non-sensible context? There is no precisely apposite vocabulary here. I simply meant the sufficient conditions for the self-relative actualisation of a who, a where, a when, a history and so forth. In short-hand: a sensible context. I understand exactly what you simply meant, but I am challenging you to see that it is too simple. My attack on CTM begins miles beneath the facile assumptions of modal logic and enumerated data fields. I'm talking about screaming, crying, stinking reality here, not a hypothesis of pretty puzzles. Fuck the puzzles. I'm not playing with words, I'm saying simply that it is impossible for sense to be superseded in any way. Every context is a context of sense and nothing else. One might say that it is encountered wherever what is obscuring it has been sufficiently clarified. It originates perpetually at the centre of a circle whose limits are not discoverable. One shouldn't therefore think of sense as what is copied in the protocol; rather what is copiable is only that which is capable of differentiating one sensible context from another. What else could be capable of differentiating one sensible context from another besides sense? You are saying that sense is not copied, only sense-making is copied. I am saying that nothing is copied except for the ratios of distance between experiences. I am only saying, or trying to say, what follows from the assumptions and explicit rules of derivation of a particular theory. You must know by now though that I have no interest in that theory except to show that it is inside out. I can do no other and no more. Why? Can't you set aside CTM for a while to contemplate other possibilities? Under CTM, what might look like arithmetic, computation and logic from the bird perspective transforms, in terms of those very rules of derivation, into an inter-subjective Multiverse in the frog perspective. In so doing it relies implicitly, as I have suggested, on a notion of consciousness as a transcendent observational invariant. Why wouldn't arithmetic and computation look like
Re: Block Universes
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you read this? Not Jesse, but yes. 2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I write this, whether or not you know what that is? Yes. 3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages? Yes. 4. Do you agree that if we were at the same location we would be in the same present moment? If we were at the same space and time location, yes. 5. Since you believe you are actually alive in every moment of your life, including every past and future moment, why is this particular moment the one you experience yourself in right now? That's sort of trivial if you look at it the right way. They are all different versions of me, and I'm the version of me who is writing this at the moment. Each other version of me would say something similar, that they are the version in their own here and now, and not any of the other versions. 6. Since you no doubt will claim that every one of your moment selves experiences itself in its present moment, then how do you explain your experience of time flowing from those past moments to the present one? And how do you explain that you have no experience of any of your future moment selves? If the past and present moments are equivalent, why are they not symmetrical in this respect? Block time is compatible with an arrow of time. As a model, consider a computer simulation running on two separate computers, A and B. A is simulating Monday and B is simulating Tuesday. The people simulated on B remember being the people simulated on A, but not vice versa, even though A and B are running simultaneously. Again I know this conversation won't go anywhere. It's like trying to make a logical argument to a cult member. And yes, our disagreement is p-time versus block time, because all your arguments are basically based on your conviction there is no such thing as an actual now, an actual present moment in which you exist and are actually a particular age. There's no special present moment. As an analogy, I feel that I am me, but there are many other people in the world who feel that they are themselves. I'm no more special than they are, and their sense of being themselves does not detract from my sense of being myself. If you could just accept that all my many arguments and examples would follow logically. Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe this and act on it successfully every minute of their lives? Why is everyone in the world so deluded except for the block universe cult? Since proponents of the block universe claim that it creates the effect of time flowing, this is not an argument against it. One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that you would be effectively a pre-programmed zombie? If the block universe were deterministic, yes. But it need not be deterministic (from the first person perspective) if it is a branching multiverse. (And if it is deterministic that doesn't mean there is no free will, and if there is no free will that doesn't mean we are zombies.) One more: If you flash freeze a brain with the exact state of its neural circuitry intact would that brain be alive or dead? Would it know what its state was? Of course not, knowledge, like everything in the universe depends on change, on process, on the actual flow of time. A block universe is a universe of death, a universe populated entirely by deterministic zombies.. But if the block universe creates the effect of flowing time, as it must if the idea is not to be summarily dismissed, this isn't an issue. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe this and act on it successfully every minute of their lives? Why is everyone in the world so deluded except for the block universe cult? This sounds like someone writing about the Copernican cult about 500 years ago. Why does everyone except for a few members of the Copernican cult believe that the Earth stays put, and the Sun orbits around it? How come they act successfully on this basis every minute of their lives? Why are these cult members so deluded? Etc. Edgar is following in the long tradition of internet trolls - when you don't have a sensible argument, resort to ridicule. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 23 February 2014 16:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: But if the block universe creates the effect of flowing time, as it must if the idea is not to be summarily dismissed, this isn't an issue. Would you like to take a small bet? I wager that Edgar will completely ignore your eminently sensible comments and carry on repeating his misconceptions for as long as anyone is prepared to pay attention to him. If Einstein, Minkowski, Newton and so on have failed to convince him, what chance do you have? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. So does your consciousness continue indefinitely into the past? 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. So does your consciousness continue indefinitely into the past? This would imply there is no initial state of mind - assumed digital, I assume? - or that every possible mental state has a precursor. Does computational theory assume this, or can a mind start from a blank state? Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, does this just imply amensia about previous lives? (And maybe that I am he as you are he as he is me, etc). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Sunday, February 23, 2014, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:05:47 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 22, 2014 12:29:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 20 February 2014 09:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com 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. We don't see it at the sub-cellular level, we see it beginning at the biological level as tissue-rejection. The richer the experience, the longer the history, and the more important it is in defining itself exclusively. Biology is more proprietary than chemistry, zoology is more proprietary than biology, anthropology is more proprietary than zoology, etc. It's not that some material fragment of a cell should be irreplaceable, it's that living cells should be easily created from primordial soup. Your theory misses the whole other half of the universe which coheres from the top down. We can take out small words or skip letters of a sentence and still be understood, but we can't understand a sentence as a whole if we don't know what the bigger words in it mean. Tissue rejection is caused by well understood mechanisms whereby the body recognises foreign protein markers on the transplanted tissue. That's the only thing you have said above which is close to an observational consequence of your theory, and it doesn't support it. The body's recognition of foreign protein markers is a lower level manifestation of the mismatch of higher level zoological history. It is a sign that on this level of description, tissue is not naively exchangeable. The public side is a spatial story about bodies nested within bodies performing repeating functions. The private side is completely orthogonal. It is an phenomenal story about tension and release, identity, etc. The public side is a closed circuit, but it is closed by the narrowness of the private perspective. The universe fills in the appearance of closure and mechanism, just as our visual perception fills in repeating patterns. The body's recognition of foreign tissue is well understood: the mechanism, the reasons for it, and how to bypass it for the purpose of organ transplant. Your theory doesn't add anything to that explanation. Find an experimental result not consistent with mere biochemistry. -- 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 Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:45 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes. In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view. In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's, but his view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future 1 view of the Helsinki Man. If so then anybody who can remember having the past 1 view of the Helsinki Man would fit that description; so the Helsinki Man will see both Washington and Moscow. I said that we have to interview all copies. Good, then I never want to hear you say again that the Washington Man saying that he didn't see Moscow contradicts the claim that the Helsinki man will see both Washington AND Moscow. 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 What the hell!!? Did you really think I was serious? Did you really think I believed the above pap was a major discovery?! Concerning FPI and step 3, yes its just a step but to me it is not trivial, especially when UDA is followed through to its concluding implications and problems in conjunction with steps 7 and 8. A non-trivial fundamental point here for yours truly, is that determinism in the mechanist setting of the protocol entails strong form of first-person subjective indeterminacy. P(Washington) = P(Tokio) =1/2 is just set out to fix the damn question to explore further implications of comp, eventually including the search of such distributions of probability bearing on observable physics given backdrop of a lot of redundant UD work. The objective probability asserted here at step 3 seems fundamental; applied to first person subjective outcomes in a deterministic UD setting providing a foundation for examining self-reference observation constraints of various types of reasoning machines arising from something as general as arithmetic/possible logics, and comparing this with our observable physics, appears as a valid, if overlooked move. This might be trivial pap to you, but then I'd like to know clearly: why would such a comparison be trivial or bogus? In other words: how do you know? Things are obviously not all unexplainable magic, when arithmetic is effectively applied, nor is everything computable. For now, I see no reason to not keep trying to grasp at both ends and keep comparing. If this is trivial to you then I'll grant you my low standards and taste for pap. But then why further concern yourself with these questions; being patronizing and insulting? Waste of time by your own standards of pap it would seem. Go preach elsewhere whatever it is you want to preach with such furious ambition, maybe? PGC 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 22 Feb 2014, at 19:45, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Did the Helsinki Man see Washington and Moscow? Yes. In the 3-1 view. Not in the 1-1 view. In who's 1-1 view? You'll probably say in The Helsinki Man's, No. The W-man and the M-man. but his view is just of Helsinki. Perhaps you mean the future 1 view of the Helsinki Man. If so then anybody who can remember having the past 1 view of the Helsinki Man would fit that description; so the Helsinki Man will see both Washington and Moscow. In the 3-1 views. Not in the 1-1 views. I said that we have to interview all copies. Good, then I never want to hear you say again that the Washington Man saying that he didn't see Moscow contradicts the claim that the Helsinki man will see both Washington AND Moscow. In the 3-1 views. Not in the 1-1 view. I think that with that way or arguing, you don't even convince yourself. You continue to play with words, and ignore the details of the question, based on the 1-3 distinction. If the FPI does not exist, provide the algorithm of prediction. W M has been refuted. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, systematically, in a boring repetition. Bruno 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 What the hell!!? Did you really think I was serious? Did you really think I believed the above pap was a major discovery?! John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On 23 Feb 2014, at 01:03, meekerdb wrote: On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept over the last, few, years, is mathematician, Brian Whitworth in New Zealand, and if anyone has the time, interest, and patience, to learn about his own theory of Virtual Reality (again, Virtuality) I will present it here. I believe it dovetails with the Block universe view of how spacetime works and is best measured. But it does take both special, and general, relativity as well as the quantum, in a very, different, direction. Here is his latest paper, dated, Jan 24, 2014. His earlier papers can be downloaded on ARXIV, of course, as well as his discussions on the FQXI. Sincerely, Mitch http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf Well right off I see he got the quotation wrong. It's J.B.S. Haldane's, It is my supposition that the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine. He complains for two pages that modern physics can't be right because it's not comprehensible. But he never explains what comprehensible means or why it disqualifies theories. I think what it really means is like good old Newtonian mechanics. But when explicated it no longer sounds like such a good criterion. He writes What quantum theory describes is in every way physically impossible - but only under naive Aristotelian and Newtonian physics. He claims the virtualism is consistent with physics - but which physics? The physics he objects is impossible and incomprehensible? As a matter of fact yes. That's the physics he cites in describing what virtualism Has or Allows. Notice he doesn't use predicts; and that's because virtualism is like theism, it has and allows anything at all. After eight pages of logical non-sequiturs, I lost patience. Me too. He is quite naive on computation, and on the notion of reality. He got also some references wrong but that is traditional. He makes also the digital physics error, and of course he uses an identity mind/brain which makes no sense in a digital context, as I have often argued here. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 22 Feb 2014, at 21:09, LizR wrote to Clark (with the above pap = the FPI of step 3): The above pap is only a small step in an argument (and it only reproduces a result obtained in the MWI, anyway). OK, but the MWI is a big thing, relying on another big thing: QM. The FPI assumes only the comp theory of mind, and extracts, as PGC indicates, a strong form of indeterminacy in a purely deterministic framework. That makes QM confirming a simple, (even according to Clark) but startling and counter-intuitive consequence of computationalism. That was new, and broke the common brain-mind identity thesis, and is basically still ignored by everyone, except on this list and my papers, 'course. 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 Feb 2014, at 06:21, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. So does your consciousness continue indefinitely into the past? This would imply there is no initial state of mind - assumed digital, I assume? - or that every possible mental state has a precursor. Does computational theory assume this, or can a mind start from a blank state? It might start from a state of consciousness which is beyond time. Let us say the blank state of the universal virgin (non programmed) machine. The []p t modality makes the world into a non-cul-de-sac world, but does not imply an infinite past, or previous computational history per se, although this is not entirely excluded for the physics in comp. Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, does this just imply amensia about previous lives? (And maybe that I am he as you are he as he is me, etc). In some sense, perhaps. That can be related somehow. 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 5:49 PM, David Nyman wrote: No, I don't think that follows. The indefinite continuation of consciousness is directly entailed by CTM. In fact it is equivalent to the continuing existence of the sensible world (i.e. per comp, the world is what is observed). Hence any observer can expect to remain centred in the circle of observation, come what may, to speak rather loosely. There is a transcendent expectation of a definite continuation (aka no cul-de-sac). This expectation is relativised only secondarily in terms of the specifics of some particular continuation. So does your consciousness continue indefinitely into the past? This would imply there is no initial state of mind - assumed digital, I assume? - or that every possible mental state has a precursor. Does computational theory assume this, or can a mind start from a blank state? Even if it doesn't, it would seem a remarkable coincidence that everyone seems to be on their first consciousness. Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, I see no reason to assume that. does this just imply amensia about previous lives? (And maybe that I am he as you are he as he is me, etc). Or does it imply that consciousness and memory are intrinsic to certain physical processes. 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.
