RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 1:21 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Solar cells are getting cheaper and easier to use (e.g. flexible plastic ones). It should be possible to stick them anywhere you want, e.g. on buildings or cars. This would mean at least some solar power could be harvested using existing infrastructure. As usual the technology is there, or almost there, but this needs political or commercial will to achieve. One idea I like is to engineer road surface blocks that double as solar collectors. to turn the road surface itself into an energy harvesting medium. It is not as outlandish at it may seem at first. The PV layer would be beneath a tough layer of relatively clear roughened glass (good traction), and the blocks would be built to last for the useful life of the embedded PV. Personally I'd like to see a solar farm that uses the energy it receives from the Sun to power machinery that sucks CO2 and water from the air and turns them into petrol. (Then you really could run a 747 on solar power :) If battery energy density improves by a factor of around ten - lithium-air or zinc-air variants are getting so close in the lab at least -- you could have all electric jumbo jets, running on electric turbines. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Quentin *That's nonsense, * The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just discovered that there are. And that they are publishing these ideas in respected and peer reviewed journals. Just to recap then: It is perfectly respectable to reject the notion of subjective uncertainty without abandoning MWI. Just as I said. * and contrary to observed fact. * I always wince when you throw that one out. How does one break it to the angriest member of a list that they are continually begging the question? * David Deutsch does not reject probability... * Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's famous for, Quentin. o_O... he doesn't reject probability usage. *or could you please show a quote where he does.* Do your own homework, mate. I'm not your little quote monkey. Ok, I give up talking to you, if you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... I've kindly described to you what I think people like Deutsch and Wallace argue, I've supplied papers which you've refused to read. I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week. The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not, but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution... so what's your point ? if you disagree you need display the same generosity and explain to me what you think they are arguing and how that is different. See upper Quentin Waving your hands in the air demanding more and more to unceremoniously and uncritically ditch is no-ones idea of fun. All the best Chris. -- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:26:52 +1300 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com In the MWI you *do* see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Or to put it another way, you (now) will become you (who sees spin up) and you (who sees spin down), which by then will be two different people. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll also address your latest questions in separate replies... Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock at each grid intersection. I don't think we even have to worry about those clocks being synchronized initially. (We do assume only that physical processes, including the rate of time, follow the same relativistic laws at all locations.) Place a stationary observer with each clock just for terminological convenience. We don't really need this coordinate clock system but I include it to address your concerns. Each clock will display the coordinate time of its grid intersection, which will also be the proper time of the stationary observer at that location. These grid clocks will run at different rates depending on the gravitational potentials of their grid locations. Do you agree? Now also introduce an arbitrary number of observers either stationary, or moving relative to this grid, each with its own proper time clock, some accelerating, some with just constant relative motion. This model covers all possible types of relativistic time effects (disregarding black holes and other types of horizons for the moment). Do you agree? It is possible for all observers in this space to have knowledge of the relativistic conditions of all other observers as well as themselves. In other words they can know the equations governing how any observer would view any other observer. Do you agree? Thus it is possible for all observers to know the RATES of all proper clocks in this system, and all observers will agree on all those proper clock rates. E.g. all observers would agree that the proper clock in a certain gravity would be running at 1/2 the rate as clocks in no gravity. All observers would agree that the proper clock rates of all observers in inertial motion would be running at the same rate. And all observers would agree that the proper clock of an observer with a specific acceleration close to the speed of light would have a proper clock rate half that of a non-accelerating observer. Do you agree? So all observers in this space can agree on all proper time RATES. But to tie p-time simultaneity to proper times we need to establish a notion of proper time SIMULTANEITY as well as proper time RATES. So how do observers know the actual proper time clock reading of any other observer in the general case without having to initially get together and synchronize their clocks? (They of course can do this if they wish but they don't actually have to.) Well, it's actually easy. They simply tell each other what their proper clock time readings are and compare them. Observer A sends a light message to any observer B saying when I sent this message my proper time was t. Observer B knows how long it takes to receive that message by both A's and his own proper clock RATES. As soon as he receives the message he sends a light reply telling A that when he received the message his proper time was t'. In this way it is simple for both A and B to calculate what the other's proper time was at every past moment of their own proper time, and what it will be for every future moment of their own proper time, and what it is now for their current proper times. Do you agree? And this proper time relationship is transitive among all observers. In other words, by all observers establishing a proper time correlation with some other observer(s) until all observers are included in this proper time network, every observer will agree on how his proper time correlates 1:1 with the proper times of all other observers in the space. In this way we establish a 1:1 proper time correlation among all observers which all observers agree upon. Every observer knows exactly what the proper time t' of any OTHER observer IS, WAS, OR WILL BE that corresponds to any proper time t of his OWN. Note that this is NOT a proper time plane of simultaneity. The proper times of various observers can be different, but always in a 1:1 knowable way that all observers agree upon. Do you agree? I know you said you had a counter example. If so please present it. Now the current proper time of any observer always tells the current p-time (the current present moment). Thus we have now established both the FACT of a universal p-time common to all observers, AND an operational method to unambiguously determine that in terms of proper time readings for all relativistic observers. Do you agree? We have thus established a current P-time plane of simultaneity in terms of the (differing) proper times of all observers in our test space, and a method to determine all previous (and theoretically future) P-time planes of simultaneity in terms of the proper times of all observers in our test space. Do you agree? Edgar On
RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi Quentin I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week. Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive! The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not, If I say that x will happen with 50% probability I certainly am talking about things happening or not happening and if it is clear that probability is not about that in MWI, then it is clear that probability in MWI is not about probability. but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution. So you're strategy is to try and semantically wriggle out of the claims you make? Pretend the words you use have a different meaning than they really do? f you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... But I did back up what I said. You couldn't be arsed to read the paper about Deutsch I offered, remember? You're the only one here refusing to back up claims. Perhaps you should give up on yourself? Here's Deutsh from the abstract of his paper: Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions The probabilistic predictions of quantum theory are conventionally obtained from a special probabilistic axiom. But that is unnecessary because all the practical consequences of such predictions follow from the remaining, non- probabilistic, axioms of quantum theory, together with the non-probabilistic part of classical decision theory Read it carefully. It makes clear that he believes that all relevent predictions can be made from non probabilistic axioms. You're not going to turn around and argue that he meant 'probabilistic axioms' are you? And from the conclusion: No probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory. A decision maker who believes only the non-probabilistic part of the theory, and is 'rational' in the sense defined by a strictly non-probabilistic restriction of classical decision theory, will make all decisions that depend on predicting the outcomes of measurements as if those outcomes were determined by stochastic processes, with probabilities given by axiom (1). (However, in other respects he will not behave as if he believed that stochastic processes occur. For instance if asked whether they occur he will certainly reply 'no', because the non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory require the state to evolve in a continuous and deterministic way.) Now if you want to make the case that Deutsch 'does not reject probability' whilst he is insisting, indeed founding his reputation on the claim that 'no probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory' be my guest. Im always up for a laugh. All the best Chris. From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Quentin That's nonsense, The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just discovered that there are. And that they are publishing these ideas in respected and peer reviewed journals. Just to recap then: It is perfectly respectable to reject the notion of subjective uncertainty without abandoning MWI. Just as I said. and contrary to observed fact. I always wince when you throw that one out. How does one break it to the angriest member of a list that they are continually begging the question? David Deutsch does not reject probability... Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's famous for, Quentin. o_O... he doesn't reject probability usage. or could you please show a quote where he does. Do your own homework, mate. I'm not your little quote monkey. Ok, I give up talking to you, if you want to assert thing and not back them up, well... I've kindly described to you what I think people like Deutsch and Wallace argue, I've supplied papers which you've refused to read. I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week. The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not, but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution... so what's your point ? if
Re: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 Feb 2014, at 13:54, David Nyman wrote: On 23 February 2014 09:22, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, 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? Even if it doesn't, it would seem a remarkable coincidence that everyone seems to be on their first consciousness. Not necessarily. It might be a selection effect (a similar argument can be made for the QTI, if true - why are we at the start of an infinite lifetime? Well, you have to start somewhere.) Right. And I guess you'd expect me by now to invite you to consider this with a Hoylean hat on. From Hoyle's perspective a momentary experience can be *typical* only to the degree that equivalent fungible experiences predominate in some underlying measure contest. So, as an analogy, experiences in which I hold a losing ticket in the UK lottery predominate hugely over those in which I hold a winning ticket, and this continues to be the case even though from Hoyle's perspective I am *all* the ticket holders. If this makes any sense, we must assume (for the analogy to hold) that experiences in which I appear to have a relatively recent origin in space and time predominate in the measure battle with those in which my apparent origin recedes towards some asymptotic limit. The former, one might say, are more *typical* of the experience of the universal observer than the latter. For me this touches open problems (some made worst by explaining in comp the possibility of the salvia experience). All memorized past can only scratches the futures. In a sense we are always young. From inside, it always look like a beginning, and in a sense it is (I think). Bruno David Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, I see no reason to assume that. Hence the phraseology used above. If you say given that X, that means you're assuming it for the sake of argument. Sorry, maybe I should have said if we assume that... to make it clearer. 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? Since you can see no reason to assume the initial premise (see above) it seems a bit odd that you are then trying to draw conclusions from it! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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)
2014-02-25 15:02 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Quentin * I don't refuse to read them. You've cited *one* paper, I didn't have time to read it, I will this week.* Ah so you dismiss things that you havent read then? Impressive! I don't... I've said it's about the abstract, and I didn't *dismiss* it. * The abstract though did not reject probability calculus, only the interpretation of what it means. It is clear that in MWI setting probability is not about what happen and what does not,* If I say that x will happen with 50% probability I certainly am talking about things happening or not happening and if it is clear that probability is not about that in MWI, then it is clear that probability in MWI is not about probability. WTF ?? Do you claim people when they are taking MWI seriously say that 0.5 probability to see spin up, means if you see spin up, the spin down version of the observer does not exists ? Do you really claim that ? because with MWI, both version do exist, so sure probability in MWI settings is not about what exists and what doesn't... it's about measure and frequency, what else could it be ? * but about frequency and measure... that doesn't render probability meaningless... proof is, as you always are in *one* world, your measure will follow the predicted distribution.* So you're strategy is to try and semantically wriggle out of the claims you make? Pretend the words you use have a different meaning than they really do? So your strategy is to troll ? Have I got it right ? * f you want to assert thing and not back them up, well...* But I did back up what I said. No you didn't. You couldn't be arsed to read the paper about Deutsch I offered, remember? Which paper ? You're the only one here refusing to back up claims. Perhaps you should give up on yourself? I do. Here's Deutsh from the abstract of his paper: Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions *The probabilistic predictions of quantum theory are conventionally obtainedfrom a special probabilistic axiom. But that is unnecessary because all the practical consequences of such predictions follow from the remaining, non-probabilistic, axioms of quantum theory, together with the non-probabilisticpart of classical decision theory* Read it carefully. It makes clear that he believes that all relevent predictions can be made from non probabilistic axioms. You're not going to turn around and argue that he meant 'probabilistic axioms' are you? He didn't reject *The probabilistic predictions *he's just saying as I do... that it doesn't mean some things happens or not... as with MWI clearly every non zero probability do happen... what else could it mean ? And from the conclusion: *No probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory. A decision maker who believes only the non-probabilistic part of the theory, and is ‘rational’ in the sensedefined by a strictly non-probabilistic restriction of classical decision theory, willmake all decisions that depend on predicting the outcomes of measurements as if those outcomes were determined by stochastic processes, * ***with probabilities given by axiom (1). *** Wait ? what ? he's talking about probabilities or what ? Quentin *(However, in other respects he will not behave as if he believed thatstochastic processes occur. For instance if asked whether they occur he will certainly reply ‘no’, because the non-probabilistic axioms of quantum theory require the stateto evolve in a continuous and deterministic way.)* Now if you want to make the case that Deutsch 'does not reject probability' whilst he is insisting, indeed founding his reputation on the claim that 'no probabilistic axiom is required in quantum theory' be my guest. Im always up for a laugh. All the best Chris. -- From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:43:33 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-25 8:43 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Quentin *That's nonsense, * The point wasn't whether you think its nonsense or not. I couldn't care less about that. we were arguing about whether there are Oxford Dons who adopt the same standpoint as me, and given your little outburst above I think you've just discovered that there are. And that they are publishing these ideas in respected and peer reviewed journals. Just to recap then: It is perfectly respectable to reject the notion of subjective uncertainty without abandoning MWI. Just as I said. * and contrary to observed fact. * I always wince when you throw that one out. How does one break it to the angriest member of a list that they are continually begging the question? * David Deutsch does not reject probability... * Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+
Re: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote: On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, 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? Even if it doesn't, it would seem a remarkable coincidence that everyone seems to be on their first consciousness. Not necessarily. It might be a selection effect (a similar argument can be made for the QTI, if true - why are we at the start of an infinite lifetime? Well, because you have to start somewhere... This could be similar - there may be reasons to expect everyone to be on their first consciousness this near to the big bang, perhaps.) Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, I see no reason to assume that. Hence the phraseology used above. If you say given that X, that means you're assuming it for the sake of argument. (Sorry, maybe I should have said if we assume that... to make it clearer?) 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? Since you can see no reason to assume the initial premise (see above) it seems a bit odd that you are then trying to draw conclusions from it! I wrote no reason to assume that consciousness is not the content of consciousness. The premise I took is everyone's on their first consciousness. For which you offered the explanation of amnesia; and I offered a different one. If you're going to criticize logic you need to parse correctly. But it raises the question, given complete amnesia and then growing up with different experiences and memories in what sense could you be the same person. I John Clark and Bruno's back and forth, the one thing they always agree on is that as soon as the M-man and the W-man open the transporter doors and see different scenes they are different people. We agree that the W-man and the M-man are different, yes. We even agree that both the W-man and the M-man are the H-man, admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus don't need to obey to Leibniz identity rule. I am not sure there is any disagreement, actually, except only on this, but even there he does not convince me. Why he stays mute on step 4 is perhaps that he does already understand it and the consequences, and he dislikes them, perhaps. Well, it is weird, but we are accustom of irrationality in theology aren't we? Bruno Brent 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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately
relies on some transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the
sensible world is conceived as the resultant of the inter-
subjective agreement of its possible observers, each of which
discovers itself to be centred in some perspective.
Is the sensible world of *possible* observers supposed to include
the whole world. I'm always suspicious of the word possible.
Does it refer to chance, i.e. many events were possible, I might
have had coffee instead of tea this morning, but only a few are
actual? Does it refer to anything not prohibited by (our best
theory of) physics: It's possible a meteorite might strike my
house? Or is it anything not entailing a contradiction: X and not X?
Possible in the large sense, is the diamond of the modal logic. There
are as many notions of possibility than there are modal logics, and
there are many.
I appreciate that you put in your enumeration the possible in the
sense of the consistent (not entailing A ~A, or not entailing f).
That one, consistency, can be defined in arithmetic for all
arithmetically correct machine(~beweisbar('~(0=0)')), and it happens
also that such a definition entails different logics for the
philosophical or physical variant of it, and this choose the
different modal logics from machines self-references.
Bruno
PS my p-time seems to be delayed, I am still in the 23 february, gosh!
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: Turning the tables on the doctor
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:57, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:07:21 PM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/23/2014 1:13 AM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2014 20:48, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/22/2014 9:21 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 February 2014 17:40, meekerdb meek...@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. Not necessarily. It might be a selection effect (a similar argument can be made for the QTI, if true - why are we at the start of an infinite lifetime? Well, because you have to start somewhere... This could be similar - there may be reasons to expect everyone to be on their first consciousness this near to the big bang, perhaps.) Or given that consciousness is not the contents of consciousness, I see no reason to assume that. Hence the phraseology used above. If you say given that X, that means you're assuming it for the sake of argument. (Sorry, maybe I should have said if we assume that... to make it clearer?) does this just imply amensia about previous lives? (And maybe that I am he as you are he ashe is me, etc). Or does it imply that consciousness and memory are intrinsic to certain physical processes? Since you can see no reason to assume the initial premise (see above) it seems a bit odd that you are then trying to draw conclusions from it! I wrote no reason to assume that consciousness is not the content of consciousness. The premise I took is everyone's on their first consciousness. For which you offered the explanation of amnesia; and I offered a different one. If you're going to criticize logic you need to parse correctly. But it raises the question, given complete amnesia and then growing up with different experiences and memories in what sense could you be the same person. I John Clark and Bruno's back and forth, the one thing they always agree on is that as soon as the M-man and the W-man open the transporter doors and see different scenes they are different people. Brent I'd be very interested to know who in this community currently subscribes to this idea that consciousness is not entirely a product of evolution of the nervous system and physical I cannot see the faintest hint of things going this way. The brain is exactly the right conditions this extraordinary thing can be explicable. On the bright side, perhaps we can look on this as a distinct predict. Bruno - what is hanging on this prediction? Are you willing to nail the colours of your work to something hard here? I have nailed comp+theaetetus on something hard, as I give the comp quantum logic, and compare them to the one derived from observation. That's the whole point. Things are advancing briskly enough in brain sciences, so it's realistic to think a resolution might emerge in the not distant future. That is logically impossible. Or you assume comp, and get the conceptual solution which is almost modest as it is not much more than listen to the machines. What they say is already quite astonishing, even if today this require some study of mathematical logic. What sort of standard of proof would it take then, for you to regard your theory falsified? The result is that comp+theaetetus is falsified if nature contradicts a physical comp tautology, that if a theorem of Z1*. Or, where do your assertions about consciousness fit into your whole theory? I define comp with consciousness. Comp is the belief that I will keep my consciousness through the use of *some* universal machine relatively to some probable universal machine. But the UDA use not a lot, as it uses only a sharable notion of 1p (memory accompanying the person entering in the telebox). Is it just a loosely associated preference, or is it absolutely indispensable? You judge. Will you formalize a falsifiable prediction? I did. The arithmetical material hypostases, that is mainly the arithmetical quantum logic Z1*.
Re: Block Universes
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll also address your latest questions in separate replies... Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock at each grid intersection. I don't think we even have to worry about those clocks being synchronized initially. (We do assume only that physical processes, including the rate of time, follow the same relativistic laws at all locations.) Place a stationary observer with each clock just for terminological convenience. We don't really need this coordinate clock system but I include it to address your concerns. Each clock will display the coordinate time of its grid intersection, which will also be the proper time of the stationary observer at that location. These grid clocks will run at different rates depending on the gravitational potentials of their grid locations. Do you agree? I agree you can construct an arbitrary non-inertial coordinate system in this way. As I said before in the second half of my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/SX19ccLeij0J(starting with the paragraph that begins Not a well-defined assumption.), I think the only two ways to compare the rates of clocks at different locations are by 1) picking an arbitrary coordinate system and looking at how fast each clock ticks relative to coordinate time in that system, or 2) restricting yourself to talking about purely visual rates of one clock as seen by an observer at a different position, with the visual signals timed against his own clock. If you think there is any more objective notion of clocks having different rates which can be compared with one another, then I disagree. Now also introduce an arbitrary number of observers either stationary, or moving relative to this grid, each with its own proper time clock, some accelerating, some with just constant relative motion. This model covers all possible types of relativistic time effects (disregarding black holes and other types of horizons for the moment). Do you agree? I basically agree, although I would also specify that you can have more than one coordinate grid covering the same region of spacetime (imagine them as being able to pass through one another without obstruction), since some of the mathematics of relativity deals with coordinate transformations from one system to another, like the Lorentz transformation that deals with how the coordinates of different inertial frames map to one another. It is possible for all observers in this space to have knowledge of the relativistic conditions of all other observers as well as themselves. In other words they can know the equations governing how any observer would view any other observer. Do you agree? How any observer would view any other observer seems ill-defined, again the only way I can think of for observers to have views of one another is either 1) associate a coordinate system with a particular observer--often one where they are at rest and coordinate time matches their own proper time along their worldline--and examine the coordinate-dependent behavior of other observers in this coordinate system, and 2) just consider what a given observer sees visually about other observers using light signals, including the proper times that he receives different signals. If you're talking about 1), note that although in SPECIAL relativity physicists often adopt the linguistic convention that a given inertial observer's view or perspective is taken as a shorthand for how things work in their own inertial rest frame, in general relativity there is no similar convention for assigning meaning to a word like view, and you have an infinite variety of possible non-inertial coordinate systems that could be used by a given observer (even if you restrict yourself to coordinate systems where that observer is at rest and coordinate time matches proper time along their worldline)., So, I would agree only if you are either using view to refer purely to what each observer sees visually, or if you mean that we SPECIFY a particular coordinate system that should be used by a given observer to define his view. If you don't mean either of those things, then I don't think this is a well-defined statement in relativity. Thus it is possible for all observers to know the RATES of all proper clocks in this system, and all observers will agree on all those proper clock rates. E.g. all observers would agree that the proper clock in a certain gravity would be running at 1/2 the rate as clocks in no gravity. All observers would agree that the proper clock rates of all observers in inertial motion would be running at the same rate. And all observers would agree that the proper clock of an observer with a specific
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/24/2014 11:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: That would certainly be true if there is no sense of urgency to get the job done, but we got to the moon in less than 9 years once we decided we really really wanted to go there. There is no scientific reason it would take decades to get a LFTR online, but there are political reasons. How many Apollo V rockets did we build for all that dough? It would take many trillions of dollars to retool our energy systems; again there is no comparison between the moonshot Cold War race and deploying a radically different electric energy generation infrastructure. Except nuclear power is not radically different, it's just using a different heat source to make steam for turbines. The infrastructure is essentially the same. 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 24 Feb 2014, at 04:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:50:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Feb 2014, at 18:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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. You reify an 1p notion. What makes you think its more of a 1p notion than arithmetic is? What makes you think that arithmetic is a 1p notion? Answer: because you assume only 1p, and believe that you can derive anything from that. The problem is that you don't have a theory, but a collection of image, which I still could appreciate, if you were not using it in a non valid way on computationalism. 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. Or a diophantine approximation of the quantum string-brane state with 10^(10^10) correct decimal for the rational complex numbers involved. That assumes originality is not fundamental though. I grant you that. Nor is it easy to define. I don't see a compelling reason to allow that bottom up construction of consciousness will work. I might agree with you. I am not sure comp allow a bottom up construction of consciousness, due to its peculiar relation with truth. You must study a theory, as you take time to criticize only your own restricted comprehension of it. To the contrary, everything that I have seen suggests that it cannot. I think you are right on this. It is only your uses of things like this against computationalism which are not valid. My point has been from the start that this is false. But that is an extraordinary claim, which requires an extraordinary arguments. Why would it be any more extraordinary than the claim that a unique conscious experience can be assembled from generic unconscious parts? That uniqueness is 1p. Comp, if true, guaranties it for each 1p view. God knows better, but we are not yet there, isn't it? No lifetime or event within a lifetime can be reproduced wholly - I completely agree with you, but those are 1p notion. They have referent, but we cannot invoke them when we study them. All notions are 1p, including the notion that there could be notions which are not 1p. That is akin to solipsism. And then again explain me why 0 = 0 in your theory, of why there is an infinite of primes. The acceptable level of rigor is to be able to be clear enough so that someone else can translated in a first or higher order logic or in some already existing theory. I love poets but I dislike the use of poetry in science. there is no such thing. You have to prove that. It may not be possible to prove anything related to consciousness. Again I can make a lot sense to this. If it can be proved, then it only has to do with some particular relation within consciousness. But then how do you know that the digital duplicate is a doll. Very often, you do the opposite of what your own phenomenology should suggest. All that can be reproduced is a representation within some sensory context. Outside of that context, it is a facade. You should search for an experiment testing your idea, if only with the pedagogical goal of giving more sense to it. The experiments are all around us. I see an actor on TV, but if I turn off the TV, it becomes clear that the image is only a visual facade. This is not valid, and beside I was asking for an experience giving a different number than say string theory, or computationalism. Yes, I am saying that C-t and CTM have only to do with representations of a particular kind of logic and measurement. On the contrary, CT makes many different logics mathematically amenable, that is the reason to be study it. Whatever the truth is, it can only be more complex and subtle. But is still quantifiable, impersonal kinds of logic, as
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb On 2/24/2014 11:24 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote: That would certainly be true if there is no sense of urgency to get the job done, but we got to the moon in less than 9 years once we decided we really really wanted to go there. There is no scientific reason it would take decades to get a LFTR online, but there are political reasons. How many Apollo V rockets did we build for all that dough? It would take many trillions of dollars to retool our energy systems; again there is no comparison between the moonshot Cold War race and deploying a radically different electric energy generation infrastructure. Except nuclear power is not radically different, it's just using a different heat source to make steam for turbines. The infrastructure is essentially the same. True. in that nuclear power, is basically boiling water to produce hot high pressure steam. It is essentially the same from the stage of having produced high pressure steam to spin a turbine to make electricity, but the entire logistical tail is vastly different - and of course the nature of the boilers is essentially untested (sure there may still be some data from the old Oak Ridge experimental LFTR reactor that operated for some years in Oak Ridge during the 1960s, but that is all there is) The reactors themselves will need to be designed, tested, verified, stress tested, systems tested, material fatigue tested, and finally built from scratch. LFTR reactors do not exist, there are no blue prints to build them from. It is unknown how various proposed materials will actually perform, in the reactor core environment - over the years of operational life. How many years do you think it would take - if it was a national priority? 10, 20, 30? And finally - just to underline my point -- fusion reactors are also essentially water boilers - that does not make them the same as coal thermo-electric plants and they are not buildable with our current technology.. Though ITER is trying. There are fundamental technological hurdles that remain. for fusion certainly - and, I would argue for LFTR reactors as well -- even though in the end it is all about boiling water. 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.
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:37 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-m But that's 2 not one, so if Bruno Marchal wishes to be logical then Bruno Marchal is going to have to stop saying the 1-1 view and start saying a 1-1 view. 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. In who's 1-1 view? 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. In who's 1-1 view? this looks like wordplay The reason it's so childishly easy to play with your words and tie them into logical knots is because they are so self contradictory; if your words made sense I couldn't do that. If the FPI does not exist I never said it does not exist, what I said is that in a world with duplicating chambers great care must be taken in explaining exactly who the P in the FPI is, and you have been anything but careful. provide the algorithm of prediction. Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it. W M has been refuted. You said that we have to interview all copies and I agree. After the interviews this is what we find: W has not refuted it. M has not refuted it. W M have confirmed it. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, Who's the 1-view? 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
On 2/25/2014 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus don't need to obey to Leibniz identity rule. I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that there is some modal notion that makes identity of indiscernibles wrong? I think of indexical predicates as being ostensive. 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 2/25/2014 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Feb 2014, at 20:38, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/23/2014 4:35 AM, David Nyman wrote:
Not my consciousness, no. I'm just suggesting that CTM ultimately relies on some
transcendent notion of perspective itself. IOW, the sensible world is conceived as the
resultant of the inter-subjective agreement of its possible observers, each of which
discovers itself to be centred in some perspective.
Is the sensible world of *possible* observers supposed to include the whole world. I'm
always suspicious of the word possible. Does it refer to chance, i.e. many events
were possible, I might have had coffee instead of tea this morning, but only a few are
actual? Does it refer to anything not prohibited by (our best theory of) physics: It's
possible a meteorite might strike my house? Or is it anything not entailing a
contradiction: X and not X?
Possible in the large sense, is the diamond of the modal logic.
But is just a symbol that we use with certain rules of inference. To be applied it
requires some interpretation.
There are as many notions of possibility than there are modal logics, and there
are many.
I appreciate that you put in your enumeration the possible in the sense of the
consistent (not entailing A ~A, or not entailing f).
David used possible observers as part of a definition. I don't know what it would mean
for an observer to not entail f. So I think he had some other meaning (nomological) in
mind. But in that case his definition is somewhat circular.
Brent
That one, consistency, can be defined in arithmetic for all arithmetically correct
machine(~beweisbar('~(0=0)')), and it happens also that such a definition entails
different logics for the philosophical or physical variant of it, and this choose
the different modal logics from machines self-references.
Bruno
PS my p-time seems to be delayed, I am still in the 23 february, gosh!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Stathis, I understand your point but you don't understand my point. My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in time to give the motion of the frames. That kind of proof obviously doesn't work. Please give me a proof that time DOES NOT flow without using something running in time. I say this is impossible. There is no way you can prove time does not flow without using some FLOW of time, something running in time, to try to prove it. Therefore the notion that time doesn't flow cannot be proved. Do you see my point now? Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:39:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 25 February 2014 00:26, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript: wrote: Stathis, 1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time flowing, which is the correct understanding... No, what it shows is that the running time is not relevant to the appearance of continuity. The computer can be restarted after a second or after a billion years in the Andromeda galaxy, and it makes no subjective difference. This is how the separate frames in a block universe join up. 2. I assume in this context you don't mean 'multiverse' but 'many worlds' and that your use of 'multiverse' was a typo? If so I have some questions I like to ask to clarify how you understand MWI, particularly in the block universe context you previously mentioned. I meant multiverse, not specifically the MWI of QM. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Digital Neurology
On 24 Feb 2014, at 06:25, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 February 2014 12:43, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: John Searle in one of his papers proposes that if our brain were being gradually replaced we would find ourselves losing qualia while declaring that everything was normal, and being unable to make any protest to the contrary. This would imply that we think with something other than our brain, a soul equivalent, and that in certain situations the brain and this soul equivalent can become decoupled. So he's either suggesting we'd lose them and be unable to articulate the fact, or that we'd lose them and wouldn't know it..? The first one seems ridiculous. If we knew we were losing qualia, whatever that would be like, surely we would be able to say so? Although I'm not sure how one could lose qualia, what does that mean? Surely it isn't like the artist in Oliver Sacks' book who lost the ability to see colours? He knew he'd lost the ability even though he couldn't imagine what seeing colours was like. So he knew he'd lost something, and could say so, but couldn't bring to mind what the thing he'd lost was like. I don't really ujnderstand how one could lose qualia and not know it. Or is the point that there's no longer anyone there to know it - a philosophical zombie? There is a condition called Anton's Syndrome in which some people who have lesions in their visual cortex are blind but do not recognise it. They make up excuses when asked why they didn't recognise someone or why they trip over things. It is a subtype of anosognosia, where the patient does not realise he has an illness; parietal neglect in stroke victims and lack of insight in schizophrenia are other examples. However, this is due to specific neurological deficits and is associated with abnormal behaviour as well as abnormal qualia. The point of this is that if the brain is responsible for consciousness it is absurd to suppose that the brain's behaviour could be replaced with a functional analogue while leaving out any associated qualia. This constitutes a proof of functionalism, and of its subset computationalism if it is further established that physics is computable. ? On the contrary if computationalism is correct the physics cannot be entirely computable, some observable cannot be computed (but it might be no more that the frequency-operator, like in Graham Preskill. But still, we must explain why physics seems computable, despite it result of FMP on non computable domains). Also,you are not using functionalism in its standard sense, which is Putnam names for comp (at a non specified level assumed to be close to neurons). What do you mean by function? If you take all functions (like in set theory), then it seems to me that functionalism is trivial, and the relation between consciousness and a process, even natural, become ambiguous. But if you take all functions computable in some topos or category, of computability on a ring, or that type of structure, then you *might* get genuine generalization of comp. I don't think we have to settle for Bruno's modest assertion that comp is a matter of faith. It has to be, from a theoretical point of view. Assuming you are correct when betting on comp, you cannot prove, even to yourself (but your 1p does not need that!) that you did survive a teleportation. Of course I take proof in a rather strong literal sense. Non comp might be consistent with comp, like PA is inconsistent is consistent with PA. Bruno -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 25 Feb 2014, at 01:05, chris peck wrote: The point is that how probability fits into MWI's determinist framework, or any TofE really, is still an open question. Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic. But then I show that comp+theaetetus provides the means to test the theory. And to argue that must reject MWI if they reject Brunos probability sums is plain wrong. Im happy to find myself in the company of Oxford Dons like Deutsch and Greaves. OK, I appreciate the work, but they don't address the mind-body problem. Still less the computationalist form of that problem. But they get the closer view of the physical possible with respect to both comp, and the mathematical theory (comp+Theaetetus). 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 25 Feb 2014, at 10:43, Quentin Anciaux wrote: David Deutsch does not reject probability... Sure he does, he swaps out the Born rule for rational decision theory (+ amendments to make it compatible with MWI). There isn't probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. Its what he's famous for, Quentin. I think Deustch is more famous for the quantum universal Turing machine. To say There isn't probability, but we should act 'as if' there was. seems to me to oversimplify what he says, as it is close to non sense to me. With comp this would extends into there is no physical reality, but we should act as if. It is still better than there is no consciousness, but we must act as if. 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: provide the algorithm of prediction. Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it. FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two outcome due to digital self-duplication. W M has been refuted. You said that we have to interview all copies and I agree. After the interviews this is what we find: W has not refuted it. M has not refuted it. W M have confirmed it. In the 3-1 views. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, Who's the 1-view? Each of them. 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote: I think the early experiments at Oak Ridge with LFTR were side-lined because it did not fit well with the requirements of the Cold War. The LFTR fuel cycle does not support (i.e. help scale up) the military need for highly enriched U-235. The problem is that a LFTR does not produce measurable amounts of Plutonium, in the 1950s that was considered a severe disadvantage, today it looks like a big advantage. That would certainly be true if there is no sense of urgency to get the job done, but we got to the moon in less than 9 years once we decided we really really wanted to go there. There is no scientific reason it would take decades to get a LFTR online, but there are political reasons. How many Apollo V rockets did we build for all that dough? It would take many trillions of dollars to retool our energy systems; again there is no comparison between the moonshot Cold War race and deploying a radically different electric energy generation infrastructure. Switching over to a LFTR based economy would be a radical change, but not nearly as radical as switching over to one based on wind or tides or photovoltaics or fusion. Dilute sources of power actually match quite well with how power is actually consumed for the most part. Most electric power is consumed by the vast number of dispersed (dilute) small consumers. Well let's see, my car has 306 horsepower, one horsepower is equal to 746 watts so my car needs 228,276 watts. On a bright day at noon solar cells produce about 10 watts per square foot, so my car would need 22,827 square feet of solar cells, that's not counting the additional air resistance caused by the 151x151 foot rectangle mounted on the car's roof. And how do I get to work at night or on cloudy days? James Hansen is one of the world's leading environmentalists and has done more to raise the alarm about climate change than anybody else, he started to do so in 1988. Hansen has recently changed his mind and is now in favor of nuclear power because he figures it causes less environmental impact than anything else, or at least anything else that wasn't moonbeams and could actually make a dent in satiating the worldwide energy demand. Yes I know and Hansen is terribly wrong on this. It is ironic to hear you speak of this alleged small environmental impact of nuclear just a few years scant years into the beginning of a trillion dollar mess at Fukushima The coal power plants in China alone kill about 350,000 people EACH YEAR; the number of people that Fukushima, the worst nuclear accident in almost 30 years, has killed is ZERO. And environmentalist go on and on about the sixth extinction and the existential threat brought on by the terrifying .74 degree Celsius increase in temperature from 1906 to 2005 ( it increased between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius over the last 5,000 years), but say we shouldn't use nuclear power even though it does not contribute to global warming because it's too dangerous. If global warming was half as dreadful as the environmentalists say I wouldn't care if we had a Fukushima ever damn day! John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/25/2014 10:47 AM, John Clark wrote: Well let's see, my car has 306 horsepower, one horsepower is equal to 746 watts so my car needs 228,276 watts. On a bright day at noon solar cells produce about 10 watts per square foot, so my car would need 22,827 square feet of solar cells, that's not counting the additional air resistance caused by the 151x151 foot rectangle mounted on the car's roof. And how do I get to work at night or on cloudy days You're car engine needs to generate that 306hp when it's going about 150mph. In normal highway use it's probably making about 30hp. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the discussion. I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tightly enough. I'll reword it... What I mean here is that all observers can know how relativity works both for them, and for all other observers. In other words they can know exactly what equations any observer A uses to calculate the observables of any other observer B, in particular the equation A uses to calculate the clock time of B relative to A's own proper time clock. This is standard relativity theory assumed in all relativity examples. it follows for any observer who knows relativity theory. With that revision do you now agree? As for your last comments where you disagree. I do NOT mean observationally, I mean computationally via his knowledge of relativity theory. You inconveniently snipped the examples where I made clear what I meant by this and did not respond. Here they are again: Thus it is possible for all observers to know the RATES of all proper clocks in this system, and all observers will agree on all those proper clock RATES. Note I'm talking here only of RATES, not of proper TIME clock readings. We will get to that. E.g. IF THEY UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY, then all observers would agree that the PROPER clock in a certain gravity would be running at 1/2 the rate as PROPER clocks in no gravity. All observers would agree that the PROPER clock rates of all observers in inertial motion would be running at the same rate. And all observers would agree that the PROPER clock of an observer with a specific acceleration close to the speed of light would have a PROPER clock rate 1/2 that of a non-accelerating observer. Do you agree? This is just using standard relativity theory to deduce what PROPER time rates would result in what observational clock time rates of other clocks for any observer. It's done all the time in pretty much any relativity example. If you don't agree I can lead you through any number of examples to demonstrate how it works, but on second thought I've already done that for a number of examples, so you still may not get it. Let me try one example though to make it clear... Take twins A and B. 1. They are initially at the same spacetime point (by your definition). They synchronize their clocks. 2. They BOTH embark on what I will call a symmetric relativistic trip. By symmetric I mean that their worldlines are exact reflections of each other. Their velocities, accelerations, and gravitational encounters, whatever they are, will be exactly symmetric so that their worldlines will be exact reflections of each other. 3. Still with symmetric worldlines they again meet up at the same spacetime point (your definition). 4. Because their trips were symmetric their clocks will read exactly the same because their relativistic histories will be equivalent in their effects on their clocks. Do you agree? Again, this is standard relativity theory. 5. Thus because their relativistic histories were exactly symmetric their proper times must have been exactly in synch from the beginning to the end of the trip. They cannot OBSERVE this but they they both KNOW it is true because they both understand how relativity works. They both know that equivalent relativistic effects cause equivalent PROPER clock time rates. Do you agree? Again standard relativity theory... Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:52:26 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript: wrote: Jesse, Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll also address your latest questions in separate replies... Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock at each grid intersection. I don't think we even have to worry about those clocks being synchronized initially. (We do assume only that physical processes, including the rate of time, follow the same relativistic laws at all locations.) Place a stationary observer with each clock just for terminological convenience. We don't really need this coordinate clock system but I include it to address your concerns. Each clock will display the coordinate time of its grid intersection, which will also be the proper time of the stationary observer at that location. These grid clocks will run at different rates depending on the gravitational potentials of their grid locations. Do you agree? I agree you can construct an arbitrary non-inertial coordinate system in this way. As I said before in the second half of my post at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/jFX-wTm_E_Q/SX19ccLeij0J(starting with the paragraph that begins Not a well-defined assumption.), I think the only two ways
Re: Block Universes
Stathis, I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time is already FLOWING. Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in a block universe becomes a matter of blind faith, rather than a logical consequence of anything, and it is certainly NOT based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:44:55 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 25 February 2014 00:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps unknowingly so. You state The me, yesterday is not me, now Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection mechanism is the 'NOW' which you mention. It is the now that you are in that selects which version of Stathis you are on the basis of what time it is in that now. The Stathis that corresponds to that time is the Stathis that you are right now at that time. That is what I've been telling you, that you are the Stathis version of yourself that you are because that is the only one that exists in this NOW in which you exist. That in itself demonstrates there is a now, a present moment, which selects the actual version of yourself that you are at this particular time. And if there is a particular now, then time MUST flow... You, yourself demonstrate my point... The point was that I, now am no more privileged in time compared to other versions of myself than I am privileged in space compared to other people. -- 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: Block Universes
Stathis, PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to other people because your consciousness and your biological being are located where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on your part So your example proves MY point, not yours.. Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:44:55 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On 25 February 2014 00:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps unknowingly so. You state The me, yesterday is not me, now Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection mechanism is the 'NOW' which you mention. It is the now that you are in that selects which version of Stathis you are on the basis of what time it is in that now. The Stathis that corresponds to that time is the Stathis that you are right now at that time. That is what I've been telling you, that you are the Stathis version of yourself that you are because that is the only one that exists in this NOW in which you exist. That in itself demonstrates there is a now, a present moment, which selects the actual version of yourself that you are at this particular time. And if there is a particular now, then time MUST flow... You, yourself demonstrate my point... The point was that I, now am no more privileged in time compared to other versions of myself than I am privileged in space compared to other people. -- 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
The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. All a pipe dream no doubt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the discussion. I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tightly enough. I'll reword it... What I mean here is that all observers can know how relativity works both for them, and for all other observers. In other words they can know exactly what equations any observer A uses to calculate the observables of any other observer B, in particular the equation A uses to calculate the clock time of B relative to A's own proper time clock. This is standard relativity theory assumed in all relativity examples. it follows for any observer who knows relativity theory. With that revision do you now agree? No, you still seem to be laboring under the misconception that there is some single set of equations that define the view of a given observer, which they use to calculate observables for distant clocks. But all relativistic calculations depend on the use of a COORDINATE SYSTEM, and only with inertial observers in flat SR spacetime is there a standard linguistic convention which treats the view of a given observer as shorthand for a specific coordinate system, his inertial rest frame. Please answer these questions: --Do you disagree that equations that observer A uses to calculate the observables of any other observer B are always based on A using some particular coordinate system? (if so, can you give an example of an equation that could be used to make such a calculation which would not depend on any specific coordinate system, but which would still be observer-dependent in some sense, so it would still be meaningful to identify this equation specifically with observer A?) --If you don't disagree with the statement above, do you disagree with my statement that there's no specific coordinate system that is understood by physicists to represent a particular observer's view or perspective in general relativity, so that if you just talk about equations used by observer A without specifying a coordinate system, physicists wouldn't know what you were talking about? You inconveniently snipped the examples where I made clear what I meant by this and did not respond. Here they are again: I did respond, I said it was wrong, because that there is no basis in relativity for an agreement between observers about rates. Thus it is possible for all observers to know the RATES of all proper clocks in this system, and all observers will agree on all those proper clock RATES. Note I'm talking here only of RATES, not of proper TIME clock readings. We will get to that. E.g. IF THEY UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY, then all observers would agree that the PROPER clock in a certain gravity would be running at 1/2 the rate as PROPER clocks in no gravity. Nope, this is just a misconception that is obviously based on an incorrect intuitive understanding, not any detailed understanding of particular equations used in relativity (if it was, you would write out the equations rather than making vague statements like if they understand relativity). My point was that there are only two ways to compare rates of clocks at different points in space in general relativity: 1. Pick a coordinate system, and look at the rate each clock is ticking relative to coordinate time at a pair of points on each clock's worldline (or an interval on each clock's worldline, if you want to talk about average rates over an extended period rather than instantaneous rates) 2. Restrict yourself to talking about visual rates a given observer sees using light signals And as I said, in NEITHER case will you get universal agreement--for 1), if two different observers use two different coordinate systems they can disagree about the rates, and for 2), two different observers each looking at one another can disagree about the ratio of the other clock and their won clock in terms of visual speeds. If you disagree, please actually address this ARGUMENT rather than just accusing me of not having read you closely enough and repeating something I've already told you I don't agree is true. Specifically, please answer these questions: --Do you disagree that 1) and 2) are the only methods *in relativity* of comparing rates of clocks that are separated in space? Yes or no? (if you do disagree, please be specific and give the equations and/or technical term for a third way of comparing rates that could be found in mainstream relativity texts) --Do you disagree with my statement that neither 1) nor 2) will produce universal agreement about the ratio between the rates of separated clocks? All observers would agree that the PROPER clock rates of all observers in inertial motion would be running at the same rate. And all observers would agree that the PROPER clock of an observer with a specific acceleration
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. That's essentially what the research on hydrocarbon producing algae and bacteris is trying to do. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, I understand your point but you don't understand my point. My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in time to give the motion of the frames. That kind of proof obviously doesn't work. Please give me a proof that time DOES NOT flow without using something running in time. I say this is impossible. There is no way you can prove time does not flow without using some FLOW of time, something running in time, to try to prove it. Therefore the notion that time doesn't flow cannot be proved. Do you see my point now? The computation occurs in two parts, separated across time and space. They could even be done simultaneously, in reverse order, or in different universes. The effect of continuous motion would be maintained for the observer in the computation. If running time were needed to connect them how could mangling it in this way have no effect? -- 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: Block Universes
On 26 February 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to other people because your consciousness and your biological being are located where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on your part So your example proves MY point, not yours.. Your claim is that running time is needed to make the present moment special but it isn't: it is only special to me because I am me, here and now. All the other people in the world feel special to themselves in the same way, and all the other versions of me in a block universe feel special to themselves in the same way. No spotlight from the universe in the form of the present moment or the present location is needed to create this effect. -- 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: Block Universes
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time is already FLOWING. Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in a block universe becomes a matter of blind faith, rather than a logical consequence of anything, and it is certainly NOT based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. I'm not arguing that there is empirical evidence for a block universe, just that a block universe is consistent with our experience. -- 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: Block Universes
On 26 February 2014 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Stathis, I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time is already FLOWING. Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in a block universe becomes a matter of blind faith, rather than a logical consequence of anything, and it is certainly NOT based on any empirical evidence whatsoever. I'm not arguing that there is empirical evidence for a block universe, just that a block universe is consistent with our experience. And requires less extra assumptions than any known alternatives, and hence is preferred by Occam's razor. Also there is, potentially, empirical evidence, insofar as the relativity of simultaneity has observable consequences. I don't know if, or how well this has been tested - most of the relativistic objects in our experience are either on a galactic or subatomic scale. But I believe both these types of objects work in a way that accords with SR, and hence at least support the R. of S.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. That's essentially what the research on hydrocarbon producing algae and bacteris is trying to do. Well, that's good. I wonder if there is any more efficient way of doing it (or do we have to wait for nanomachines which can grab passing molecules and stick them together?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/25/2014 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. That's essentially what the research on hydrocarbon producing algae and bacteris is trying to do. Well, that's good. I wonder if there is any more efficient way of doing it (or do we have to wait for nanomachines which can grab passing molecules and stick them together?) Dunno, but nano-machines are what algae and bacteria are - and self manufacturing to boot. So I'd try for some genetic engineering to improve their efficiency, rather than trying to make nanobots from scratch. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 26 February 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. That's essentially what the research on hydrocarbon producing algae and bacteris is trying to do. Well, that's good. I wonder if there is any more efficient way of doing it (or do we have to wait for nanomachines which can grab passing molecules and stick them together?) Dunno, but nano-machines are what algae and bacteria are - and self manufacturing to boot. So I'd try for some genetic engineering to improve their efficiency, rather than trying to make nanobots from scratch. Yes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. One thing, possibly worth considering, are reactors based on Canadian Slowpoke reactors, used for basic research. They supply small amounts of kilowatts, so we'd need lots of them, and what the money cost would be is unknown by ignorant me. I do know that these are fail safe in operation. I don't know if they can be used as a target for terrorists, teenagers, criminals, etc. What I have seen is that they could be buried in steel reinforced concrete, and made inaccessible. Would this make it all too expensive? Possibly. If solar can't and uranium or thorium should not be for safety issues, then where else can we turn? Certainly shale gas, and possibly methane hydrates, which exist in amounts, should we dare go after it, would be enough energy to supply our species for 2000-1 years. There is the methane release issue involved with this. My sense of things is that it is not AGW we should fear, or it's dishonest, descendent, Climate Change, but our true enemies, pollution, and energy starvation. Think, the 80's Road Warrior scenario. Easier to watch then to live, I reckon. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 4:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. All a pipe dream no doubt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/25/2014 4:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. Let's review that: Since solar power (doesn't that include hydroelectric?) can't provide 24/7/365 power to a major city - it's worthless and we should just keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (including using the military as necessary) while they endanger the future of civilization; because actually trying to provide sustainable energy is an evil plot by unnamed progressive billionaires. It is to laugh...or cry. 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi Liz In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for identity over time? With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I actually don't feel I need a criterion myself. What I have instead is the yes-doctor assumption. In other words, whatever criterion is adopted it must satisfy the condition that whenever I am copied, destroyed and reconstructed somewhere else, the reconstruction IS me. Otherwise, unless suicidal, I would never say yes to the doctor. This is why I used to argue Bruno was hoisted by his own petard because its his yes-doctor assumption that forces me to 'accommodate the fact that Ive split'. All the best Chris. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: provide the algorithm of prediction. Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it. FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two outcome due to digital self-duplication. W M has been refuted. You said that we have to interview all copies and I agree. After the interviews this is what we find: W has not refuted it. M has not refuted it. W M have confirmed it. In the 3-1 views. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, Who's the 1-view? Each of them. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz * In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. * Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for identity over time? Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain. With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I actually don't feel I need a criterion myself. What I have instead is the yes-doctor assumption. In other words, whatever criterion is adopted it must satisfy the condition that whenever I am copied, destroyed and reconstructed somewhere else, the reconstruction IS me. Otherwise, unless suicidal, I would never say yes to the doctor. This is why I used to argue Bruno was hoist by his own petard because its his yes-doctor assumption that forces me to 'accommodate the fact that Ive split'. Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept Yes Doctor the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true, but that's the big leap. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Every time someone says we should worry about climate change or look for renewable sources of power, people start saying it's a plot by greenies to rule the world. Psychologists tell us that people tend to project their own motives onto others... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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)
Hi Liz Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain. let me ask a more round about question: you say that we see spin up every time 'if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split' Changed from which definition? All the best Chris. Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:31:01 +1300 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 26 February 2014 15:16, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for identity over time? Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain. With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I actually don't feel I need a criterion myself. What I have instead is the yes-doctor assumption. In other words, whatever criterion is adopted it must satisfy the condition that whenever I am copied, destroyed and reconstructed somewhere else, the reconstruction IS me. Otherwise, unless suicidal, I would never say yes to the doctor. This is why I used to argue Bruno was hoist by his own petard because its his yes-doctor assumption that forces me to 'accommodate the fact that Ive split'. Indeed. I have mentioned at times that if you accept Yes Doctor the rest of comp follows. Which I realise isn't quite true, but that's the big leap. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 26 February 2014 15:53, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz *Assuming comp it appears to be the state(s) that could follow on from your current brain state via whatever transitions rules are allowed by - I assume - logical necessity. Perhaps Bruno can explain.* let me ask a more round about question: you say that we see spin up every time 'if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split' Changed from which definition? I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Hydro IS solar. How do you think the water gets up those hills and into the lakes?! Governments having subsidised and otherwise helped out fossil fuels and nuclear for years, I believe, a level playing field would be to subsidise solar to the same extent they've been subsidised so far. On 26 February 2014 16:18, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Point taken. But I know that the progressive billionaires do advocate switching off our current dirty, in exchange for promises of clean. Promises, only, that is. Hydroelectric, isn't really solar, its gravity, so we can call it gravity power. We should never subsidize nuclear, fossil fuels, or solar, because they should stand or fall on their own. Its not the politics of it, its the physics of it. Right now people are not using solar as a primary source of electricity because they cannot, even though a majority would love to have it. It doesn't provide enough and it cannot do 7 x 24. Nuclear has proven a disaster, the way its conceived, hence my urging to switch to Canadian Slowpoke reactors. But lets face it, it will likely never happen. Shale gas has become the default power as a result of no other alternatives. What do you suggest and how much time do we have to replace the dirty and old, since, I take you support AGW? So, what do we do? -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:29 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 2/25/2014 4:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. Let's review that: Since solar power (doesn't that include hydroelectric?) can't provide 24/7/365 power to a major city - it's worthless and we should just keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (including using the military as necessary) while they endanger the future of civilization; because actually trying to provide sustainable energy is an evil plot by unnamed progressive billionaires. It is to laugh...or cry. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/25/2014 7:18 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Point taken. But I know that the progressive billionaires do advocate switching off our current dirty, in exchange for promises of clean. Promises, only, that is. Hydroelectric, isn't really solar, its gravity, so we can call it gravity power. How do you think the water gets up above sea level? We should never subsidize nuclear, fossil fuels, or solar, because they should stand or fall on their own. So how will they be charged for the external costs they impose? Its not the politics of it, its the physics of it. Right now people are not using solar as a primary source of electricity because they cannot, even though a majority would love to have it. It doesn't provide enough and it cannot do 7 x 24. Nuclear has proven a disaster, the way its conceived, Didn't you read John Clark's post on the relative deaths per year due to coal fired power plants vs nuclear plants? And he didn't even note that we've never had a fatality due to any of those nuclear powerplants used by the Navy and NASA (although the Russians have). hence my urging to switch to Canadian Slowpoke reactors. But lets face it, it will likely never happen. Shale gas has become the default power as a result of no other alternatives. What do you suggest and how much time do we have to replace the dirty and old, since, I take you support AGW? So, what do we do? It's clear what to do. We continue to conserve power, convert to sustainable power, and replace coal fired plants with nuclear as fast as possible while continuing research on all promising power sources. The problem is how to get this done. It's scope obviously requires government level leadership and organization, but YOU exemplify the obstruction to that with your Ayn Rand fear of government and dogmatic faith in 'free markets'. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 26 February 2014 16:31, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's scope obviously requires government level leadership and organization, but YOU exemplify the obstruction to that with your Ayn Rand fear of government and dogmatic faith in 'free markets'. This is SO similar to a friend of mine ... Ayn Rand and free markets! could be her battle cry. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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)
Chris, I wait your answer to my post. The one I re-explained and ask what is wrong above. Please use the 1-p distinction, which is the key precision to get things right (which is why Clark systematically forget it to refute step 3). Bruno On 26 Feb 2014, at 03:16, chris peck wrote: Hi Liz In the MWI you do see spin up every time! ,,, if the definition of you has been changed to accommodate the fact that you've split. Well what definition of 'you' do you suggest we use? What is your criterion for identity over time? With regards to Bruno's steps, at this point I actually don't feel I need a criterion myself. What I have instead is the yes-doctor assumption. In other words, whatever criterion is adopted it must satisfy the condition that whenever I am copied, destroyed and reconstructed somewhere else, the reconstruction IS me. Otherwise, unless suicidal, I would never say yes to the doctor. This is why I used to argue Bruno was hoisted by his own petard because its his yes-doctor assumption that forces me to 'accommodate the fact that Ive split'. All the best Chris. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:21:00 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:35, John Clark wrote: provide the algorithm of prediction. Why? What does that have to do with the price of eggs? FPI is about the feeling of self and prediction has nothing to do with it. FPI = first person indeterminacy of result of experience having two outcome due to digital self-duplication. W M has been refuted. You said that we have to interview all copies and I agree. After the interviews this is what we find: W has not refuted it. M has not refuted it. W M have confirmed it. In the 3-1 views. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, Who's the 1-view? Each of them. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down. That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
There is a whole sector of biofuels devoted to various interesting microorganisms -- some that have also been genetically engineered - to harness them in order to produce chemicals, including fuels and important pre-curser chemicals (Butanol being one) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24085385 Microalgae are another group of photosynthetic autotroph of interest due to their superior growth rates, relatively high photosynthetic conversion efficiencies, and vast metabolic capabilities. Heterotrophic microorganisms, such as yeast and bacteria, can utilize carbohydrates from lignocellulosic biomass directly or after pretreatment and enzymatic hydrolysis to produce liquid biofuels such as ethanol and butanol. Although finding a suitable organism for biofuel production is not easy, many naturally occurring organisms with good traits have recently been obtained. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:22 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 26 February 2014 12:05, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 2:52 PM, LizR wrote: On 26 February 2014 11:18, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/25/2014 1:23 PM, LizR wrote: The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. That's essentially what the research on hydrocarbon producing algae and bacteris is trying to do. Well, that's good. I wonder if there is any more efficient way of doing it (or do we have to wait for nanomachines which can grab passing molecules and stick them together?) Dunno, but nano-machines are what algae and bacteria are - and self manufacturing to boot. So I'd try for some genetic engineering to improve their efficiency, rather than trying to make nanobots from scratch. Yes. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. I suppose that depends on your definition of work well now doesn't it. Solar PV cells produce electricity from light. In what way do they not work? They work as advertised. I notice you put dirty [electricity energy sources] in quotes. pretty funny - you were joking right? Or did you buy into the myth of clean coal? The global installed capacity for solar PV is growing at breakneck speeds - regardless of what you may believe. Cumulative global installed capacity of solar PV reached roughly 65 gigawatts at the end of 2011; newly added solar PV capacity for this year alone is forecast to be between 40 and 45 GW of new extra added capacity to the already installed base. Cumulative global installed photovoltaic capacities have doubled every two years on average since 2004. The prices for PV keeps coming down as well; in fact it has dropped an amazing 99% in the past quarter century. The price for installed power systems is also rapidly falling; it fell by a range of 6 to 14 percent, or $0.30 per watt to $0.90 per watt, from 2011 to 2012 according to the sixth edition of Tracking the Sun, an annual PV cost-tracking report published this week by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. I am going to go out on a limb here and point out that the facts pretty much demonstrate that you do not know what you are talking about. Chris One thing, possibly worth considering, are reactors based on Canadian Slowpoke reactors, used for basic research. They supply small amounts of kilowatts, so we'd need lots of them, and what the money cost would be is unknown by ignorant me. I do know that these are fail safe in operation. I don't know if they can be used as a target for terrorists, teenagers, criminals, etc. What I have seen is that they could be buried in steel reinforced concrete, and made inaccessible. Would this make it all too expensive? Possibly. If solar can't and uranium or thorium should not be for safety issues, then where else can we turn? Certainly shale gas, and possibly methane hydrates, which exist in amounts, should we dare go after it, would be enough energy to supply our species for 2000-1 years. There is the methane release issue involved with this. My sense of things is that it is not AGW we should fear, or it's dishonest, descendent, Climate Change, but our true enemies, pollution, and energy starvation. Think, the 80's Road Warrior scenario. Easier to watch then to live, I reckon. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 4:23 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating The great thing about using an energy grid is you can plug in new components (i.e. different types of generators - nuclear etc) and everything continues to work the same way downstream. This is why I'm keen on the idea of extracting CO2 from the air and making petrol, if possible. No change is required to the energy infrastructure, as there would be with say hydrogen or electric cars, but it's carbon neutral. We'd get a closed cycle in which the atmosphere was just a temporary reservoir for the materials needed to make the fuel. Presumably we'd eventually be able to extract CO2 at a rate that even reduced the amount of GHGs in the air. All a pipe dream no doubt. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of spudboy...@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:19 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Point taken. But I know that the progressive billionaires do advocate switching off our current dirty, in exchange for promises of clean. Promises, only, that is. Hydroelectric, isn't really solar, its gravity, so we can call it gravity power. We should never subsidize nuclear, fossil fuels, or solar, because they should stand or fall on their own. Its not the politics of it, its the physics of it. Right now people are not using solar as a primary source of electricity because they cannot, even though a majority would love to have it. It doesn't provide enough and it cannot do 7 x 24. Nuclear has proven a disaster, the way its conceived, hence my urging to switch to Canadian Slowpoke reactors. But lets face it, it will likely never happen. Shale gas has become the default power as a result of no other alternatives. What do you suggest and how much time do we have to replace the dirty and old, since, I take you support AGW? So, what do we do? The shale gas and oil (kerogen) plays in the Eagle-Ford, Bakken, Marcelus formations (to name the big American plays) is definitely a boom for the drillers who are getting rich off all that sucker money pouring into this sector.. It has also been a huge PR win for the Gas sector with people believing that it will provide energy for a long time.. Smile. For those, instead, who play close attention to the rates of depletion and the return on Capex (capital expenditure) it is proving to be a monumental bust. Depletion rates in fracked fields are much higher and the onset of depletion is much faster than it is for traditional non-fracked gas (and oil) deposits. Already the Eagle-Ford is showing abundant evidence of this - for those who look beyond the glossy - happy face -- PR spin put out by the sector, and the earlier Bakken formation wells are also following on the same depletion curves. As soon as the breakneck pace of drilling slows the house of cards is going to fall as reality can no longer be swept under the rug by huge numbers of new wells coming online. Did you know that energy now accounts for fully one third of all global capital spending - the lion's share of it for gas oil. The global technology sector by comparison accounts for 7% -- http://www.businessinsider.com/capex-spending-by-industry-2014-2 Chris -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:29 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 2/25/2014 4:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. Let's review that: Since solar power (doesn't that include hydroelectric?) can't provide 24/7/365 power to a major city - it's worthless and we should just keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (including using the military as necessary) while they endanger the future of civilization; because actually trying to provide sustainable energy is an evil plot by unnamed progressive billionaires. It is to laugh...or cry. 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
RE: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:23 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating Hydro IS solar. How do you think the water gets up those hills and into the lakes?! It must be by anti-gravity. Governments having subsidised and otherwise helped out fossil fuels and nuclear for years, I believe, a level playing field would be to subsidise solar to the same extent they've been subsidised so far. As I pointed out earlier - nuclear power just got a huge $8.3 billion doll out of new public assistance - a figure that dwarfs any assistance to solar and wind put together. In a truly level playing field the world would be seeing a lot more PV a lot more quickly. On 26 February 2014 16:18, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Point taken. But I know that the progressive billionaires do advocate switching off our current dirty, in exchange for promises of clean. Promises, only, that is. Hydroelectric, isn't really solar, its gravity, so we can call it gravity power. We should never subsidize nuclear, fossil fuels, or solar, because they should stand or fall on their own. Its not the politics of it, its the physics of it. Right now people are not using solar as a primary source of electricity because they cannot, even though a majority would love to have it. It doesn't provide enough and it cannot do 7 x 24. Nuclear has proven a disaster, the way its conceived, hence my urging to switch to Canadian Slowpoke reactors. But lets face it, it will likely never happen. Shale gas has become the default power as a result of no other alternatives. What do you suggest and how much time do we have to replace the dirty and old, since, I take you support AGW? So, what do we do? -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 7:29 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 2/25/2014 4:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Its only a pipe dream if it doesn't work. Its all lies and exaggeration if a technology if it does not. For decades, people all over the world have worked on energy systems to replace the dirty sources that we have trouble with, regarding air and water contamination. Many progressive billionaires and their kept politicians have promoted solar, but it cannot yet power a single city on Earth. I am not saying this is impossible, but the means of affordably making and storing electricity, is not enough to power, say, even one quarter of Auckland, for example. There are always articles on technical improvements, and I totally support all RD, but if we cannot supply large cities with electricity on a 7 x 24 x 365 basis, and until solar can, its a crock. The problem is the progressives world wide, as an ideology, want solar to be the source-whether it supplies power of not. This, is a totalitarian quality, and as such, is civilizational threatening. Let's review that: Since solar power (doesn't that include hydroelectric?) can't provide 24/7/365 power to a major city - it's worthless and we should just keep subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (including using the military as necessary) while they endanger the future of civilization; because actually trying to provide sustainable energy is an evil plot by unnamed progressive billionaires. It is to laugh...or cry. 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 mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? All the best Chris. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote:Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down. That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? She can make a probabilistic prediction as you can make in MWI... you're the one wanting to say probability are wrong, but only the interpretation of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...) Quentin All the best Chris. -- From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: *What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down.* That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
2014-02-26 7:28 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? And so your error come from the no probability smoke screen you use as defense... Don't say Deutsch follows you, he accept probabilistic prediction, he even explains at length how a rational agent in MWI would follow the probabilistic distribution when making a choice. Quentin She can make a probabilistic prediction as you can make in MWI... you're the one wanting to say probability are wrong, but only the interpretation of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...) Quentin All the best Chris. -- From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: *What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down.* That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi Liz I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe. We lose that definition just by stepping into the realm of MWI don't we? Its not as if we can have use of it in MWI until we want to argue that we will always see 'spin up'. MWI forces upon us either the complete abandonment of any notion of personal identity over time, or the equal distribution of it through all the branches in which 'we' appear. All the best Chris. From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? She can make a probabilistic prediction as you can make in MWI... you're the one wanting to say probability are wrong, but only the interpretation of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...) Quentin All the best Chris. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down. That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Liz * I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe.* We lose that definition just by stepping into the realm of MWI don't we? Its not as if we can have use of it in MWI until we want to argue that we will always see 'spin up'. MWI forces upon us either the complete abandonment of any notion of personal identity over time, or the equal distribution of it through all the branches in which 'we' appear. That's where your wrong... that would mean all branches have equal measure, where it must not, if MWI must be in accordance with QM. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#PRPO All the best Chris. -- From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? She can make a probabilistic prediction as you can make in MWI... you're the one wanting to say probability are wrong, but only the interpretation of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...) Quentin All the best Chris. -- From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up and spin down pay special attention to the point in section 4.1 where, in discussion of a thought experiment formally identical to Bruno's step 3, he argues: *What ... should Alice expect to see? Here I invoke the following premise: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see. So, she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-up, and she should (with certainty) expect to see spin-down.* That's nonsense, and contrary to observed fact. Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
RE: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi Bruno Of course, and my point is that comp aggravates that problem, as only extends the indterminacy from a wave to arithmetic. Personally, I don't think it makes a difference what the underlying substrata of reality consists of, be it sums or some fundamental 'matter-esq' substance. What causes the problem is just the fact that in any TofE all outcomes are catered for. In such a theory genuine probabilities just vanish and subjective uncertainty can only exist as an epistemic measure. In versions of MWI it can exist when a person is unable to locate himself in a particular branch. ie. in earlier versions of Deutsch where infinite numbers of universes run in parallel one might not know whether one is in a spin up or spin down universe. Or in your step 3, subjective uncertainty can exist after duplication but before opening the door. These people are unable to locate and that lack of knowledge translates into subjective uncertainty. They can assign a probability value between 0 and 1 to possible outcomes. But crucially, where all relevant facts are known, the only values available must be 1 or 0. That just follows from the fact that all outcomes are catered for. And it seems to me that H guy in step 3 has all these relevent facts. So, whilst the duplicates before opening the door would assign 0.5 to M or W, prior to duplication H guy would assign 1. This is why I have accused you in the past of smuggling probabilities in from the future which strikes me as very fishy. OK, I appreciate the work, but they don't address the mind-body problem. Still less the computationalist form of that problem. But they get the closer view of the physical possible with respect to both comp, and the mathematical theory (comp+Theaetetus). Im not arguing that these people have a complete or even coherent theory. My guess is that they don't, I mean who does? It seems like everyone but me thinks they are in direct contact with the one and only truth, but its all just hubris. It might well be the case that your theory fairs better than theirs on the mind-body problem and much else besides but so what? They do far better when it comes to probability assignment and subjective uncertainty, imho. All the best Chris From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:33:21 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-26 7:31 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Liz I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe. We lose that definition just by stepping into the realm of MWI don't we? Its not as if we can have use of it in MWI until we want to argue that we will always see 'spin up'. MWI forces upon us either the complete abandonment of any notion of personal identity over time, or the equal distribution of it through all the branches in which 'we' appear. That's where your wrong... that would mean all branches have equal measure, where it must not, if MWI must be in accordance with QM. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/#PRPO All the best Chris. From: allco...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:28:53 +0100 Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 2014-02-26 7:21 GMT+01:00 chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com: Hi Bruno Yes, it is the common confusion between 1 and 3 views. There is no such confusion. I haven't seen anyone confusing these. She should have said: whatever she knows she will see, she should expect (with certainty!) to see SOMETHING definite. But, If she had of said that you'd both be wrong! And in the 1p it is obvious she will never see both outcome. You need to stop confusing what is seen with what can be expected to be seen. I think that's the source of many of your mistakes. She can expect to see each outcome without being committed to the view that either future self sees both. All that 1p,3p,3-1p,1-3p stuff is a rubbishy smoke screen to divert attention from the simple error you make here, isn't it? She can make a probabilistic prediction as you can make in MWI... you're the one wanting to say probability are wrong, but only the interpretation of what is probability change in MWI (and duplication settings)... not the prediction... if you say it is totally useless, then you're ready to make a bet with me (as everything for your has equal probability of happening...) Quentin All the best Chris. From: marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:26:02 +0100 On 25 Feb 2014, at 07:31, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Greaves rejects subjective uncertainty. With respect to spin up
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On 26 February 2014 19:31, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Liz * I meant changed from our everyday definition, in which we normally assume there is only one you, which is (or is at least associated with) your physical structure. Which we generally assume exists in one universe.* We lose that definition just by stepping into the realm of MWI don't we? Its not as if we can have use of it in MWI until we want to argue that we will always see 'spin up'. MWI forces upon us either the complete abandonment of any notion of personal identity over time, or the equal distribution of it through all the branches in which 'we' appear. Yes indeed. However we do cling on to our apparent identities even if we do believe the MWI is correct. For example I expect to go to work tomorrow, rather than unexpectedly being declared Empress of the Universe and never having to lift a finger again. I think we all know what happens once the MWI is assumed. The rest is just arguing over terminology. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
