Re: Block Universes
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Can you agree to this at least? > To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post: 'If you continue to ask me "Do you agree?" type questions while ignoring the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, even if it's something like "I find your questions ambiguous" or "you've asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, please narrow it down to one per post".' If you decide to treat me with the same basic level of respect I have treated you, rather than making a show of asking me questions while you contemptuously ignore my requests that you address mine, then I will keep going with this. If not, I have better things to do. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 2/26/2014 3:22 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Here in the States, we have the executive branch using the IRS and the FBI to go after enemies of the progressives. Enemies? You mean those organizations like "Retake America" that claimed to be charitable organizations not engaging in any political activity in order to conceal their donors? And the FBI is going after who? The Koch brothers? Rev. Hagee? Rush Limbaugh? They can't seem to find anyone guilty of anything in the housing bubble debacle, but they can sure bust some medical marijuana sellers in Seattle. You have the vast expansion of the NSA spying on the American people and indeed people worldwide. Which was proposed under Reagan and implemented under W. A statement by the head of NSA was that "We are not spying to halt terrorists.." So what are they spying for, our benefit? BHO has tried to pick tech winners but he cannot change physics nor economics. Think Solyndra. How about think Detroit. You simply trust too much, or despise non Statists too much. People want clean energy, there is just no new tech to the dirty. And you're just an ideologue government hater dreaming of Galt's Gulch. 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, The only thing we are interested in is whether A and B THEMSELVES can establish an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of their actual ages. At this point we don't care about any other observers or how they may view this. In the symmetric case we merely take the common point of departure and meeting as the origin of a coordinate system oriented so that the trips are symmetric. You may point out that we could choose another coordinate system in which the trips were not symmetric. Sure but we can ENSURE an absolute frame independent notion of symmetry by having the twins undergo exactly equal accelerations and gravitational encounters so we want to choose a coordinate system that reflects that symmetry since that symmetry is real and actual just as the ages are real and actual. That's the coordinate system whose origin is at the stationary departure and meeting point in space and oriented so the trips are symmetrical, their worldlines are mirror images. In this case the twins can establish an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of actual ages throughout the trip because they know that they both underwent exactly equivalent accelerations and gravitational encounters and thus their actual ages progressed in synch during the entire trip. The choice of coordinate system must reflect these real actual physical facts. When we do that there will be an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of actual ages throughout the trip. So we must choose a coordinate system that properly reflects the real actual accelerations and gravitational encounters being symmetric. Can you agree to this at least? And if you are an objective participant it would be fair if you find some some quibble or poor or ambiguous wording on my part to just tell us how to correct it to make the example work in expressing what I'm sure you know what i want to get at, instead of embarking on another unnecessary tangent. In other words if you are truly interested in determining IF an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of actual ages between any two observers that those two observers THEMSELVES can agree to is possible and in what cases, then you should first assume it might be possible and try to come up with the best examples you can to prove it instead of just picking away at terminological ambiguities. That's how fair objective persons usually evaluate new theories. Edgar On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:40:24 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue. > > The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its > world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.\ > > > Yes. > > > > The point is that it is always possible for each twin to figure out a 1:1 > correlation of the real actual ages of each other, and both twins will > AGREE to that correlation. > > > Not without using a coordinate system, no. The only kind of "1:1 > correlation" you'll find in relativity is looking at which points on their > worldlines occurred at the same coordinate time in some coordinate system, > and then looking at their respective ages at those points. > > > > They can't OBSERVE the real actual age of the other twin in some cases, > but they can always use their knowledge of relativity and logic to figure > out what it is. > > > WHAT "Knowledge of relativity"? There are no equations in relativity that > could be used to define a 1:1 correlation between proper times of separated > observers in a coordinate-independent way, and you haven't presented any. > > Jesse > > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:44:33 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Jesse, > > A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two > observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE > SYSTEMS. > > > If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they can't be > inertial if they depart from one another and then reunite later--then > "their own comoving coordinate systems" is a COMPLETELY UNDEFINED PHRASE. > There are an infinite number of DIFFERENT non-inertial coordinate systems > you could design in which they remain fixed at the spatial origin of the > coordinate system (so each one is "comoving" in that sense), and there is > no convention recognized by physicists that "their own comoving coordinate > system" would refer to any particular one of these different possible > systems. DO YOU DISAGREE? > > I have asked variants of this question several times now, once again you > seem to be back to your old habit of refusing to answer simple > agree/disagree questions I ask you, even after you have demanded that I > answer a number of yours. As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, > and if you aren't interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually > address the other person's ar
Re: Block Universes
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue. > > The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its > world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.\ > Yes. > > The point is that it is always possible for each twin to figure out a 1:1 > correlation of the real actual ages of each other, and both twins will > AGREE to that correlation. > Not without using a coordinate system, no. The only kind of "1:1 correlation" you'll find in relativity is looking at which points on their worldlines occurred at the same coordinate time in some coordinate system, and then looking at their respective ages at those points. > They can't OBSERVE the real actual age of the other twin in some cases, > but they can always use their knowledge of relativity and logic to figure > out what it is. > WHAT "Knowledge of relativity"? There are no equations in relativity that could be used to define a 1:1 correlation between proper times of separated observers in a coordinate-independent way, and you haven't presented any. Jesse > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:44:33 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two >> observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE >> SYSTEMS. >> >> >> If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they can't be >> inertial if they depart from one another and then reunite later--then >> "their own comoving coordinate systems" is a COMPLETELY UNDEFINED PHRASE. >> There are an infinite number of DIFFERENT non-inertial coordinate systems >> you could design in which they remain fixed at the spatial origin of the >> coordinate system (so each one is "comoving" in that sense), and there is >> no convention recognized by physicists that "their own comoving coordinate >> system" would refer to any particular one of these different possible >> systems. DO YOU DISAGREE? >> >> I have asked variants of this question several times now, once again you >> seem to be back to your old habit of refusing to answer simple >> agree/disagree questions I ask you, even after you have demanded that I >> answer a number of yours. As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, >> and if you aren't interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually >> address the other person's arguments and questions, rather than just >> haranguing them with the same assertions and expressing incredulity that >> they could fail to be convinced, then there's obviously no point to any >> further exchanges between us. >> >> >> The proper times of both twins A and B have a 1:1 correlation and are >> equal at start and finish of the trip. >> >> >> Although it's true in a frame-independent sense that their proper times >> are equal at the end when they reunite, any 1:1 correlation of proper times >> DURING the trip can only be defined relative to a particular coordinate >> system, and there's no physical reason why using the system where their >> velocities are symmetrical is more "correct" than using any other >> coordinate system. As I just said in my last post: >> >> 'It isn't a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B without >> qualification, it's a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B >> RELATIVE TO THEIR REST FRAME. If you use a different frame, there is a >> different 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B, RELATIVE TO >> THAT OTHER FRAME. Nothing in the phrase "1:1 correlation between the proper >> times of A and B" by itself tells us what frame to use.' >> >> Do you disagree with the above? >> >> >> >> PROPER clocks always run at the same rate in the same relativistic >> conditions. >> >> >> "Run at the same rate" has no coordinate-independent meaning in >> relativity. You won't find any relativity textbook that defines the "rate" >> of a clock in any way except relative to a particular choice of coordinate >> system (assuming we're not just talking about visual rates based on light >> signals). >> >> Do you disagree that the above is true ACCORDING TO MAINSTREAM RELATIVITY >> THEORY AS UNDERSTOOD BY PHYSICISTS? (if you agree, but you think that YOU >> have discovered a new coordinate-independent concept of "clock rate" that >> physicists have failed to recognize, then please specify that). >> >> >> >> The laws of nature do not change during the trip. The relativistic >> conditions of both PROPER clocks thus DO run at the same rates DURING the >> trip. Forget everything else but the PROPER clocks because it's irrelevant >> to the case. >> >> >> "Proper time" deals only with clock readings at specific locally-defined >> events on their worldlines (like the time on their clock at the moment they >> pass next to some marker in space), there is no corresponding notion of a >> coordinate-independent "proper ra
RE: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Hi Edgar >>It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. Far out, man! Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:33:25 +1300 Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 From: lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On 27 February 2014 02:49, Jason Resch wrote: I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: Yes, a subset of me certainly does. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered > at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel > symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then > meet back up at. That addresses all your concerns. > > The whole trip is symmetric, the twins' proper times will be in a 1:1 > correlation at all times from beginning to end. Both twins agree their > proper clocks run at the exact same rates, not because they observe them > but because they understand relativity. > > Do you agree? Of course not > I agree that there is a 1:1 correlation between their proper times RELATIVE TO THAT INERTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEM (in this case, the correlation is such that a given proper time time T of one is correlated with the SAME proper time T of the other, according to that coordinate system's definition of simultaneity). Likewise, their proper clocks "run at the exact same rates" RELATIVE TO THAT INERTIAL COORDINATE SYSTEM (i.e. both have the same function for proper time as a function of coordinate time). But so what? Their proper times have a different 1:1 correlation relative to some other inertial coordinate system (in which the proper time T for one is correlated with a DIFFERENT proper time T' for the other--this is still a 1:1 correlation in the sense that a specific proper time for one is correlated to a specific proper time of the other), and their proper clocks run at different rates relative to this other coordinate system (they have different functions for proper time as a function of coordinate time). So this is of no help in deciding which of the VARIOUS possible 1:1 correlations in their proper times represent the proper times that share the same frame-independent "present moment", even if such a thing exists (as you know I am skeptical about such a thing, but I don't totally rule it out as a possibility). Please tell me if you agree or disagree that all statements about 1:1 correlations of proper times and ratios of "rates" only have meaning RELATIVE TO SOME COORDINATE SYSTEM (in mainstream relativity theory anyway, leaving aside ideas which aren't part of relativity like p-time), and that all inertial coordinate systems are considered equally valid in special relativity. If you continue to ask me "Do you agree?" type questions while ignoring the similar questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign of contempt, in which case as I said I won't be responding to further posts of yours. Any response is better than just completely ignoring questions, even if it's something like "I find your questions ambiguous" or "you've asked too many questions and I don't have time for them all right now, please narrow it down to one per post". Jesse > > Nevertheless, it's correct and the rest of what I said follows... > > Edgar > > > > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:40:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Jesse, >> >> You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real >> issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a >> coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE >> a single set of equations that describes that view. >> >> >> There are a single set of equations for any particular coordinate system, >> but my point is that for non-inertial observers or observers in curved >> spacetime, talking about an observer's "view" is ill-defined because there >> is no convention about which coordinate system to label as the "view" of a >> given observer. Even if you specify that you want a "coordinate system with >> origin at a particular observer", there are an infinite number of DIFFERENT >> non-inertial coordinate systems you could come up with that would have the >> property that the observer is always at the origin, each with a different >> set of equations. I asked about this issue specifically in the second >> question from my last post, which you didn't answer: >> >> '--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?' >> >> Could you please just just quote my questions and answer them >> specifically in turn, as I always do with yours, rather than just sort of >> summarizing what you think my main points are and addressing them in a >> broad manner? >> >> >> Answers to your next question: >> >> Yes, of course the OBSERVABLES are based on some coordinate system, but >> you can't seem to get it through your head that any observer A who observes >> another observer B can al
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue. The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances. The point is that it is always possible for each twin to figure out a 1:1 correlation of the real actual ages of each other, and both twins will AGREE to that correlation. They can't OBSERVE the real actual age of the other twin in some cases, but they can always use their knowledge of relativity and logic to figure out what it is. Edgar On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:44:33 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two > observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE > SYSTEMS. > > > If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they can't be > inertial if they depart from one another and then reunite later--then > "their own comoving coordinate systems" is a COMPLETELY UNDEFINED PHRASE. > There are an infinite number of DIFFERENT non-inertial coordinate systems > you could design in which they remain fixed at the spatial origin of the > coordinate system (so each one is "comoving" in that sense), and there is > no convention recognized by physicists that "their own comoving coordinate > system" would refer to any particular one of these different possible > systems. DO YOU DISAGREE? > > I have asked variants of this question several times now, once again you > seem to be back to your old habit of refusing to answer simple > agree/disagree questions I ask you, even after you have demanded that I > answer a number of yours. As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, > and if you aren't interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually > address the other person's arguments and questions, rather than just > haranguing them with the same assertions and expressing incredulity that > they could fail to be convinced, then there's obviously no point to any > further exchanges between us. > > > The proper times of both twins A and B have a 1:1 correlation and are > equal at start and finish of the trip. > > > Although it's true in a frame-independent sense that their proper times > are equal at the end when they reunite, any 1:1 correlation of proper times > DURING the trip can only be defined relative to a particular coordinate > system, and there's no physical reason why using the system where their > velocities are symmetrical is more "correct" than using any other > coordinate system. As I just said in my last post: > > 'It isn't a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B without > qualification, it's a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B > RELATIVE TO THEIR REST FRAME. If you use a different frame, there is a > different 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B, RELATIVE TO > THAT OTHER FRAME. Nothing in the phrase "1:1 correlation between the proper > times of A and B" by itself tells us what frame to use.' > > Do you disagree with the above? > > > > PROPER clocks always run at the same rate in the same relativistic > conditions. > > > "Run at the same rate" has no coordinate-independent meaning in > relativity. You won't find any relativity textbook that defines the "rate" > of a clock in any way except relative to a particular choice of coordinate > system (assuming we're not just talking about visual rates based on light > signals). > > Do you disagree that the above is true ACCORDING TO MAINSTREAM RELATIVITY > THEORY AS UNDERSTOOD BY PHYSICISTS? (if you agree, but you think that YOU > have discovered a new coordinate-independent concept of "clock rate" that > physicists have failed to recognize, then please specify that). > > > > The laws of nature do not change during the trip. The relativistic > conditions of both PROPER clocks thus DO run at the same rates DURING the > trip. Forget everything else but the PROPER clocks because it's irrelevant > to the case. > > > "Proper time" deals only with clock readings at specific locally-defined > events on their worldlines (like the time on their clock at the moment they > pass next to some marker in space), there is no corresponding notion of a > coordinate-independent "proper rate" of a clock. Again, the "rate" a clock > is ticking is an INHERENTLY coordinate-dependent notion in mainstream > relativity theory. > > > > > Thus there will be a 1:1 correspondence of PROPER clock times DURING THE > TRIP. > > This is NOT any SINGLE FRAME VIEW. You continue to try to analyze it from > some single frame. IT CAN'T BE DONE. This is a logical consequence of the > laws of relativity, NOT THE VIEW FROM ANY SINGLE FRAME. > > > > You say "logical consequence", but again it is just an assertion, not an > actual logical demonstration of HOW the laws of relativity lead to this > conclusion. > > > > I
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
This is what they call a google bomb. Historians may think google searches represent something about the mind of humanity. So this particular google bomb might lead them to think the Fukushima reactor exploded in 2014. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 27 February 2014 11:44, Jesse Mazer wrote: > As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, and if you aren't > interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually address the other > person's arguments and questions, rather than just haranguing them with the > same assertions and expressing incredulity that they could fail to be > convinced, then there's obviously no point to any further exchanges between > us. > I really admire your patience and perseverance, Jesse, but I suspect that this is the conclusion you will ultimately end up reaching, as I did some time ago. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 27 February 2014 12:08, wrote: > Well, Liz, not to be a "nattering nabob of negativism," but its too > diffuse. It's not like hydroelectric, we can gather up at one 'choke point' > and then draw in to spin turbines, Its spread all over the surface of the > Earth (the target zone). Therefore, engineers are so up o on getting PV > cells efficiencies up. Then there's the great need for a power source to > run 7 x 24 and this has been a problem. On the other hand Freeman Dyson > estimated that the Sun produces in 1 second the same amount of ergs that > human beings produce in one year. It turned out to be 33 trillion times > what we use. But I have given up on solar and fusion, because *it either > works now or it doesn't. *Color me too impatient. > > Do you mean you think this is "the proverbial it" - if we don't have an alternative power source up and running *right now*, we're stuffed? You may be right, of course, but I think we should keep trying. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then meet back up at. That addresses all your concerns. The whole trip is symmetric, the twins' proper times will be in a 1:1 correlation at all times from beginning to end. Both twins agree their proper clocks run at the exact same rates, not because they observe them but because they understand relativity. Do you agree? Of course not Nevertheless, it's correct and the rest of what I said follows... Edgar On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:40:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real > issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a > coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE > a single set of equations that describes that view. > > > There are a single set of equations for any particular coordinate system, > but my point is that for non-inertial observers or observers in curved > spacetime, talking about an observer's "view" is ill-defined because there > is no convention about which coordinate system to label as the "view" of a > given observer. Even if you specify that you want a "coordinate system with > origin at a particular observer", there are an infinite number of DIFFERENT > non-inertial coordinate systems you could come up with that would have the > property that the observer is always at the origin, each with a different > set of equations. I asked about this issue specifically in the second > question from my last post, which you didn't answer: > > '--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?' > > Could you please just just quote my questions and answer them specifically > in turn, as I always do with yours, rather than just sort of summarizing > what you think my main points are and addressing them in a broad manner? > > > Answers to your next question: > > Yes, of course the OBSERVABLES are based on some coordinate system, but > you can't seem to get it through your head that any observer A who observes > another observer B can also know the equations governing how that observer > B observes A himself. > > > I'm not sure which question you are responding to here, you say "next > question" but it seems like this is actually a response to my FIRST > question (with no response given to any of the others), namely: > > '--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?) ' > > You didn't really respond to any of the subsequent three questions with > dashes before them, as far as I can see, although you did respond to the > question in my last paragraph. Can you please go back and respond to the > middle 3 questions? > > > > Do you deny that? > > > I deny that there is any single set of "equations governing how observer B > observes A himself", if B is not an inertial observer in flat spacetime. If > he's not, then as I said, there's no convention in relativity that says > that any particular coordinate system should be interpreted as "belonging" > to B. If you specify in detail what coordinate systems you want A and B to > use to perform calculations (or if both of them are inertial in flat > spacetime, so it's taken as read that they each use their own rest frame), > then of course A can figure out what B would calculate and B could figure > out what A would calculate. > > Also, do you understand that even for inertial observers, the idea that an > observer's own rest frame can be labeled "his view" or taken to describe > "his observations" is PURELY A MATTER OF CONVENTION, not something that is > forced on us by the laws of nature? Physicists just don't want to have to > write out "in the observer's comoving inertial frame" all the time, so they > just adopt a linguistic convention that lets them write simpler things like > "from this observer's perspective" or "in his frame" as a shorthand for the > observer's comoving inertial frame. Physic
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
Here in the States, we have the executive branch using the IRS and the FBI to go after enemies of the progressives. You have the vast expansion of the NSA spying on the American people and indeed people worldwide. A statement by the head of NSA was that "We are not spying to halt terrorists.." So what are they spying for, our benefit? BHO has tried to pick tech winners but he cannot change physics nor economics. Think Solyndra. You simply trust too much, or despise non Statists too much. People want clean energy, there is just no new tech to the dirty. It's clear what to do. We continue to conserve power, convert to sustainable power, and replace coal fired plants with nuclear asfast as possible while continuing research on all promising powersources. The problem is how to get this done. It's scope obviouslyrequires government level leadership and organization, but YOUexemplify the obstruction to that with your Ayn Rand fear ofgovernment and dogmatic faith in 'free markets'. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Feb 25, 2014 10:31 pm Subject: 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 yeardue to coal fired power plants vs nuclear plants? And he didn'teven note that we've never had a fatality due to any of thosenuclear powerplants used by the Navy and NASA (although the Russianshave). 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 asfast as possible while continuing research on all promising powersources. The problem is how to get this done. It's scope obviouslyrequires government level leadership and organization, but YOUexemplify the obstruction to that with your Ayn Rand fear ofgovernment 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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
Well, Liz, not to be a "nattering nabob of negativism," but its too diffuse. It's not like hydroelectric, we can gather up at one 'choke point' and then draw in to spin turbines, Its spread all over the surface of the Earth (the target zone). Therefore, engineers are so up o on getting PV cells efficiencies up. Then there's the great need for a power source to run 7 x 24 and this has been a problem. On the other hand Freeman Dyson estimated that the Sun produces in 1 second the same amount of ergs that human beings produce in one year. It turned out to be 33 trillion times what we use. But I have given up on solar and fusion, because it either works now or it doesn't. Color me too impatient. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Wed, Feb 26, 2014 4:50 pm Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On 27 February 2014 06:57, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR wrote: > Hydro IS solar. And solar IS nuclear. Indeed. I keep mentioning this. Why bother with all these other power sources when you have a fusion reactor in the astronomical backyard? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two > observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE > SYSTEMS. > If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they can't be inertial if they depart from one another and then reunite later--then "their own comoving coordinate systems" is a COMPLETELY UNDEFINED PHRASE. There are an infinite number of DIFFERENT non-inertial coordinate systems you could design in which they remain fixed at the spatial origin of the coordinate system (so each one is "comoving" in that sense), and there is no convention recognized by physicists that "their own comoving coordinate system" would refer to any particular one of these different possible systems. DO YOU DISAGREE? I have asked variants of this question several times now, once again you seem to be back to your old habit of refusing to answer simple agree/disagree questions I ask you, even after you have demanded that I answer a number of yours. As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, and if you aren't interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually address the other person's arguments and questions, rather than just haranguing them with the same assertions and expressing incredulity that they could fail to be convinced, then there's obviously no point to any further exchanges between us. > The proper times of both twins A and B have a 1:1 correlation and are > equal at start and finish of the trip. > Although it's true in a frame-independent sense that their proper times are equal at the end when they reunite, any 1:1 correlation of proper times DURING the trip can only be defined relative to a particular coordinate system, and there's no physical reason why using the system where their velocities are symmetrical is more "correct" than using any other coordinate system. As I just said in my last post: 'It isn't a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B without qualification, it's a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B RELATIVE TO THEIR REST FRAME. If you use a different frame, there is a different 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B, RELATIVE TO THAT OTHER FRAME. Nothing in the phrase "1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B" by itself tells us what frame to use.' Do you disagree with the above? > > PROPER clocks always run at the same rate in the same relativistic > conditions. > "Run at the same rate" has no coordinate-independent meaning in relativity. You won't find any relativity textbook that defines the "rate" of a clock in any way except relative to a particular choice of coordinate system (assuming we're not just talking about visual rates based on light signals). Do you disagree that the above is true ACCORDING TO MAINSTREAM RELATIVITY THEORY AS UNDERSTOOD BY PHYSICISTS? (if you agree, but you think that YOU have discovered a new coordinate-independent concept of "clock rate" that physicists have failed to recognize, then please specify that). > The laws of nature do not change during the trip. The relativistic > conditions of both PROPER clocks thus DO run at the same rates DURING the > trip. Forget everything else but the PROPER clocks because it's irrelevant > to the case. > "Proper time" deals only with clock readings at specific locally-defined events on their worldlines (like the time on their clock at the moment they pass next to some marker in space), there is no corresponding notion of a coordinate-independent "proper rate" of a clock. Again, the "rate" a clock is ticking is an INHERENTLY coordinate-dependent notion in mainstream relativity theory. > > Thus there will be a 1:1 correspondence of PROPER clock times DURING THE > TRIP. > > This is NOT any SINGLE FRAME VIEW. You continue to try to analyze it from > some single frame. IT CAN'T BE DONE. This is a logical consequence of the > laws of relativity, NOT THE VIEW FROM ANY SINGLE FRAME. > You say "logical consequence", but again it is just an assertion, not an actual logical demonstration of HOW the laws of relativity lead to this conclusion. > > If you can't even get this simple fact I see no reason to proceed. It > seems to me that your stated agenda of not accepting p-time prevents you > from thinking objectively here. > No mainstream physicist would agree with this "simple fact", and that has nothing to do with whether they prefer block time or presentism or have no opinion on the matter. They all recognize that clock rates, and "correspondences" between proper times of clocks separated in space, are inherently frame-dependent. In any case, a simple way to proceed would involve just doing me the courtesy of answering my questions, so we can better pinpoint the first point on which we are in disagreement, and see if this is a matter of disagreeing about how things work in mainstream relativity theory (in which case I can look for ref
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE SYSTEMS. They both experience the exact same amounts of accelerations and gravitation during their trips. The proper times of both twins A and B have a 1:1 correlation and are equal at start and finish of the trip. PROPER clocks always run at the same rate in the same relativistic conditions. The laws of nature do not change during the trip. The relativistic conditions of both PROPER clocks thus DO run at the same rates DURING the trip. Forget everything else but the PROPER clocks because it's irrelevant to the case. Thus there will be a 1:1 correspondence of PROPER clock times DURING THE TRIP. This is NOT any SINGLE FRAME VIEW. You continue to try to analyze it from some single frame. IT CAN'T BE DONE. This is a logical consequence of the laws of relativity, NOT THE VIEW FROM ANY SINGLE FRAME. If you can't even get this simple fact I see no reason to proceed. It seems to me that your stated agenda of not accepting p-time prevents you from thinking objectively here. Edgar On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:40:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Jesse, > > You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real > issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a > coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE > a single set of equations that describes that view. > > > There are a single set of equations for any particular coordinate system, > but my point is that for non-inertial observers or observers in curved > spacetime, talking about an observer's "view" is ill-defined because there > is no convention about which coordinate system to label as the "view" of a > given observer. Even if you specify that you want a "coordinate system with > origin at a particular observer", there are an infinite number of DIFFERENT > non-inertial coordinate systems you could come up with that would have the > property that the observer is always at the origin, each with a different > set of equations. I asked about this issue specifically in the second > question from my last post, which you didn't answer: > > '--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?' > > Could you please just just quote my questions and answer them specifically > in turn, as I always do with yours, rather than just sort of summarizing > what you think my main points are and addressing them in a broad manner? > > > Answers to your next question: > > Yes, of course the OBSERVABLES are based on some coordinate system, but > you can't seem to get it through your head that any observer A who observes > another observer B can also know the equations governing how that observer > B observes A himself. > > > I'm not sure which question you are responding to here, you say "next > question" but it seems like this is actually a response to my FIRST > question (with no response given to any of the others), namely: > > '--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?) ' > > You didn't really respond to any of the subsequent three questions with > dashes before them, as far as I can see, although you did respond to the > question in my last paragraph. Can you please go back and respond to the > middle 3 questions? > > > > Do you deny that? > > > I deny that there is any single set of "equations governing how observer B > observes A himself", if B is not an inertial observer in flat spacetime. If > he's not, then as I said, there's no convention in relativity that says > that any particular coordinate system should be interpreted as "belonging" > to B. If you specify in detail what coordinate systems you want A and B to > use to perform calculations (or if both of them are inertial in flat > spacetime, so it's taken as read that they each use their own rest frame), > then of course A can figure out what B would calculate and B could figure > out what A would calculate. > > Also, do you understand that even for inertial observers, the idea that an
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On 27 February 2014 06:57, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR wrote: > > > Hydro IS solar. >> > > And solar IS nuclear. > Indeed. I keep mentioning this. Why bother with all these other power sources when you have a fusion reactor in the astronomical backyard? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
On 27 February 2014 02:49, Jason Resch wrote: I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting > on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: > Yes, a subset of me certainly does. Thanks. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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 Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > Jesse, > > You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real > issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a > coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE > a single set of equations that describes that view. > There are a single set of equations for any particular coordinate system, but my point is that for non-inertial observers or observers in curved spacetime, talking about an observer's "view" is ill-defined because there is no convention about which coordinate system to label as the "view" of a given observer. Even if you specify that you want a "coordinate system with origin at a particular observer", there are an infinite number of DIFFERENT non-inertial coordinate systems you could come up with that would have the property that the observer is always at the origin, each with a different set of equations. I asked about this issue specifically in the second question from my last post, which you didn't answer: '--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?' Could you please just just quote my questions and answer them specifically in turn, as I always do with yours, rather than just sort of summarizing what you think my main points are and addressing them in a broad manner? > Answers to your next question: > > Yes, of course the OBSERVABLES are based on some coordinate system, but > you can't seem to get it through your head that any observer A who observes > another observer B can also know the equations governing how that observer > B observes A himself. > I'm not sure which question you are responding to here, you say "next question" but it seems like this is actually a response to my FIRST question (with no response given to any of the others), namely: '--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?) ' You didn't really respond to any of the subsequent three questions with dashes before them, as far as I can see, although you did respond to the question in my last paragraph. Can you please go back and respond to the middle 3 questions? > > Do you deny that? > I deny that there is any single set of "equations governing how observer B observes A himself", if B is not an inertial observer in flat spacetime. If he's not, then as I said, there's no convention in relativity that says that any particular coordinate system should be interpreted as "belonging" to B. If you specify in detail what coordinate systems you want A and B to use to perform calculations (or if both of them are inertial in flat spacetime, so it's taken as read that they each use their own rest frame), then of course A can figure out what B would calculate and B could figure out what A would calculate. Also, do you understand that even for inertial observers, the idea that an observer's own rest frame can be labeled "his view" or taken to describe "his observations" is PURELY A MATTER OF CONVENTION, not something that is forced on us by the laws of nature? Physicists just don't want to have to write out "in the observer's comoving inertial frame" all the time, so they just adopt a linguistic convention that lets them write simpler things like "from this observer's perspective" or "in his frame" as a shorthand for the observer's comoving inertial frame. Physically there is no reason an observer can't assign coordinates to events using rulers and clocks that are moving relative to himself though, lots of real-world experiments involve measuring-instruments that move relative to the people carrying out the experiment. > > I'll skip now to the point you make in your last paragraph responding to > my symmetric trip case: > > Your comments here are true (more standard relativity) but irrelevant. > Why, because the point of the symmetric trip argument is TO ESTABLISH a 1:1 > correlation ONLY BETWEEN THE PROPER TIMES OF A and B, not any of the "any > other coordinate systems" you attempt to drag into the discussion to > obfuscate things. > It isn't a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B without qualification, it's a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of A and B RELATIVE TO THEIR REST FRAME. If you use a differe
Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
From: John Clark To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:57 AM Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR wrote: > Hydro IS solar. And solar IS nuclear. Then Hydro is also nuclear. Chris  John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Block Universes
Jesse, You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE a single set of equations that describes that view. You can describe that observer from any number of other coordinate systems but that would not be THAT observer's own view. Answers to your next question: Yes, of course the OBSERVABLES are based on some coordinate system, but you can't seem to get it through your head that any observer A who observes another observer B can also know the equations governing how that observer B observes A himself. Do you deny that? I'll skip now to the point you make in your last paragraph responding to my symmetric trip case: Your comments here are true (more standard relativity) but irrelevant. Why, because the point of the symmetric trip argument is TO ESTABLISH a 1:1 correlation ONLY BETWEEN THE PROPER TIMES OF A and B, not any of the "any other coordinate systems" you attempt to drag into the discussion to obfuscate things. Do you agree in the symmetric trip case we can establish a 1:1 correlation between the proper times of just A and B MEANING IN ONLY THE VIEWS FROM THEIR TWO COORDINATE SYSTEMS? The answer is of course we can because both A and B know the exact conditions of their symmetric trips, therefore they know the exact equations each other use to describe their trips. And we do know in this case that the PROPER TIMES OF A and B WILL BE IN A 1:1 CORRESPONDENCE OVER THE WHOLE TRIP FROM BEGINNING TO END. A's t = B's t' over the whole duration of the trip. I know you will find some reason to refuse to agree to this no matter how true and obvious it is, but it is logically inescapable. And this 1:1 relationship is transitive between all observers, and it does establish a p-time plane of simultaneity between all observers in terms of their proper times, and since the current proper time of any observer is the present moment of his p-time, this does demonstrate a current universe present moment. So when A's proper clock read age 30, B's proper clock would also have read age 30, and both A and B would have been in the same current p-time at that point, in the same current present moment. I've demonstrated this over and over with all sorts of examples. If you can't understand it, or can't bring yourself to accept it, so be it, but it is a demonstrable truth. Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:16:52 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > 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
Re: Block Universes
Liz, Where do you come up with these wildly off the wall statements! Don't you even care about the truth? Block universe theory is the MOST NON-parsimonious theory out there. It requires all sorts of extra unsupported assumptions such as those to explain the appearance of time flowing when time doesn't flow. And the creation ab initio of the entire history of the universe in one event as opposed to just a fine tuning of ~22 constants. But of course your faith is completely impervious to logic! So your mind is totally closed to any actual evidence. Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:50:59 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 26 February 2014 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > >> On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen > >> 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: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal 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 > Sorry, I was guessing something along the lines of FPI = first person interpretation. Your obscure homemade acronym for something that already has a perfectly good name, uncertainty, has tripped me up yet again. And I'm afraid I can't do as you request, I am unable to provide an algorithm that can correctly predict all external events that could effect me. >> 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. I guess you're right, after all you invented "the 3-1 views" so you must know what it means. I wish I did. You miss this only by confusing the 3-1 view and the 1-view, >>> >> >> >> Who's "the 1-view"? >> > >> > Each of them. Who is this Mr. them who has "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: CTM Attack and Redemption
On 24 Feb 2014, at 23:07, LizR wrote: And a nice manifold of red wine. (After a few of those it may be "p- time" of course...) With moderation, of course. A damn!, the red wine is in the basement, near the black hole, no idea where is the horizon, I will no try, and take non hard drug instead :) Bruno On 25 February 2014 11:06, LizR wrote: On 25 February 2014 11:02, wrote: Pasta with meatballs and the meat balls are higher dimensional energy fields and the tomato sauce is the rolling tide of higgs singlets reacting with all. And spaghetti for the strings, sprinkled with little qubits of pepper. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:22 PM, LizR wrote: > Hydro IS solar. > And solar IS nuclear. 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 Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote: > The prices for PV keeps coming down as well; in fact it has dropped an > amazing 99% in the past quarter century. > That's very nice, but even if the price dropped to zero it wouldn't be enough to completely take over from nuclear and fossil fuel because it would still be too dilute and too unreliable and unpredictable for many, perhaps most, applications. 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: CTM Attack and Redemption
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, PS: I have no idea what you are asking in the following question. If you make it clear I'll try to respond "You did not answer my question about the relation between p-time and 1-person. If I accept an artificial brain, and that clock of that artigicial brain can be improved, I might have a subjective time scale different from the other, so p-time is also subjectively relative it seems to me (with Mechanism Descartes name of "comp")." Yes, explain how my p-time is stuck on the 24 Feb 2014 :) More seriously I guess you agree that p-time cannot be the subjective timing, all right? If my brain is slowed down, "synchronically" (as it is is possible with comp), things would be like accelerating around me, from my 1p-view, and my subjective time-scale will be felt different (eyes open), and similar (eyes close). Bruno Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:10:31 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:10, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, I agree too. Makes it sound low brow and pop culturish, like some consumer product for housewives. But that's a good way to distinguish it from my computational reality. But please tell us what it is. "computational" is a technical term. Does your computational reality compute more or less than a computer or any (Turing) universal machine or numbers? Computation, like number is a notion far more elementary than any mathematics capable of describing the precise relations of a physical implementation of a computation. You did not answer my question about the relation between p-time and 1-person. If I accept an artificial brain, and that clock of that artigicial brain can be improved, I might have a subjective time scale different from the other, so p-time is also subjectively relative it seems to me (with Mechanism Descartes name of "comp"). Mechanism and Materialism don't fit well together. Bruno :-) Edgar On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:58:19 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, February 24, 2014 8:16:00 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Craig, Pardon me but what does CTM stand for? Computational Theory of Mind. Someone mentioned that they are tired of the word 'Comp', and I agree. Something about it I never liked. Makes it sound friendly and natural, when I suspect that is neither. Craig Edgar On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:55:27 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: This might be a more concise way of making my argument: It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are encountered. My hypothesis, drawn from both direct human experience as well as experience with technological devices, is that "everything which is counted must first be encountered". Extending this dictum, I propose that 1. There is nothing at all which cannot be reduced to an encounter, and 2. That the nature of encounters can be described as aesthetic re- acquaintance, nested sensory-motive participation, or simply sense. 3. In consideration of 1, sense is understood in all cases to be pre-mechanical, pre-arithmetic, and inescapably fundamental. My challenge then, is for CTM to provide a functional account of how numbers encounter each other, and how they came to be separated from the whole of arithmetic truth in the first place. We know that an actual machine must encounter data through physical input to a hardware substrate, but how does an ideal machine encounter data? How does it insulate itself from data which is not relevant to the machine? Failing a satisfactory explanation of the fundamental mechanism behind computation, I conclude that: 4. The logic which compels us to seek a computational or mechanical theory of mind is rooted in an expectation of functional necessity. 5. This logic is directly contradicted by the absence of critical inquiry to the mechanisms which provide arithmetic function. 6. CTM should be understood to be compromised by petito principii fallacy, as it begs its own question by feigning to explain macro level mental phenomena through brute inflation of its own micro level mental phenomena which is overlooked entirely within CTM. 7. In consideration of 1-6, it must be seen that CTM is invalid, and should possibly be replaced by an approach which addresses the fallacy directly. 8. PIP (Primordial Identity Pansensitivity) offers a trans- theoretical explanation in which the capacity for sense encounters is the sole axiom. 9. CTM can be rehabilitated, and all of its mathematical science can be redeemed by translating into PIP terms, which amounts to reversing the foundations of number theory so that they are sense- subordinate. 10. This effectively renders CTM a theory of mind-like simulation, rather than macro level minds, however, mind-simulation proceeds from PIP as a
Re: CTM Attack and Redemption
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:45, Edgar L. Owen wrote: computational reality is what computes the actual information states of the observable universe. So you assume a primitive physical reality? This makes sense with your p-time, but it is incoherent with the assumption that we can survive with a digital brain, that you seem to have agree on. "What computes the actual information states of the observable universe" is not an explanation of what you mean by "computes", "actual", "information" "states" (of what? a physical system, a universal machine? ), nor an explanation of the "observable universe". I don't see any theory, sorry. 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 1:53 PM, meekerdb 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. > My car can't go 150mph or even come close to it, my car uses 306 horsepower when it needs to accelerate to highway speed in the on-ramp of a expressway or when I need to pass a slower car on a 2 lane road. > In normal highway use it's probably making about 30hp. > So now you need to make the solar cells adjustable so that the giant square welded to the roof of my car can shrink gown from 151x151 feet to 48x48 feet. However air resistance still might be a bit of a problem and I'm still going to have to put a "WIDE LOAD" sign on the back of the car. 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: CTM Attack and Redemption
On 24 Feb 2014, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, February 24, 2014 9:03:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Feb 2014, at 15:55, Craig Weinberg wrote: This might be a more concise way of making my argument: It is my claim that CTM has overlooked the necessity to describe the method, mechanism, or arithmetic principle by which computations are encountered. My hypothesis, drawn from both direct human experience as well as experience with technological devices, is that "everything which is counted must first be encountered". Extending this dictum, I propose that 1. There is nothing at all which cannot be reduced to an encounter, and 2. That the nature of encounters can be described as aesthetic re- acquaintance, nested sensory-motive participation, or simply sense. 3. In consideration of 1, sense is understood in all cases to be pre-mechanical, pre-arithmetic, and inescapably fundamental. My challenge then, is for CTM to provide a functional account of how numbers encounter each other, and how they came to be separated from the whole of arithmetic truth in the first place. We know that an actual machine must encounter data through physical input to a hardware substrate, but how does an ideal machine encounter data? How does it insulate itself from data which is not relevant to the machine? Failing a satisfactory explanation of the fundamental mechanism behind computation, I conclude that: Your questions above are answered in computer science. What makes the answers applicable beyond computer science? God's will, if it applies, and God's will if it does not apply. I am just saying that in the framework of a theory, your questions make sense and get answered. You might appreciate or not that facts, but I let you know. I think you should study it. I cannot imagine that you grasp the notion of UD, and still ask how "numbers can encounter something". Then a notion like "encounter" seems to assume many vague things. But then you say it is just sense. What does 'encounter' assume? What do you mean by "encounter". I guess it assumes persons or things and a relative locus to vibrate together in some ways. All that are already complex notions, which themselves will require assumption. I don't see a theory. We have to go beyond theory to see sense, just as we have to wake up to some degree to know that we were dreaming. Yes, but not necessarily when we write post and try to communicate something to others. 4. The logic which compels us to seek a computational or mechanical theory of mind is rooted in an expectation of functional necessity. 5. This logic is directly contradicted by the absence of critical inquiry to the mechanisms which provide arithmetic function. ? Arithmetic does not examine its own origin, it assumes them from the start. But humans agree already on them. It is a good start, and then comp justify entirely that we cannot assume less (or Turing equivalent). 6. CTM should be understood to be compromised by petito principii fallacy, as it begs its own question by feigning to explain macro level mental phenomena through brute inflation of its own micro level mental phenomena which is overlooked entirely within CTM. 7. In consideration of 1-6, it must be seen that CTM is invalid, and should possibly be replaced by an approach which addresses the fallacy directly. 8. PIP (Primordial Identity Pansensitivity) offers a trans- theoretical explanation in which the capacity for sense encounters is the sole axiom. You should be able to give the axioms, without using any special terms. If I am suggesting a solution that has not existed before, what term could I use to refer to it that is not 'special'? You have to described your finding in term than we can understand. That is your job. If you can't do that, you are just insulting, of spamming, the others when insisting, or change the label of your type of prose. 9. CTM can be rehabilitated, and all of its mathematical science can be redeemed by translating into PIP terms, which amounts to reversing the foundations of number theory so that they are sense- subordinate. We grasp number easily. We don't grasp sense, We don't need to grasp sense, we are sense, our lives are sensed. In the 1p. But you can't infer from this that we grasp sense in the 1p-3p relation problem. The point is that with comp that leads to a real concrete mathematical problem. You theory says that's it, don't ask, don't try to theorize I have it all. Numbers are not easily grasp, and the vast majority of people alive today and in human history have been almost mathematically illiterate. Fake churches fear research. and humans are known to fight on this since day one. You have to find axioms on which you can agree with others, or you going to just talk with yourself. That would seem to contrad
Re: CTM Attack and Redemption
On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:59, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2014 16:42, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2014, at 15:38, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2014 13:53, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure why David switched the term. Perhaps to avoid the confusion between comp and its assumptions (like John Clark does sometimes), or perhaps just to allude to the fact that it is a common theory used by most cognitive scientists. All of the above. My working assumption is that CTM, as an implicit posit of many theories (not merely those of cognitive scientists), ? What is CTM? Just what you said it was - the computational theory of mind. I'm agreeing with you. I just meant to say that it's implicitly assumed in much of science and not only by cognitive scientists. I didn't mean to be controversial! All right! And of course, no problem being controversial too :) In a sense comp is very weak (= very general, assume less), it assumes no bound for the level and the scope of the digital substitution, but it is strong in making explicit a bet on consciousness invariance (the "theological aspect" , the belief in a form of technological reincarnation). Yes. OK. directly entails the logically weaker formulation based on digital substitution that, ? This is confusing. If it entails something, that something is stronger. Sorry, your use of certain terms, as a logician, is much more precise than mine. I probably should have said something more like "leads us to the conclusion that.etc" instead of "entails". I just meant that I agree with the argument, as presented in the UDA, that the assumption of the invariance of consciousness to digital substitution is incompatible with the localisation of mind in a primitive physical universe. Which, as you say is a formulation of a problem rather than a solution. Sorry for any confusion. No problem. Bruno PS sorry for the delay, heavy busy period. My p-time get stuck in that interminable 24 february, I think there is a black hole in the basement oh ... oh ... ... oh .. oh .. :-) David Comp assumes less, but is still strong in itself. As it assumes CT (although it is formally dispensable), and it assumes the brain replacement. I am no more sure what you mean by CTM. If M is for mind, then it is comp. If M is for matter, then it is (very plausibly up to vocabulary plays) inconsistent with comp. Some people believe in notion of computation not related to Church thesis, but none succeed to define them properly, or there are different notion than computation, like provability, and their opposition to Church thesis is a confusion of level. So if CTM is "computational theory of mind" , it means that it is computationalism (taking into account the consequences or not). In that sense CTM -> comp (but some will disagree, as CT is not so well understood, I think). Usually, computational theory of mind still divide on representational theory, and non representational theories, comp is a priori neutral, but any choice of substitution level, entails a representation level, AUDA is partially representational, []p is representational, but []p & p is not. notably, does not presuppose the localisation of mind in a primitive physical universe. OK. That is a problem to solve. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. 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 receivin
Re: 3-1 views (was: Re: Better Than the Chinese Room)
Hi David, On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:32, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2014 15:50, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Feb 2014, at 02:41, David Nyman wrote: On 24 February 2014 01:04, chris peck wrote: >>This is the same as saying that I will experience all possible futures in the MWI - but by the time I experience them, of course, the version of me in each branch will be different, and it always seems to me, retrospectively, as though I only experienced one outcome. Each duplicate will only experience one outcome. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. The problems occur when considering what the person duplicated will experience and then what probability he should assign to each outcome and that seems to me to depend on what identity criterion gets imposed. Its a consideration I've gone into at length and won't bore you with again. But I will say that where you think that what Bruno wants is just recognition that each duplicate sees one outcome, I think that he actually wants to show that 3p and 1p probability assignments would be asymmetric from the stand point of the person duplicated. Certainly for me he doesn't manage that. Correct me if I'm misremembering Chris, but I seem to recall proposing to you on a previous occasion that Hoyle's pigeon hole analogy can be a useful way of tuning intuitions about puzzles of this sort, although I appear to be the sole fan of the idea around here. Hoyle's idea is essentially a heuristic for collapsing the notions of identity, history and continuation onto the perspective of a single, universal observer. From this perspective, the situation of being faced with duplication is just a random selection from the class of all possible observer moments. Well, the "just" might be not that easy to define. If the universal observer is the universal machine, the probability to get a computational history involving windows or MacOS might be more probable than being me or you. But how would "you" remember that? By noting it in my diary, by inquesting my past, and hacking data banks, or reading book on "my" origin. I am not sure that the notion of "observer moment" makes sense, without a notion of scenario involving a net of computational relative states. I think the hypostases describe a universal person, composed from a universal (self) scientist ([]p), a universal knower ([]p & p), an observer ([]p & <>p), and a feeler ([]p & <>p & p)). But I would not say that this universal person (which exist in arithmetic and is associated with all relatively self-referential correct löbian number) will select among all "observer moment". Well, perhaps "eventually" it will select all of them, if we can give some relevant sense to eventually in this context. Is this not done by simple 3p arithmetical realism? There is a sense "God" select them all, but they inter-relations are indexicals. And I suppose Hoyle's point is that if one imagines a logical serialisation of all such moments, its order must be inconsequential because of the intrinsic self-ordering of the moments themselves. That is the mathematical conception of an order, and there are dualities between those ways of considering a structure. You can already see that with the modal logic, where properties of accessibility will characterize modal formula and theories. Essentially he is saying that the panoptic bird view is somehow preserved at the frog level, at the price of breaking the simultaneity of the momentary views. I am not sure I understand. The "hypostatic" universal person is more like a universal baby, which can split in a much larger spectrum of future 1p histories, but from its first person perspective it is like it has still to go through the histories to get the right relative statistics on his most probable universal neighbors. Won't this still be effectively satisfied by Hoyle's heuristic? ISTM that "going through the histories" is a notion that splits in the 3p and 1p views. It splits the 1-p views, as in the 3-1 views, the 1-views themselves never split. I suppose this is equivalent to conceiving observer moments as self- ordering monads in terms of which any random serialisation over the entire class must eventually preserve the right relative statistics. Eventually I use only s, 0, +, *, and classical logic. May be you will get the tools to make this enough precise so that I see what you are talking about. This is "my" problem, I have to unravel things in term of numbers relations. The 8 "hypostases", and their multimodal combinations provides means to take into account many nuances. I am not sure about "observer moment", although for the 1p I guided myself through possible semantics for the S4Grz logics. "Eventually" here relies on a similar opacity to delays in continuation as you argue in the UDA, plus the reliance on
Re: Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome
On 26 February 2014 12:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to describe >> cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing involuntary >> movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the affected hand from >> an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's unaffected hand. >> In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened considerably, >> and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the context of >> feelings of estrangement from or personification of the affected limb or >> its movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been reported, >> involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus callosum plus >> dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/subcortical areas. A >> patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular aetiology is >> reported and the findings are discussed in the light of a conceptualisation >> of posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less associated >> with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and >> callosal-frontal counterparts." - >> http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full > > > This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to > contradict functionalism. > ? AFAICS it wouldn't even *seem* to contradict functionalism. > If functionalism identifies consciousness with function, then it would > seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen as estranged from > the personal awareness, is it is really no different from a zombie in which > the substitution level is set at the body level. There is no damage to the > arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet, its is felt to be > outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to be your > sensations. > I think it is generally understood that the relevant disruption to function is that of brain tissue, not that of the limb; hence the references in the passage to lesions in the corpus callosum and other areas of the *brain*. If the function of brain tissue is disrupted, then it would be consistent to expect some concomitant disruption of consciousness, per functionalism. > This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would expect to > encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any inorganic > substitute. > It's clear that's what you would expect, but to infer this much, purely on the basis of the passage you quoted, is grasping at straws. Actually it's not even that - it's a completely unsupported inference. > At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too would the brain become > non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system would fail to be > incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain could still learn to > use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own articulation and > familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is a one way street and the > prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal awareness and merge with it. > I don't see how starting from an unsupported inference helps your case. In fact, if you are proposing this as an example of the strength of your position in general, it can only serve to weaken it. David > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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: Tegmark and UDA step 3
Jason, This initially interesting post of course exposes fundamental flaws in its logic and the way that a lot of people get mislead by physically impossible thought experiments such as the whole interminable p-clone, p-zombie discussion on this group. First there is of course no physical mechanism that continually produces clones and places them in separate rooms, nor is there any MW process that does that, so the whole analysis is moot, and frankly childish as it doesn't even take into consideration what aspects of reality change randomly and which don't. Specifically it's NOT room numbers that seem random, it's quantum level events. If anyone is looking for the source of quantum randomness I've already provided an explanation. It occurs as fragmentary spacetimes are created by quantum events and then merged via shared quantum events. There can be no deterministic rules for aligning separate spacetime fragments thus nature is forced to make those alignments randomly. But sadly no one on this group is interested in quantum theory, only relativity, and far out philosophies such as 'comp'. Edgar If you read carefully it assumes a single real present moment self that has the experience of being in one room or the other. On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:49:03 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", > starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: > > "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really > wasn't specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future > technology allows you to be cloned while you're sleeping, and that your two > copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1 (Figure 8.3). When they wake > up, they'll both feel that the room number they read is completely > unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible for you to > upload your mind to a computer, then what I'm saying here will feel totally > obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be as easy as > making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning experiment from > Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in > almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written > looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. In other words, > causal physics will produce the illusion of randomness from your subjective > viewpoint in any circumstance where you're being cloned. The fundamental > reason that quantum mechanics appears random even though the wave function > evolves deterministically is that the Schrodinger equation can evolve a > wavefunction with a single you into one with clones of you in parallel > universes. So how does it feel when you get cloned? It feels random! And > every time something fundamentally random appears to happen to you, which > couldn't have been predicted even in principle, it's a sign that you've > been cloned." > > Jason > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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, At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe. But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present moment. The experience of our existence in a present moment is the most fundamental empirical observation of our existence. And all science, all knowledge, is based on empirical observation. So, in the face of this obvious weight of evidence, why do you insist on a block universe instead of a universe in which time flows? Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and accept what there is NO evidence for? Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:39:21 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen > > 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
Stathis, Again you DISprove what you want to prove by your own language. You say "I am me, here and now". Yes, of course you are. That's what being in the present moment is. You tell us you are in the present moment at a single location by that very phrase... You are obviously not at any other time or any other place. If you were you'd experience it but you don't. You experience yourself ONLY in the present moment of time in your present location in space. Block time can NOT explain that no matter how hard it tries. Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:39:06 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 26 February 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen > > 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
Stathis, You completely miss my point. First you are imagining a case which has no reality whatsoever. Your example with widely separated temporal selves somehow running sequentially doesn't even conform to block universe theory, much less to reality. Second you still have to RUN the sequence in time to get the effect of time flowing and motion. That requires the flowing time you deny. And you still haven't answered my question. What does block universe theory explain that flowing time doesn't? It doesn't even explain as much as flowing time, not more. Block universe theory was created on a MISunderstanding of time as a 4th dimension. Yes, relativity requires time as a 4th dimension, I certainly agree with that. But just as everything is at one and only one point in space so everything is at one and only one point in time as well - IN those 4 dimensions. Everything exists as a single POINT in that 4-dimensional universe, not as a worldline. The worldline is its history, not its real actual existence. This is the true picture that relativity paints. And obviously that worldline does NOT extend into the future. That's a completely crazy aspect of block universe theory to believe it does. The future does NOT exist. If you disagree then what does it explain that flowing time doesn't? Edgar On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:24:07 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen > > 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.
Tegmark and UDA step 3
I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really wasn't specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future technology allows you to be cloned while you're sleeping, and that your two copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1 (Figure 8.3). When they wake up, they'll both feel that the room number they read is completely unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible for you to upload your mind to a computer, then what I'm saying here will feel totally obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be as easy as making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. In other words, causal physics will produce the illusion of randomness from your subjective viewpoint in any circumstance where you're being cloned. The fundamental reason that quantum mechanics appears random even though the wave function evolves deterministically is that the Schrodinger equation can evolve a wavefunction with a single you into one with clones of you in parallel universes. So how does it feel when you get cloned? It feels random! And every time something fundamentally random appears to happen to you, which couldn't have been predicted even in principle, it's a sign that you've been cloned." Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Alien Hand/Limb Syndrome
> "The alien hand syndrome, as originally defined, was used to describe > cases involving anterior corpus callosal lesions producing involuntary > movement and a concomitant inability to distinguish the affected hand from > an examiner's hand when these were placed in the patient's unaffected hand. > In recent years, acceptable usage of the term has broadened considerably, > and has been defined as involuntary movement occurring in the context of > feelings of estrangement from or personification of the affected limb or > its movements. Three varieties of alien hand syndrome have been reported, > involving lesions of the corpus callosum alone, the corpus callosum plus > dominant medial frontal cortex, and posterior cortical/subcortical areas. A > patient with posterior alien hand syndrome of vascular aetiology is > reported and the findings are discussed in the light of a conceptualisation > of posterior alien hand syndrome as a disorder which may be less associated > with specific focal neuropathology than are its callosal and > callosal-frontal counterparts." - http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/1/83.full This kind of alienation from the function of a limb would seem to contradict functionalism. If functionalism identifies consciousness with function, then it would seem problematic that a functioning limb could be seen as estranged from the personal awareness, is it is really no different from a zombie in which the substitution level is set at the body level. There is no damage to the arm, no difference between one arm and another, and yet, its is felt to be outside of one's control and its sensations are felt not to be your sensations. This would be precisely the kind of estrangement that I would expect to encounter during a gradual replacement of the brain with any inorganic substitute. At the level at which food becomes non-food, so too would the brain become non-brain, and any animation of the nervous system would fail to be incorporated into personal awareness. The living brain could still learn to use the prosthetic, and ultimately imbue it with its own articulation and familiarity to a surprising extent, but it is a one way street and the prosthetic has no capacity to find the personal awareness and merge with it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Digital Neurology
On 26 February 2014 04:51, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> 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). If you start with the assumption that the physics relevant to brain function is not computable then computationalism is false: it would be impossible to make a machine that behaves like a human, either zombie or conscious. > 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. What I mean by functionalism is that the way the brain processes information, its I/O behaviour, is what generates mind. This implies multiple realisability of mental states, insofar as the same information processing could be done by another machine. If the machine is a digital computer then functionalism reduces to computationalism. If the brain utilises non-computable physics then you won't be able to reproduce its function (and the mind thus generated) with a digital computer, so computationalism is false. However, that does not necessarily mean that functionalism is false, since you may be able to implement the appropriate brain function through some other means. For example, if it turns out that a digital implementation of the brain fails because real numbers and not approximations are necessary, it may still be possible to implement a brain using analogue devices. >> 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. What can be proved is that if consciousness is due to the brain then replicating brain function in some other substrate will also replicate its consciousness. -- 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.
