date:20140313


Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO, I acknowledge that you are confident of 
the climate alarmists, yes, you concede that some Red-Greens (there are none 
others) oppose nuclear fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim 
nearly all. You write of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy 
with the clean. You have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' 
behavior, in not behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it 
as public policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as 
due to the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who are 
employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the scientists, 
as no one else dares to. Simon, pure, they are not. But this is mere, 
observation, and you will dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry, geology, 
and astronomy, the life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they pursue. What 
they pursue (no matter political affiliation) are, at least, not funded by 
greedy politicians, who are themselves funded by billionaire elites and their 
PAC's. Please invoke the Koch Brothers and I will be happy to list George 
Soros's influence in politics and his world view. 

Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I am not 
sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or air, I have 
read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my re-focus on solar, out 
of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no time for this development 
of solar, by greens. What do they want us to do, a rational person may ask 
(assuming we can find one)?

The great booming word from environmentalists is conservation, followed by the 
sound of chirping crickets, yes, there's a few crickets still alive after 
massive species decimation. When the discussion turns from technology to 
government control, and the necessity for it as promoted by pols who cite 
scientists, my spider-sense becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders left after 
environmental degradation. 


-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating






On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM,  spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

My integrity is not the issue,



Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal 
Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the error 
you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question you about it.


 

 for someone who states-
This all falls under gossipy political speculations about human motivations, 
I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation about natural 
science



Not sure what connection you think there is between this statement of mine and 
integrity. Would you respect my integrity more if I made up unfalsifiable 
fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of conservatives and global 
warming deniers to counter your equally unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about 
the nefarious motives of liberals and environmentalists?


 

 

Again, its science when its on your own terms, and it suits your ideology.



Not at all, as I said to John Clark I treat it as the default position that 
whenever scientists in a field of natural science express confidence about ANY 
technical claim in their field, and there doesn't seem to be substantial 
disagreement among them, then my starting assumption is that they are most 
likely right about this claim (an assumption I would only be likely to change 
if I acquired enough knowledge the field to understand the detailed basis for 
the claims myself and find technical reasons to doubt them, or if I found out 
that some substantial number of other scientists disputed the claim). This is a 
blanket view of all natural science claims that has nothing to do with 
political ideology, for example I have no patience with the view (all too 
common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since all 
the scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no more 
health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective breeding.


Anyone who does NOT adopt this blanket view of scientific claims is almost 
certainly filtering their evaluations of science through their personal 
ideology, and lacking respect for the importance of detailed technical 
understanding when evaluating scientific issues. I suspect your understanding 
of the detailed evidence behind many other scientific claims, like estimates of 
the age of the universe in cosmology, is just as poor as your understanding of 
the evidence surrounding global warming, but I imagine you don't put forth 
fantasy narratives of cosmologists peer-pressuring each other into accepting 
each other's models and wildly exaggerating the strength of the evidence for 
their theories, presumably because you have

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-03-13 11:45 GMT+01:00 spudboy...@aol.com:

  Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO,


I realize you can't read...

I'm quoting him:

 for example ***I*** have no patience with ***the view*** *(not his)* (all
too common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk
since *all the scientific experts I've seen* say that extensive study has
shown no more health risks from GMOs than from crops created through
selective breeding.


 I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists, yes, you
 concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose nuclear
 fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all. You write
 of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with the clean. You
 have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, in not
 behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as public
 policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as due to
 the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who are
 employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the
 scientists, as no one else dares to. Simon, pure, they are not. But this is
 mere, observation, and you will dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry,
 geology, and astronomy, the life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they
 pursue. What they pursue (no matter political affiliation) are, at least,
 not funded by greedy politicians, who are themselves funded by billionaire
 elites and their PAC's. Please invoke the Koch Brothers and I will be happy
 to list George Soros's influence in politics and his world view.

 Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I am
 not sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or air,
 I have read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my re-focus on
 solar, out of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no time for
 this development of solar, by greens. What do they want us to do, a
 rational person may ask (assuming we can find one)?

 The great booming word from environmentalists is conservation, followed by
 the sound of chirping crickets, yes, there's a few crickets still alive
 after massive species decimation. When the discussion turns from technology
 to government control, and the necessity for it as promoted by pols who
 cite scientists, my spider-sense becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders
 left after environmental degradation.
  -Original Message-
 From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am
 Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



 On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 My integrity is not the issue,


  Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal
 Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the
 error you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question you about
 it.



  for someone who states-
 *This all falls under gossipy political speculations about human
 motivations, I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation
 about natural science*


  Not sure what connection you think there is between this statement of
 mine and integrity. Would you respect my integrity more if I made up
 unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of
 conservatives and global warming deniers to counter your equally
 unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of liberals
 and environmentalists?



   Again, its science when its on your own terms, and it suits your
 ideology.


  Not at all, as I said to John Clark I treat it as the default position
 that whenever scientists in a field of natural science express confidence
 about ANY technical claim in their field, and there doesn't seem to be
 substantial disagreement among them, then my starting assumption is that
 they are most likely right about this claim (an assumption I would only be
 likely to change if I acquired enough knowledge the field to understand the
 detailed basis for the claims myself and find technical reasons to doubt
 them, or if I found out that some substantial number of other scientists
 disputed the claim). This is a blanket view of all natural science claims
 that has nothing to do with political ideology, for example I have no
 patience with the view (all too common among those on the left) that GMOs
 are a dangerous health risk since all the scientific experts I've seen say
 that extensive study has shown no more health risks from GMOs than from
 crops created through selective breeding.

  Anyone who does NOT adopt this blanket view of scientific claims is
 almost certainly filtering their evaluations of science through their
 personal ideology, and lacking respect for the importance of detailed
 technical understanding when evaluating scientific issues. I suspect your
 understanding of the detailed

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread Jesse Mazer

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:45 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO,


You really have no reading comprehension! My whole point was that I have NO
OBJECTION to GMOs. I said I have no patience with the view (all too common
among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since all
the scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no more
health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective breeding,
which means I DON'T think there is any elevated risk because I TRUST
SCIENTISTS IN GENERAL, regardless of which political side is trying to
oppose some of their research.



 I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists


I place confidence in climate SCIENTISTS when they themselves are strongly
confident about an issue in their field, just like I would with any other
natural scientists. But I guess in your world, climate scientist is
basically synonymous with climate alarmist.


, yes, you concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose
 nuclear fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all.


Of course you can present no evidence for this view, you judge things based
on cartoonish images of leftists in your mind (formed in bygone days I
bet--how old are you, out of curiosity?) rather than reality.



 You write of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with the
 clean.


I simply said my understanding is that it would be technically and
economically feasible to replace fossil fuels with solar, which is not to
say it is at hand because it would still be quite expensive and the
politicians are not in agreement about the urgency of a major Apollo-like
program to get this done.



 You have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, in
 not behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as public
 policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as due to
 the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who are
 employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the
 scientists, as no one else dares to.


And as I said, you seem to have a double standard about scientists, unless
you are broadly skeptical about ALL scientific claims whose detailed basis
you don't understand. If you were consistent, you would be open to the
possibility that evolution-deniers, HIV/AID deniers, and other crackpots
who dispute various theories are correct that scientists are colluding to
cover up the weakness in the evidence in these theories...but I bet you DO
trust the scientists in these cases, even without understanding the
detailed evidence. If you are not broadly skeptical of all science, that
means that you trust science when it doesn't conflict with your ideology,
but spin unfalsifiable narratives of shady conspiracies when it doesn't.

By the way, what's with all the out-of-place commas in your writing?
nefarious, motives?



 Simon, pure, they are not. But this is mere, observation, and you will
 dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry, geology, and astronomy, the
 life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they pursue. What they pursue (no
 matter political affiliation) are, at least, not funded by greedy
 politicians,


Um, all sciences rely on government funding (grants etc.), physics just as
much as climate science. And I'm pretty sure professors of climate science
aren't any richer than other science professors, becoming a university
professor is not the most lucrative profession. But anyway, thanks for
confirming that you DO have exactly the double standard about scientists
that I suggested.



 who are themselves funded by billionaire elites and their PAC's. Please
 invoke the Koch Brothers and I will be happy to list George Soros's
 influence in politics and his world view.


I'm sure you would love it if I would invoke the Koch brothers so you could
get back to what you love, which is science-free hot air about politics,
but as I said I'm not interested in that (plus I'm afraid I don't live up
to your cartoon stereotype of a leftist who believes America would be much
different if not for the baleful influence of those villainous Koch bros.)



 Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I am
 not sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or air,
 I have read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my re-focus on
 solar, out of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no time for
 this development of solar, by greens.


Which greens are saying this? Can you name any names, or is it just
another example of checking what the fantasy figures in your head would say
rather than consulting reality? Most of the mainstream environmental groups
with any real political clout seem to favor long-term plans that would
result in a gradual reduction of emissions and replacement with renewable
energies like solar over several decades, similar to the emissions

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:


because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the
 world for many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people


  What policies are you talking about that would have these supposed
 effects?


  Shut down all nuclear reactors immediately.
 Stop using coal.
 Stop all dam construction and dismantle the ones already built.
  Stop all oil and gas fracking.
 Stop using geothermal energy.
 Drastically reduce oil production and place a huge tax on what little
 that is produced.
 Don't Build wind farms in places where they look ugly, reduce wind
 currents, kill birds or cause noise.
 Don't use insecticides.
 Don't use Genetically Modified Organisms.
 Don't use herbicides.
 Do exactly what the European Greens say.


  So, like a creationist


You need a new insult, you've used that one before.

 you're unwilling to accurately depict the beliefs of those you disagree
 with, and instead

 you attack a boogeyman that has sprung mostly out of your own fevered
 imagination. There may be some radical environmentalists who believe these
 things, but [...]


From there official websites:

The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new
nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process

The Sierra Club* opposes* all coalbed methane extraction

The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and the
draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or
decommissioning of many other dams, including four large but high-cost dams
on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington.

The Sierra Club opposes a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland
Oregon's  drinking water.

The Sierra Club has been very active in its opposition to the proposed LNG
export facility in Warrenton, Oregon

Greenpeace wholeheartedly opposes the coal industry

Greenpeace opposes the release of genetically engineered  crops and
animals into the environment

And of the 11 imbecilic proposals I list above which ones would the
European Green Party oppose?

 There is consensus in the scientific community that things are slightly
 warmer now than they were a century ago, but there is most certainly NOT a
 consensus about how much hotter it will be a century from now, much less
 what to do about it or even if it's a bad thing.



 The study I linked to wasn't just about the fact that warming has
 occurred, it was specifically on the question of whether the recent warming
 is PRIMARILY CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES,


Given that there are 7 billion large mammals of the same species on the
planet who not only want to continue to live but to live well it would be
surprising indeed if human activities did not have a strong effect on the
environment.  And this is not a novel development, Great Britain was once
heavily forested and the romantic heaths and moors we see today were
primarily caused by human activities back when Stonehenge was new.


   The sun was a few percent weaker then, but that didn't stop the Earth
 from being 18 degrees hotter during the Carboniferous than now,



 With much higher CO2 levels, of course. Do you have an alternate
 explanation other than the greenhouse effect for *why* it was 18 degrees
 hotter back then, if the Sun was weaker?


There are many things I can't explain, like why the Ordovician with lots of
CO2 was so cold and the  Carboniferous with less CO2 was so hot. I would be
surprised if the greenhouse effect did not play a part but exactly how and
which greenhouse gas was most important I don't know. However I do know
that no explanation is better than a bad explanation.


 What difference would 4-5% less incoming solar energy make?


  I could be wrong but I would guess about 4 or 5 percent.



 Why would the effects be linear?


I guess you have no sense of humor.

 Global climate models, calibrated to today's conditions predict that
 [blah blah]


  Well that sounds nice and glib but exactly how in the world do you
 calibrate something as astoundingly complex as the global weather machine?



 I'm pretty sure when they say the models can be calibrated to
 conditions of today vs. the Ordivician,


Being sure is easy, being correct is not.

 they mean that the dynamical rules of the simulation can be kept the same
 while changing boundary conditions


I know what calibrate means and we're decades if not centuries away from
knowing enough to make such a thing  between the Ordovician and today.
Making the weather translation from the atmospheric chemistry, continent
position and solar energy input during the Ordovician to that of today is
about as far from trivial as anything I can think of. However the one thing
it can teach us right away is humility, climate is complicated.


 that are thought to differ between eras in ways that are roughly known,
 like solar input


Why would the effects be linear or simple?

 and the different prehistoric arrangement of continents.


Why

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleantechnica/


http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

https://www.facebook.com/GreensAgainstNuclear

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20216b54-8f53-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html

http://www.earthcomms.org/pro-nuclear-greens-dare-not-speak-out/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/06/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/

You get the idea. There's no solar solution at hand. There is only complaint 
and EPA-type ruling worldwide, that doesn't address rising oceans which is the 
AGW focus. I wonder what MG Kern would say?  ;-)   Oh, well. 

-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:45 AM,  spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO,



You really have no reading comprehension! My whole point was that I have NO 
OBJECTION to GMOs. I said I have no patience with the view (all too common 
among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since all the 
scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no more health 
risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective breeding, which 
means I DON'T think there is any elevated risk because I TRUST SCIENTISTS IN 
GENERAL, regardless of which political side is trying to oppose some of their 
research.


 

 I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists



I place confidence in climate SCIENTISTS when they themselves are strongly 
confident about an issue in their field, just like I would with any other 
natural scientists. But I guess in your world, climate scientist is basically 
synonymous with climate alarmist.





, yes, you concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose nuclear 
fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all.



Of course you can present no evidence for this view, you judge things based on 
cartoonish images of leftists in your mind (formed in bygone days I bet--how 
old are you, out of curiosity?) rather than reality.


 

 You write of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with the 
clean.



I simply said my understanding is that it would be technically and economically 
feasible to replace fossil fuels with solar, which is not to say it is at 
hand because it would still be quite expensive and the politicians are not in 
agreement about the urgency of a major Apollo-like program to get this done.


 

 You have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, in not 
behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as public policy, 
as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as due to the elites' 
short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who are employed by these 
people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the scientists, as no one else 
dares to.



And as I said, you seem to have a double standard about scientists, unless you 
are broadly skeptical about ALL scientific claims whose detailed basis you 
don't understand. If you were consistent, you would be open to the possibility 
that evolution-deniers, HIV/AID deniers, and other crackpots who dispute 
various theories are correct that scientists are colluding to cover up the 
weakness in the evidence in these theories...but I bet you DO trust the 
scientists in these cases, even without understanding the detailed evidence. If 
you are not broadly skeptical of all science, that means that you trust science 
when it doesn't conflict with your ideology, but spin unfalsifiable narratives 
of shady conspiracies when it doesn't.


By the way, what's with all the out-of-place commas in your writing? 
nefarious, motives?


 

 Simon, pure, they are not. But this is mere, observation, and you will dismiss 
this. As to physics, and chemistry, geology, and astronomy, the life sciences, 
I am ok, fine, with what they pursue. What they pursue (no matter political 
affiliation) are, at least, not funded by greedy politicians,



Um, all sciences rely on government funding (grants etc.), physics just as much 
as climate science. And I'm pretty sure professors of climate science aren't 
any richer than other science professors, becoming a university professor is 
not the most lucrative profession. But anyway, thanks for confirming that you 
DO have exactly the double standard about scientists that I suggested.


 

 who are themselves funded by billionaire elites and their PAC's. Please invoke 
the Koch Brothers and I will be happy to list George Soros's influence in 
politics and his world view.



I'm sure you would love it if I would invoke the Koch brothers so you could get 
back to what you love, which is science-free hot air about politics, but as I 
said I'm not interested

Re: truth of experience



On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hello Terren,


On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:


Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I  
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please  
forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality  
with t.



Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is  
possible.


Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it  
can mean situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous,  
would consist in showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in  
which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with the  
idea that this means that there is a reality in which A is true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of a  
reality verifying a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the  
constant true, or 1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is a  
reality.


t is possible looks like a category error to me.


t is equivalent with (p - p), it is the constant boolean valued  
function true. So t is an admissible atomic formula and  applies  
to all formula.


In the arithmetical interpretation (of the modal logic G), t is  
consistent('~(0=1)'), that is ~beweisbar('~(0=1)').


NOT PROVABLE FALSE = CONSISTENT TRUE.

~[]f  = t

This is standard use, in both modal logic and meta-arithmetic.





  A is possible means A refers to the state of some world.


No. It refers to a state, or to a world, or to a number, or to a cow.  
At this abstraction level, some world looks like a 1004 distracting  
pseudo-information. We are not doing metaphysics, just math, which  
then is applied to formulate the comp measure problem, and get quantum  
logic from there.




I don't see that t or 1=1 refers to some world, they are just  
tautologies, artifacts of language.


t is indeed a tautology, that is a proposition true (by definition) in  
all possible worlds (a world here is simply a function from the set  
of atomic sentences letter in {0, 1}, or {false, true}.


But 1=1 cannot be deduced from logic alone, and you need primitive  
terms, like s and 0, to name the non trivial object s(0), and you need  
some axioms on equality, =. Usually x = x, is an axiom.


In particular 1 = 1 does refer to a reality, which is the usual  
(standard) model of arithmetic, denoted by the mathematical structure  
(N, +, x).


1=1 is supposed to refer to that (mathematical) reality.






This, Aristotle and Leibniz understood, but Kripke enriched the  
notion of possibility by making the notion of possibility  
relative to the world you actually are.


Somehow, for the machine talking in first predicate logic, like PA  
and ZF, more can be said, once we interpret the modal box by the  
Gödelian beweisbar('p'), which can be translated in arithmetic.


First order theories have a nice metamathematical property,  
discovered by Gödel (in his PhD thesis), and know as completeness,  
which (here) means that provability is equivalent with truth in all  
models, where models are mathematical structure which can verify or  
not, but in a well defined mathematical sense, a formula of  
classical first order logical theories.
For example PA proves some sentences A, if and only if, A is true  
in all models of PA.


If []A is provability (beweisbar('A')), the dual A is consistency  
(~beweisbar('~A').


A = ~[]~A.

~A  is equivalent with  A - f   (as you can verify by doing the  
truth table)


 A = ~[]~A =  ~([](A - f))

Saying that you cannot prove a contradiction (f),  from A, means  
that A is consistent.


So t means, for PA, with the arithmetical translation  
~beweisbar('~t'), = ~beweisbar('f'), that PA is consistent, and by  
Gödel completeness theorem, this means that there is a mathematical  
structure (model) verifying 1=1.


So, although ~beweisbar('~t'), is an arithmetical proposition  
having some meaning in term of syntactical object (proofs)  
existence, it is also a way for PA, or Löbian entities, to refer,  
implicitly at first, to the existence of a reality.


But why should the failure to prove f imply anything about reality?


Because it preserves the hope that there is a reality to which you are  
connected.


If you prove 1=1 in classical logic, you can prove anything, you get  
inconsistent. There might still be a reality, but you are not  
connected to it.


You are in a cul-de-sac world, when seen in Kripke semantics of G.  
But don't take this in any literal way, except in terms of the  
behavior, including discourse of the machine.


The theory is correct for any arithmetically effective machines having  
sound extension beliefs of those beliefs:


0 ≠ (x + 1)
((x + 1) = (y + 1))  - x = y
x + 0 = x
x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1
x * 0 = 0
x * (y + 1) = (x * y) + x

+ the induction

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


I have little, issue, with Lazer's Green point of view. But, like you have 
stated, John, one must address certain political and tech issues to work for a 
fix. The proggies don't wish to address this for reasons that appear, to me, 
malicious. 

We'd need to be able to replace dirty energy with clean
and make sure access to clean water, air, and transportation, is guaranteed.
and get China, India, and Indonesia to cease there polluting. 
And, if their imminent ocean rise is now occurring, we'd naturally think of 
damming coast lines. 
If one wants to protect flora and fauna, the best way seems to be a rise in the 
standard of living.

This is not what is being sought, apparently. 


-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 10:52 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating




On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:












   because before you initiate a policy that will impoverish the world for 
  many generations and kill lots and lots and lots of people





 What policies are you talking about that would have these supposed 
 effects? 




 Shut down all nuclear reactors immediately.

Stop using coal.

Stop all dam construction and dismantle the ones already built.

Stop all oil and gas fracking.

Stop using geothermal energy.

Drastically reduce oil production and place a huge tax on what little that is 
produced.

Don't Build wind farms in places where they look ugly, reduce wind currents, 
kill birds or cause noise.

Don't use insecticides.

Don't use Genetically Modified Organisms.

Don't use herbicides.

Do exactly what the European Greens say. 





 So, like a creationist 




You need a new insult, you've used that one before. 





 you're unwilling to accurately depict the beliefs of those you disagree with, 
 and instead 



 you attack a boogeyman that has sprung mostly out of your own fevered 
imagination. There may be some radical environmentalists who believe these 
things, but [...]



From there official websites:  

The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new 
nuclearreactors utilizing the fission process

The Sierra Club opposes all coalbed methane extraction

The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and the 
draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or 
decommissioning of many other dams, including four large but high-cost dams on 
the lower Snake River in eastern Washington.

The Sierra Club opposes a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland Oregon's  
drinking water.


The Sierra Club has been very active in its opposition to the proposed LNG 
export facility in Warrenton, Oregon

 Greenpeace wholeheartedly opposes the coal industry

Greenpeace opposes the release of genetically engineered  crops and animals 
into the environment


And of the 11 imbecilic proposals I list above which ones would the European 
Green Party oppose?   






 There is consensus in the scientific community that things are slightly 
 warmer now than they were a century ago, but there is most certainly NOT a 
 consensus about how much hotter it will be a century from now, much less 
 what to do about it or even if it's a bad thing.




 

 The study I linked to wasn't just about the fact that warming has occurred, 
 it was specifically on the question of whether the recent warming is 
 PRIMARILY CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES,




Given that there are 7 billion large mammals of the same species on the planet 
who not only want to continue to live but to live well it would be surprising 
indeed if human activities did not have a strong effect on the environment.  
And this is not a novel development, Great Britain was once heavily forested 
and the romantic heaths and moors we see today were primarily caused by human 
activities back when Stonehenge was new.  


 



  The sun was a few percent weaker then, but that didn't stop the Earth from 
  being 18 degrees hotter during the Carboniferous than now,




 

 With much higher CO2 levels, of course. Do you have an alternate explanation 
 other than the greenhouse effect for *why* it was 18 degrees hotter back 
 then, if the Sun was weaker? 





There are many things I can't explain, like why the Ordovician with lots of CO2 
was so cold and the  Carboniferous with less CO2 was so hot. I would be 
surprised if the greenhouse effect did not play a part but exactly how and 
which greenhouse gas was most important I don't know. However I do know that no 
explanation is better than a bad explanation.








 What difference would 4-5% less incoming solar energy make?



 I could be wrong but I would guess about 4 or 5 percent.




 

 Why would the effects be linear?




I guess you have no sense of humor.




 Global climate models, calibrated to today's conditions predict that [blah 
 blah] 



 Well that sounds

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Chris de Morsella
cdemorse...@yahoo.comwrote:



  66 million years ago 2/3 of all species, not individual animals but
 entire species, became extinct quite literally overnight, and 252 million
 years ago it was even worse, the extinction rate was 90%.  What we're
 experiencing now is not even a burp.



 You do not know that those extinction events happened overnight - in fact
 you are wrong on that. The asteroid may have impacted off of the Yucatan
 overnight, but it could have taken decades and even hundreds of years to
 play out,


Worldwide it was dark as pitch for at least a year after the asteroid hit
and photosynthesis, the engine room of the entire ecology, was completely
shut down during that time; the surprising thing is that only 2/3 of all
species went extinct. And I made a error in the above, the correct figure
for the Permian extinction 252 million years ago is not 90%, it's closer to
96%.

  the current rate of species extinction - going on right now in our
 contemporary times - is around  10,000 times the average background rate
 [...] the data supports the claim that the current extinction rate is
 around 10,000 times the usual levels


I quote from Wikipedia:

The fact that we do not currently know the total number of species, in the
past nor the present, makes it very difficult to accurately calculate the
non-anthropogenically influenced extinction rates.  As a rate, it is
essential to know not just the number of extinctions, but also the number
of non-extinctions. This fact, coupled with the fact that the rates do not
remain constant, significantly reduces accuracy in estimates of the normal
rate of extinctions.


  It's no great mystery why some animals become extinct today, it's
 because 7 billion large mammals of the exact same species have spread from
 the pole to the equator, and that has never happened before. It would have
 been amazing if a event like that didn't cause a few animals to join the
 99.9% that have already gone extinct in the last 3 billion years.

  It is not a few animals John--despite what you choose to believe - we
 humans have triggered and are the cause of what is the beginning stages of
 a great extinction event.

I don't think so but even if you're right do you have a solution that
doesn't involve the extinction or at least a major culling of my very
favorite animal? If so let's hear it.

  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/d/optout.

Re: truth of experience



On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:


On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,

On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I  
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please  
forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality  
with t.
Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is  
possible.


Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it can  
mean situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous,  
would consist in showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in  
which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with the  
idea that this means that there is a reality in which A is true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of a  
reality verifying a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the  
constant true, or 1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is a  
reality.


You mean t asserts there is a reality in which the relevant  
proposition is true (e.g. one in which the dog is dangerous) ?


Exactly. (Although possible(dog is dangerous) is more (dog-is- 
dangerous) than t, which is more like possible(dog is dog).


That's Kripke semantics: A is true in alpha IF THERE IS A REALITY  
beta verifying A.


so

t is true in alpha if there is a reality beta verifying t.

Now, Kripke semantics extends classical propositional logic, and t is  
verified in all worlds. So, if alpha verifies t (if t is true in  
alpha), then t means simply that there is some world beta accessible  
(given that t is true in all world).


t = truth is possible = I am consistent = there is a reality  
out there = I am connected to a reality =truth is accessible.


Note that this well captured by modal logic, but also by important  
theorem for first order theories. In particular Gödel completeness  
theorem, which can put in this way: a theory is consistent if and only  
the theory has a model.


Gödel completeness (two equivalent versions):
- provable(p) (in a theory) entails p is true in all models of the  
theory.
- consistent(p) (in a theory) entails there is at least one model in  
which p is verified (true).


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 12 Mar 2014, at 20:31, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:


On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:38:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. Me too. But modern physics has a strong mathematical flavor, and  
consciousness seems more to be an immaterial belief or knowledge  
than something made of particles, so, if interested in the mind body  
problem, the platonic perspective has some merit, especially taking  
into account the failure of Aristotelian dualism.


That's an interesting topic, to be sure.  Does comp actually help at  
all to solve the hard problem?



A priori, no. The point of the UDA is not that comp solves any  
problem, but that it leads to a new problem: the problem = to justify  
the empirical statistics from a statistics of computations as seen by  
the machines/numbers.


Comp is not a solution, comp *is a problem*.

The advantage, is that, thanks to the work of Cantor, Gödel,  
Kleene, ..., we do have a powerful tool, computer science/mathematical  
logic, to formulate the question mathematically, and in this case, it  
consists in just listen to what the machines can already say about  
themselves.


And in a nutshell, the machine describes a theology, including a  
physics, so we can test comp.




When I think about it qualia, I have five main questions that I'd  
want a philosophy of mind to propose answers for.


OK.



1. What are qualia made of?


Qualia are not made of something. if you dream about a statue, *that*  
statue that you see in your dream is not made of anything, as there is  
only a computation occurring in your brain.


With comp or without comp, we know today that a tiny part of the  
arithmetical reality emulates, in the Church-Turing sense, all  
computations.


This does not explain qualia, but illustrates why there is no sense to  
the idea that qualia are *made of something*. They are only mental, or  
Turing universal machines' constructions.


What happens is that if we attribute the qualia to brains activity,  
qua computatio, then we have to attribute qualia to infinities of  
arithmetical relations.





2. Why do patterns of ions and neurotransmitters crossing bilipid  
membranes in certain regions of the brain correlate perfectly to  
qualia?


The comp most classical qualia theory (which is X1*) can hardly help  
for that question, but I guess it is how nature implemented what is  
necessary in the X1* maintenance. So to speak.






3. How is a quale related to what it is about, under normal  
circumstances?



By analogies, and long histories. Given the unpleasant character of  
being wounded, notably in battle field, or aggression by predator, the  
color red get connotational meaning, well handled by associative  
machineries.
Of course you ask interesting questions, and we can only scratch the  
surface. More below.





What about when a quale is caused by artificially stimulated  
neurons, dreams, hallucinations, sensory illusions, mistakes in  
thought or memory, etc?


In Hobson theory of dreams, dreams are just the re-enacting of the  
cortical, and some limbic, of neurons, trigged by the cerebral stem.  
Universal machine can imitate themselves too, in different contexts,  
and it is useful for planning, compiling, summarizing, classifying,  
ranging, and eventually the hard work: forgetting the irrelevant  
information which respect to the fundamental goal.






4. How can qualia affect the brain's processes, such that we can act  
on their information and talk and write about them?


Unlike pure consciousness, qualia have perceptible fields. They have  
geometries, maps, and help to summarized gigantic information flux  
into meaningful scenario.


Some insects' qualia are what plants taught them to guide them into  
pollination.






5. How could we know that belief in qualia is justified?


Like consciousness, the machines cannot justify a part of the meaning  
of qualia. That part can still be derived, for simple machines, and  
shown invariant for their sound extension. Those are the qualia  
appearing in the annulus X1* \ X1.


The qualia are observable ([]p  t), and true (p): []p  t  p,  
with p sigma_1 arithmetical, to define the measure on UD*, or the  
sigma_1 complete reality.






How could our instinctive belief in qualia be developed by correct  
and reliable brain processes?



By breeding them, or if you want, by dialogs open to truth, and  
avoiding lies. A large part of AI *has to be* experimental. It is  
already like that for the most part of arithmetic, when lived from  
inside.







Chalmers' ideas, for example, involve answers to 1-3 that sound  
reasonable, but they stumble badly on 4-5.  Comp and other  
mathematical Platonist ideas seem to me to give interesting answers  
to 2-4 but flub 1 and 5.


The machine can already justify why you ask something impossible. If  
you truly believe that 5 can have an answer, you might build on a  
assumption incompatible with comp.



No problem with that. Comp is believed by almost

Re: truth of experience


On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hello Terren,


On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:


Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I haven't had the 
time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't understand 
how you could represent reality with t.



Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is possible.

Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it can mean situation, 
state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous, would consist in 
showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with the idea that this 
means that there is a reality in which A is true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of a reality verifying 
a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the constant true, or 1=1 
in arithmetic, simply means that there is a reality.


t is possible looks like a category error to me.


t is equivalent with (p - p), it is the constant boolean valued function true. So t 
is an admissible atomic formula and  applies to all formula.


In the arithmetical interpretation (of the modal logic G), t is consistent('~(0=1)'), 
that is ~beweisbar('~(0=1)').


NOT PROVABLE FALSE = CONSISTENT TRUE.

~[]f  = t

This is standard use, in both modal logic and meta-arithmetic.





  A is possible means A refers to the state of some world.


No. It refers to a state, or to a world, or to a number, or to a cow. At this 
abstraction level, some world looks like a 1004 distracting pseudo-information. We are 
not doing metaphysics, just math, which then is applied to formulate the comp measure 
problem, and get quantum logic from there.




I don't see that t or 1=1 refers to some world, they are just tautologies, 
artifacts of language.


t is indeed a tautology, that is a proposition true (by definition) in all possible 
worlds (a world here is simply a function from the set of atomic sentences letter in 
{0, 1}, or {false, true}.


But 1=1 cannot be deduced from logic alone, and you need primitive terms, like s and 
0, to name the non trivial object s(0), and you need some axioms on equality, =. 
Usually x = x, is an axiom.


In particular 1 = 1 does refer to a reality, which is the usual (standard) model of 
arithmetic, denoted by the mathematical structure (N, +, x).


1=1 is supposed to refer to that (mathematical) reality.






This, Aristotle and Leibniz understood, but Kripke enriched the notion of 
possibility by making the notion of possibility relative to the world you actually are.


Somehow, for the machine talking in first predicate logic, like PA and ZF, more can be 
said, once we interpret the modal box by the Gödelian beweisbar('p'), which can be 
translated in arithmetic.


First order theories have a nice metamathematical property, discovered by Gödel (in 
his PhD thesis), and know as completeness, which (here) means that provability is 
equivalent with truth in all models, where models are mathematical structure which can 
verify or not, but in a well defined mathematical sense, a formula of classical first 
order logical theories.

For example PA proves some sentences A, if and only if, A is true in all models 
of PA.

If []A is provability (beweisbar('A')), the dual A is consistency 
(~beweisbar('~A').

A = ~[]~A.

~A  is equivalent with  A - f   (as you can verify by doing the truth table)

 A = ~[]~A =  ~([](A - f))

Saying that you cannot prove a contradiction (f),  from A, means that A is 
consistent.

So t means, for PA, with the arithmetical translation ~beweisbar('~t'), 
= ~beweisbar('f'), that PA is consistent, and by Gödel *_completeness_* theorem, this 
means that there is a mathematical structure (model) verifying 1=1.


So, although ~beweisbar('~t'), is an arithmetical proposition having some meaning in 
term of syntactical object (proofs) existence, it is also a way for PA, or Löbian 
entities, to refer, implicitly at first, to the existence of a reality.


But why should the failure to prove f imply anything about reality?


Because it preserves the hope that there is a reality to which you are 
connected.

If you prove 1=1 in classical logic, you can prove anything, you get inconsistent. 
There might still be a reality, but you are not connected to it.


Above you deflect the criticism of a category error by saying, We are not doing 
metaphysics, just math, which then is applied to formulate the comp measure problem, and 
get quantum logic from there.  But then it turns out you really are doing metaphysics. 
You are taking a tautology in mathematics and using it to infer things about reality and 
your relation to it.


Brent




You are in a cul-de-sac world, when seen in Kripke semantics of G. But

Re: truth of experience


On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:


On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 
mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Hello Terren,

On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I haven't 
had the
time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't
understand how you could represent reality with t.

Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is possible.

Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it can mean
situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.

To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous, would 
consist in
showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in which a dog is dangerous.

so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with the idea 
that this
means that there is a reality in which A is true.

Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of a reality
verifying a proposition.

In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the constant true, 
or
1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is a reality.


You mean t asserts there is a reality in which the relevant proposition is true (e.g. 
one in which the dog is dangerous) ?


Exactly. (Although possible(dog is dangerous) is more (dog-is-dangerous) than t, 
which is more like possible(dog is dog).


That's Kripke semantics: A is true in alpha IF THERE IS A REALITY beta 
verifying A.

so

t is true in alpha if there is a reality beta verifying t.

Now, Kripke semantics extends classical propositional logic, and t is verified in all 
worlds.


This is a point that confuses me in trying your exercises (which I'm attempting to do 
without reading your exchanges with Liz).  There you refer to a formula being respected 
when it is true in all worlds for all valuations.  But does all valuations of a formula 
A include f when A=p-p?  Are we to assume that t is a formula in all worlds and it's 
value is always t?  And then is f also a formula in every world?


Brent


So, if alpha verifies t (if t is true in alpha), then t means simply that there is 
some world beta accessible (given that t is true in all world).


t = truth is possible = I am consistent = there is a reality out there = I am 
connected to a reality =truth is accessible.


Note that this well captured by modal logic, but also by important theorem for first 
order theories. In particular Gödel completeness theorem, which can put in this way: a 
theory is consistent if and only the theory has a model.


Gödel completeness (two equivalent versions):
- provable(p) (in a theory) entails p is true in all models of the theory.
- consistent(p) (in a theory) entails there is at least one model in which p is verified 
(true).


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip



On 13 Mar 2014, at 09:19, Kim Jones wrote:

The other thing that occurs to me concerning happiness is that many  
feel that happiness is something bigger than or more important  
than a simple feeling or emotion. To say that smoking cannabis  
makes you happy will almost certainly cause some to react that I am  
trivialising happiness.


*and* trivialising cannabis. Perhaps.




Nothing could be further from the truth. Anything you do that causes  
happiness in your life becomes one of your values, and what you  
value you strive to obtain. If you already have it, you will want to  
protect it and keep it.


There is a problem though, on two fronts.

1. Things run out. If your happiness depends on something material  
like cannabis or coffee or real estate, you will sooner or later  
exhaust your supply of it and find yourself running around trying to  
restock your supply. This is not itself always a particularly happy  
experience. I often find myself going a version of insane trying to  
find parking at shopping centres and waiting in long, slow queues to  
get to the checkout, for example. I have never fully understood why  
life and survival are totally predicated on obtaining stuff and  
protecting stuff and consuming stuff. We are happy when we have  
stuff to consume and when we run out of stuff we then render  
ourselves unhappy going after it again ( well, at least I do...) The  
ridiculous and perpetual cycle of Be silent. Consume. Die.


2. Happiness, being a quale, cannot persist, possibly because of 1.  
(above), though entirely more likely due to the tiring effect of  
neurotransmitters in the brain. For some reason, the brain develops  
a tolerance for its own chemicals and happiness ceases to happen  
after a time because no mental state can persist indefinitely. Just  
as it is highly unlikely that a fit of anger will last forever, it  
is highly unlikely that happiness will either since mental states  
require resources to run and the more powerful the quale, the more  
resources the body consumes. Just as those who smoke cannabis every  
day find quickly that it requires more and more of the substance to  
achieve the desired euphoric effect, any means of achieving  
happiness will sooner or later not work at all. I mean, after you  
have bought half a dozen blocks of apartments in Tasmania, is a  
seventh really going to make you happier than you were after you  
purchased the sixth?


Happiness, for those who love to philosophise it into something  
other than a simple quale, will be recognisable as that state of  
mind that does not cease. In other words, no one ever truly  
experiences happiness since no one - not even the jolly joyful Dalai  
Lama - has ever experienced a quale that never ends.


To take a Buddhist page out of his book though, it becomes the  
foundation of wisdom to try to seek happiness by means other than  
running around trying to obtain and replenish stuff. This is  
surely because any belief in matter and materiality leads to the  
pain and agony of what I am struggling to describe here.


It may be that my fascination for Bruno's Comp is due to its kernel  
of doubt concerning the supreme importance of matter and the  
material world.


Comp makes me happy. I have yet to fully understand it.



I think cannabis is only an amplifier of life sense, so that it makes  
you better appreciate what you already appreciate: it opens the life  
appetite.


I think that comp is more like salvia. It opens the appetite for  
afterlife, prelife, and beyond. It illustrates something else, a  
different view on reality, and I am not sure most people appreciate  
it (even as an hallucination).


I mean it is like with wine, or logic, you must educate your sense of  
appreciation, and there are variety of happiness possible.


Yet, happiness is a protagorean virtue, there is no rule, no  
algorithm. Only truth, and first person views. Happiness probably  
obeys something like []h - ~h.


There are many examples illustrating the fate of named ([])   
protagorean virtues (although not in those terms), in Alan Watts the  
wisdom of insecurity.


The taoists are not bad on that, too.

You know I love the french (a bit cynical) poem:

'man had the good,
but he sought the best,
he found the bad,
and kept it,
by fear of the worst.'

Kind regards,

Bruno






Kim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: truth of experience



On 13 Mar 2014, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/13/2014 8:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:14, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/12/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hello Terren,


On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:


Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately  
I haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so  
please forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent  
reality with t.



Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A  
is possible.


Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it  
can mean situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is  
dangerous, would consist in showing a situation, or a world, or a  
reality in which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with  
the idea that this means that there is a reality in which A is  
true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of  
a reality verifying a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the  
constant true, or 1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is  
a reality.


t is possible looks like a category error to me.


t is equivalent with (p - p), it is the constant boolean valued  
function true. So t is an admissible atomic formula and   
applies to all formula.


In the arithmetical interpretation (of the modal logic G), t is  
consistent('~(0=1)'), that is ~beweisbar('~(0=1)').


NOT PROVABLE FALSE = CONSISTENT TRUE.

~[]f  = t

This is standard use, in both modal logic and meta-arithmetic.





  A is possible means A refers to the state of some world.


No. It refers to a state, or to a world, or to a number, or to a  
cow. At this abstraction level, some world looks like a 1004  
distracting pseudo-information. We are not doing metaphysics, just  
math, which then is applied to formulate the comp measure problem,  
and get quantum logic from there.




I don't see that t or 1=1 refers to some world, they are just  
tautologies, artifacts of language.


t is indeed a tautology, that is a proposition true (by definition)  
in all possible worlds (a world here is simply a function from  
the set of atomic sentences letter in {0, 1}, or {false, true}.


But 1=1 cannot be deduced from logic alone, and you need  
primitive terms, like s and 0, to name the non trivial object s(0),  
and you need some axioms on equality, =. Usually x = x, is an  
axiom.


In particular 1 = 1 does refer to a reality, which is the usual  
(standard) model of arithmetic, denoted by the   
mathematical structure (N, +, x).


1=1 is supposed to refer to that (mathematical) reality.






This, Aristotle and Leibniz understood, but Kripke enriched the  
notion of possibility by making the notion of possibility  
relative to the world you actually are.


Somehow, for the machine talking in first predicate logic, like  
PA and ZF, more can be said, once we interpret the modal box by  
the Gödelian beweisbar('p'), which can be translated in  
arithmetic.


First order theories have a nice metamathematical property,  
discovered by Gödel (in his PhD thesis), and know as  
completeness, which (here) means that provability is equivalent  
with truth in all models, where models are mathematical structure  
which can verify or not, but in a well defined mathematical  
sense, a formula of classical first order logical theories.
For example PA proves some sentences A, if and only if, A is true  
in all models of PA.


If []A is provability (beweisbar('A')), the dual A is  
consistency (~beweisbar('~A').


A = ~[]~A.

~A  is equivalent with  A - f   (as you can verify by doing the  
truth table)


 A = ~[]~A =  ~([](A - f))

Saying that you cannot prove a contradiction (f),  from A, means  
that A is consistent.


So t means, for PA, with the arithmetical translation  
~beweisbar('~t'), = ~beweisbar('f'), that PA is consistent, and  
by Gödel completeness theorem, this means that there is a  
mathematical structure (model) verifying 1=1.


So, although ~beweisbar('~t'), is an arithmetical proposition  
having some meaning in term of syntactical object (proofs)  
existence, it is also a way for PA, or Löbian entities, to refer,  
implicitly at first, to the existence of a reality.


But why should the failure to prove f imply anything about reality?


Because it preserves the hope that there is a reality to which you  
are connected.


If you prove 1=1 in classical logic, you can prove anything, you  
get inconsistent. There might still be a reality, but you are not  
connected to it.


Above you deflect the criticism of a category error by saying, We  
are not doing metaphysics, just math, which then is applied to  
formulate the comp measure problem, and get quantum logic from  
there.  But then it turns out you really are doing metaphysics.   
You are taking a tautology in mathematics and using it to infer

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


I realize that your comment does nothing to enhance your ideology, nor, enforce 
conformity to a Green/Red worldview. The discussion is not about problem 
solving, but about enforcement of the ideology. Plus, I do find long written 
dissertations  tiresome for the forum. Brevity is always appreciated, even 
yours. 

Regards


-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 7:31 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







2014-03-13 11:45 GMT+01:00  spudboy...@aol.com:

Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO, 



I realize you can't read...


I'm quoting him: 


 for example ***I*** have no patience with ***the view*** (not his) (all too 
common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since all 
the scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no more 
health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective breeding.
 

I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists, yes, you concede 
that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose nuclear fission, you would 
say some of them, and I will claim nearly all. You write of solar as if it now 
at hand, to replace dirty energy with the clean. You have no comment on the 
inconsistency of the power elites' behavior, in not behaving as if there is no 
climate change, yet advocating it as public policy, as if it were true. You 
have dismissed this inconsistency as due to the elites' short-term thinking, 
and concur with the scientists who are employed by these people. I do ascribe 
nefarious, motives, to the scientists, as no one else dares to. Simon, pure, 
they are not. But this is mere, observation, and you will dismiss this. As to 
physics, and chemistry, geology, and astronomy, the life sciences, I am ok, 
fine, with what they pursue. What they pursue (no matter political affiliation) 
are, at least, not funded by greedy politicians, who are themselves funded by 
billionaire elites and their PAC's. Please invoke the Koch Brothers and I will 
be happy to list George Soros's influence in politics and his world view. 
 
Thorium reactors, molten salt, or liquid fluoride might be safer, but I am not 
sure, I don't know. If molten salt comes in contact with water or air, I have 
read it could combust, and combust, furiously. Hence, my re-focus on solar, out 
of necessity. Yet, we are being told that there's no time for this development 
of solar, by greens. What do they want us to do, a rational person may ask 
(assuming we can find one)?
 
The great booming word from environmentalists is conservation, followed by the 
sound of chirping crickets, yes, there's a few crickets still alive after 
massive species decimation. When the discussion turns from technology to 
government control, and the necessity for it as promoted by pols who cite 
scientists, my spider-sense becomes active. Yes, there a few spiders left after 
environmental degradation. 



-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:36 PM,  spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

My integrity is not the issue,



Yes it is, since you made an error in your reading of the Royal 
Society/National Academy of Sciences paper, and instead of admitting the error 
you simply ignore the issue even when I repeatedly question you about it.


 

 for someone who states-
This all falls under gossipy political speculations about human motivations, 
I'm not interested in dragging this stuff into a conversation about natural 
science



Not sure what connection you think there is between this statement of mine and 
integrity. Would you respect my integrity more if I made up unfalsifiable 
fantasy narratives about the nefarious motives of conservatives and global 
warming deniers to counter your equally unfalsifiable fantasy narratives about 
the nefarious motives of liberals and environmentalists?


 

 

Again, its science when its on your own terms, and it suits your ideology.



Not at all, as I said to John Clark I treat it as the default position that 
whenever scientists in a field of natural science express confidence about ANY 
technical claim in their field, and there doesn't seem to be substantial 
disagreement among them, then my starting assumption is that they are most 
likely right about this claim (an assumption I would only be likely to change 
if I acquired enough knowledge the field to understand the detailed basis for 
the claims myself and find technical reasons to doubt them, or if I found out 
that some substantial number of other scientists disputed the claim). This is a 
blanket view of all natural science claims that has nothing to do with 
political ideology, for example I have no patience with the view (all

Re: truth of experience



On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:


On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,

On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I  
haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please  
forgive me but I don't understand how you could represent reality  
with t.
Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is  
possible.


Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it  
can mean situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous,  
would consist in showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in  
which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with  
the idea that this means that there is a reality in which A is true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of  
a reality verifying a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the  
constant true, or 1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is  
a reality.


You mean t asserts there is a reality in which the relevant  
proposition is true (e.g. one in which the dog is dangerous) ?


Exactly. (Although possible(dog is dangerous) is more (dog-is- 
dangerous) than t, which is more like possible(dog is dog).


That's Kripke semantics: A is true in alpha IF THERE IS A  
REALITY beta verifying A.


so

t is true in alpha if there is a reality beta verifying t.

Now, Kripke semantics extends classical propositional logic, and t  
is verified in all worlds.


This is a point that confuses me in trying your exercises (which I'm  
attempting to do without reading your exchanges with Liz).  There  
you refer to a formula being respected when it is true in all  
worlds for all valuations.  But does all valuations of a formula A  
include f when A=p-p?


No, the valuations are defined only on the atomic  p, q, r,  (in  
modal propositional logic).
Then the arbitrary formula get their value by the truth table, and the  
modal formula get their value by the Kripke semantics, that is, the  
truth values of the boxed an diamonded propositions depends on the  
locally accessible worlds.





Are we to assume that t is a formula in all worlds and it's value  
is always t?


Yes. It is a boolean constant. You can suppress it and replaced it by  
(p - p), as this is true in all words (as this is true in the worlds  
where p is true, and is true in the worlds where p is false).







And then is f also a formula in every world?


You can represent it by (p  ~p), or just ~t, and it is false in every  
world.


The cul-de-sac worlds get close, as they verify []f.

Fortunately they don't verify []A - A.

f is never met, in any world, but you can met []f, [][]f, [][][]f, ...  
G* proves ◊[]f, ◊[][]f,◊[][][]f, ... in the G-worlds.


(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)

Bruno







Brent


So, if alpha verifies t (if t is true in alpha), then t means  
simply that there is some world beta accessible (given that t is  
true in all world).


t = truth is possible = I am consistent = there is a reality  
out there = I am connected to a reality =truth is accessible.


Note that this well captured by modal logic, but also by important  
theorem for first order theories. In particular Gödel completeness  
theorem, which can put in this way: a theory is consistent if and  
only the theory has a model.


Gödel completeness (two equivalent versions):
- provable(p) (in a theory) entails p is true in all models of the  
theory.
- consistent(p) (in a theory) entails there is at least one model  
in which p is verified (true).


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email

Re: truth of experience


On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:

On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be 
wrote:


Hello Terren,

On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately I haven't 
had
the time to follow the modal logic threads, so please forgive me but I don't
understand how you could represent reality with t.

Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A is possible.

Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it can mean
situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.

To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is dangerous, would 
consist
in showing a situation, or a world, or a reality in which a dog is 
dangerous.

so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with the idea 
that
this means that there is a reality in which A is true.

Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence of a reality
verifying a proposition.

In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the constant true, 
or
1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there is a reality.


You mean t asserts there is a reality in which the relevant proposition is true 
(e.g. one in which the dog is dangerous) ?


Exactly. (Although possible(dog is dangerous) is more (dog-is-dangerous) than t, 
which is more like possible(dog is dog).


That's Kripke semantics: A is true in alpha IF THERE IS A REALITY beta 
verifying A.

so

t is true in alpha if there is a reality beta verifying t.

Now, Kripke semantics extends classical propositional logic, and t is verified in all 
worlds.


This is a point that confuses me in trying your exercises (which I'm attempting to do 
without reading your exchanges with Liz).  There you refer to a formula being 
respected when it is true in all worlds for all valuations.  But does all 
valuations of a formula A include f when A=p-p?


No, the valuations are defined only on the atomic  p, q, r,  (in modal propositional 
logic).
Then the arbitrary formula get their value by the truth table, and the modal formula get 
their value by the Kripke semantics, that is, the truth values of the boxed an 
diamonded propositions depends on the locally accessible worlds.


Then t and f cannot be treated as atomic propositions, which was my objection to writing 
t. In such a formula, t can only be regarded as shorthand for some tautology.  So t 
doesn't mean There is some reality it means There is some tautology: a proposition that 
is t in virtue of the definition of relations , V, ~, etc.








Are we to assume that t is a formula in all worlds and it's value is always t?


Yes. It is a boolean constant. You can suppress it and replaced it by (p - p), as this 
is true in all words (as this is true in the worlds where p is true, and is true in the 
worlds where p is false).







And then is f also a formula in every world?


You can represent it by (p  ~p), or just ~t, and it is false in every world.

The cul-de-sac worlds get close, as they verify []f.

Fortunately they don't verify []A - A.

f is never met, in any world, but you can met []f, [][]f, [][][]f, ... G* proves ◊[]f, 
◊[][]f,◊[][][]f, ... in the G-worlds.


You say (p  ~p) is false in every world, but f is never met in any world.  That seems 
contradictory.  If p is a proposition in some world, are we not always allowed to form (p 
 ~p), which will have the value f for all valuations of p?






(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)


I see it.

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/d/optout.

Re: truth of experience

2014-03-13 Thread LizR

 (Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)

Yes I do!

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread LizR

Interesting! I see the first article has been rebutted...

http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/

...personally I am in favour of safe nuclear, assuming it is in fact safe.
The problem being that when it wasn't, it was used a lot, so it's got a
very bad rep.

On 14 March 2014 04:16, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleantechnica/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

https://www.facebook.com/GreensAgainstNuclear

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20216b54-8f53-11e3-9cb0-00144feab7de.html

http://www.earthcomms.org/pro-nuclear-greens-dare-not-speak-out/

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/06/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/

You get the idea. There's no solar solution at hand. There is only
complaint and EPA-type ruling worldwide, that doesn't address rising oceans
which is the AGW focus. I wonder what MG Kern would say? ;-) Oh, well.
-Original Message-
From: Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 9:36 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:45 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Yes, I realize you are opposed to GMO,

You really have no reading comprehension! My whole point was that I have
NO OBJECTION to GMOs. I said I have no patience with the view (all too
common among those on the left) that GMOs are a dangerous health risk since
all the scientific experts I've seen say that extensive study has shown no
more health risks from GMOs than from crops created through selective
breeding, which means I DON'T think there is any elevated risk because I
TRUST SCIENTISTS IN GENERAL, regardless of which political side is trying
to oppose some of their research.

I acknowledge that you are confident of the climate alarmists

I place confidence in climate SCIENTISTS when they themselves are
strongly confident about an issue in their field, just like I would with
any other natural scientists. But I guess in your world, climate
scientist is basically synonymous with climate alarmist.

, yes, you concede that some Red-Greens (there are none others) oppose
nuclear fission, you would say some of them, and I will claim nearly all.

Of course you can present no evidence for this view, you judge things
based on cartoonish images of leftists in your mind (formed in bygone
days I bet--how old are you, out of curiosity?) rather than reality.

You write of solar as if it now at hand, to replace dirty energy with
the clean.

I simply said my understanding is that it would be technically and
economically feasible to replace fossil fuels with solar, which is not to
say it is at hand because it would still be quite expensive and the
politicians are not in agreement about the urgency of a major Apollo-like
program to get this done.

You have no comment on the inconsistency of the power elites' behavior,
in not behaving as if there is no climate change, yet advocating it as
public policy, as if it were true. You have dismissed this inconsistency as
due to the elites' short-term thinking, and concur with the scientists who
are employed by these people. I do ascribe nefarious, motives, to the
scientists, as no one else dares to.

And as I said, you seem to have a double standard about scientists,
unless you are broadly skeptical about ALL scientific claims whose detailed
basis you don't understand. If you were consistent, you would be open to
the possibility that evolution-deniers, HIV/AID deniers, and other
crackpots who dispute various theories are correct that scientists are
colluding to cover up the weakness in the evidence in these theories...but
I bet you DO trust the scientists in these cases, even without
understanding the detailed evidence. If you are not broadly skeptical of
all science, that means that you trust science when it doesn't conflict
with your ideology, but spin unfalsifiable narratives of shady conspiracies
when it doesn't.

By the way, what's with all the out-of-place commas in your writing?
nefarious, motives?

Simon, pure, they are not. But this is mere, observation, and you will
dismiss this. As to physics, and chemistry, geology, and astronomy, the
life sciences, I am ok, fine, with what they pursue. What they pursue (no
matter political affiliation) are, at least, not funded by greedy
politicians,

Um, all sciences rely on government funding (grants etc.), physics just
as much as climate science. And I'm pretty sure professors of climate
science aren't any richer than other science professors, becoming a
university professor is not the most lucrative profession. But anyway,
thanks for confirming that you DO have exactly the double standard about
scientists that I suggested.

who are themselves funded by

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread LizR

On 14 March 2014 12:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 Please note, the way to either techs success is not through energy
 starvation, nor abandoning the world to poverty.

 I hope nobody in their right mind is actually advocating this. I'd like to
live a long time and visit other stars, not live back in The Golden Age
(that never was).

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

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-13 Thread ghibbsa


On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:56:04 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:17 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


  I think on the scale of 4 billion years the sort of margin we're 
 talking about is that necessary to keep water liquid on the surface.  

  
  At least twice in the last 4 billion years water WAS kept below the 
 freezing point at the surface, from the pole continuously to the equator  
 and we had a snowball Earth. It happened once about 1.5 billion years ago 
 and again about 700 million years ago; why it happened and once it did how 
 things ever warmed up again is not well understood, just like most things 
 in climate science.  
  

  
  I  knew you'd say that. So what if there are two periods or more when 
 liquid water wasn't free running. Does that alter the fact that liquid 
 water has been *roughly* in situ over  billion years while the sun warmed 
 20%? Do you actually dispute that this is something that needs explaining?

  
 No and I don't claim to know all the answers, I'd like to knowwhy the 
 Earth turned into a snowball from pole to equator .7 billion years ago but 
 from 1.5 to .7 billion, when our star was even weaker, it did not and 
 despite a weaker sun things were much warmer. Apparently the climate 
 machine is a bit more complicated than what some would have us believe.  

 
You're apparently suggesting science doesn't get it climate is complicated. 
Is this because the process of science has accumulated a large body of 
evidence co2 is the dominant greenhouse house? Is that unexpected from a 
complex system? You see irreducibility? The climate is stable and 
robust...the indication is for a mesh of mechanisms in play. That must have 
seen evolution. Life is at one end, but a lot of it  isn't alive. A complex 
system needs simplifiers - periodicity. There's a body of science now for 
the part of co2. 
 
Life - anywhere in the universe - if complex is an ecosystem, and 
ecosystems need to emerge from  non-life and then see evolution. Living 
planets like Earth are probably very much the other half of that. Had no 
complex plate techtonics emerged and stabilized, in the process producing 
granite, which floats to make continents, without which plate tectonics 
would not be stable, and the complex process of recycling, of co2 for one, 
wouldn't have systemized. Surface co2 would run out after 40 million years, 
so that be final curtains for life, and the planet would freeze over 
completely and that's the way it'd stay until the sun boiled it all away. 
 
Co2 is potent in the presence of water vapour only. One without the other  
doesn't work. Water vapour isn't self-sustaining. Meaning, if you have this 
much water vapour in the atm today, then tomorrow you'll have a small 
amount less. And so on, until there is no water vapour in the air, and the 
planet has frozen. Co2 without water vapour is a trace gas..a few parts per 
million on earth. No effect. The martian atmosphere is pure co2 and it's 
freezing coa. Not because the sun is further way solely, or even 
necessarily. But because there's no water vapour. 
 
Water vapour absorbs a huge amount of the infrared spectrum. But it leaves 
open a window, a range of frequencies water molecules don't absorb. If 
water didn't leave that frequency window open, it would be a stable 
gas...it'd feed back positively and runaway greenhouse. But the window is 
just a little too large for water to feedback neutrally and maintain 
itself. Co2, absorbs in a very narrow band...it's nothing like scale of 
water vapour. But that narrow band is in that window that water vapour 
doesn't absorb. When co2 rises...there's an inbuilt positive feedback in 
that a small rise, will drive a small rise in water vapour and so on.
 
When you look back 0.7 - 4 billion years, you're not seeing things as they 
are now. The system has seen evolution...strong forces of natural selection 
must have been present for that. Life came out of that evolution. Life has 
struggled to be stable, just as the planet has. Before animals came along 
it was very easy for life to get eahead of the  co2  and suck it  of the 
air. Which'd be a near total extinction level event for life and Earth 
would feasibly freeze over as the water vapour diminished awau
 
The real mystery is how it unfroze. Theoretically it never does. But it was 
co2. It took 20 million years waiting for plate tectonics to cycle enough 
back around. And some aggressive volcanism. Even then, because there was no 
water vapour, a huge amount had to build up - from memory 50 times what we 
have now, just to get the temperature up enough that just a little ice 
melted and evaporated. As soon as that happened things took off big time 
and the ice was gone. The aggression of a water vapour feedback with th,at 
kind of co2, is feasibly enough to blow the ice off both poles, thus have 
more energy from the sun absorbing than we do now, and open up a steamy 
humid epoch with critters

Re: truth of experience

2014-03-13 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:
  (Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)
 
 Yes I do!
 

Not me (alas). Although it is visible when typing my response.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


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

Quick video about materialism

2014-03-13 Thread Craig Weinberg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH2QXQu-HGE

A brief, handy rebuttal to materialistic views of consciousness. I would go 
further, and say that information, even though it is immaterial in its 
conception, is still derived from the principles of object interaction. 
Even when forms and functions are divorced from any particular physical 
substance, they are still tethered to the third person omniscient view - 
artifacts of communication *about* rather *appreciation of*. Real 
experiences are not valued just because they inform us about something or 
other, they are valued because of their intrinsic aesthetic and semantic 
content. It’s not even content, it is the experience itself. Information 
must be made evident through sensory participation, or it is nothing at all.

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

Re: truth of experience



On 13 Mar 2014, at 20:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/13/2014 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Mar 2014, at 18:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/13/2014 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 12 Mar 2014, at 21:51, LizR wrote:


On 13 March 2014 04:33, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Hello Terren,

On 12 Mar 2014, at 04:34, Terren Suydam wrote:

Hi Bruno,

Thanks, that helps. Can you expand a bit on t?  Unfortunately  
I haven't had the time to follow the modal logic threads, so  
please forgive me but I don't understand how you could  
represent reality with t.
Shortly, A most general meaning is that the proposition A  
is possible.


Modal logician uses the word world in a very general sense, it  
can mean situation, state, and actually it can mean anything.


To argue for example that it is possible that  a dog is  
dangerous, would consist in showing a situation, or a world, or  
a reality in which a dog is dangerous.


so you can read A, as A is possible, or possible(A), with  
the idea that this means that there is  
a  reality in which A is true.


Reality is not represented by A, it is more the existence  
of a reality verifying a proposition.


In particular, t, which is t is possible, where t is the  
constant true, or 1=1 in arithmetic, simply means that there  
is a reality.


You mean t asserts there is a reality in which the relevant  
proposition is true (e.g. one in which the dog is dangerous) ?


Exactly. (Although possible(dog is dangerous) is more (dog-is- 
dangerous) than t, which is more like possible(dog is dog).


That's Kripke semantics: A is true in alpha IF THERE IS A  
REALITY beta verifying A.


so

t is true in alpha if there is a reality beta verifying t.

Now, Kripke semantics extends classical propositional logic, and  
t is verified in all worlds.


This is a point that confuses me in trying your exercises (which  
I'm attempting to do without reading your exchanges with Liz).   
There you refer to a formula being respected when it is true in  
all worlds for all valuations.  But does all valuations of a  
formula A include f when A=p-p?


No, the valuations are defined only on the atomic  p, q, r,   
(in modal propositional logic).
Then the arbitrary formula get their value by the truth table, and  
the modal formula get their value by the Kripke semantics, that is,  
the truth values of the boxed an diamonded propositions depends  
on the locally accessible worlds.


Then t and f cannot be treated as atomic propositions,


Why? Pi is constant, but still a (real) number. Why could we not have  
constant proposition?




which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can only  
be regarded as shorthand for some tautology.


If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.


So t doesn't mean There is some reality it means There is some  
tautology: a proposition that is t in virtue of the definition of  
relations , V, ~, etc.


t means, in Kripke semantics, that there is a world in which t is  
true (and as t is true in any world, it does mean that there is a world.


Then when A is the diamond consistency of A, it means that there  
is a model verufying A, by Gödel's completeness theorem.


Bruno












Are we to assume that t is a formula in all worlds and it's  
value is always t?


Yes. It is a boolean constant. You can suppress it and replaced it  
by (p - p), as this is true in all words (as this is true in the  
worlds where p is true, and is true in the worlds where p is false).







And then is f also a formula in every world?


You can represent it by (p  ~p), or just ~t, and it is false in  
every world.


The cul-de-sac worlds get close, as they verify []f.

Fortunately they don't verify []A - A.

f is never met, in any world, but you can met []f, [][]f, [][] 
[]f, ... G* proves ◊[]f, ◊[][]f,◊[][][]f, ... in the G- 
worlds.


You say (p  ~p) is false in every world, but f is never met in any  
world.  That seems contradictory.  If p is a proposition in some  
world, are we not always allowed to form (p  ~p), which will have  
the value f for all valuations of p?






(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)


I see it.

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/d/optout.


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

Re: truth of experience



On 13 Mar 2014, at 22:10, LizR wrote:


 (Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)

Yes I do!


Nice, I hope everyone see it. Does someone not see a lozenge? Here:  ◊

Do someone not see Gödel's second theorem here: ◊t - ~[]◊t   ?

Bruno





--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: truth of experience



On 14 Mar 2014, at 01:49, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:10:45AM +1300, LizR wrote:

(Do everyone see a lozenge here: ◊  ?)


Yes I do!



Not me (alas).


Damned. I will need to use the more ugly  instead of the cute ◊ !

No problem.

Bruno




Although it is visible when typing my response.

Cheers

--  



Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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/d/optout.

Re: truth of experience


On 3/13/2014 9:54 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
which was my objection to writing t. In such a formula, t can only be regarded as 
shorthand for some tautology.


If you want. Any simple provable proposition would do.


Then f also occurs in every world since (p  ~p) can be formed in every world.  But you 
say we never meet f in any world?


Brent



So t doesn't mean There is some reality it means There is some tautology: a 
proposition that is t in virtue of the definition of relations , V, ~, etc.


t means, in Kripke semantics, that there is a world in which t is true (and as t is 
true in any world, it does mean that there is a world.


Then when A is the diamond consistency of A, it means that there is a model 
verufying A, by Gödel's completeness theorem.


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

Re: truth of experience