RE: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[Chris de Morsella]

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 6:37 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

 

If my joke works at all, it needs you to take that quoted line out of
context. (If I understand correctly, committing in a version control system
is booking in your changes so they are accessible to others...?)

 

That is one aspect of it for sure.

Looked at from another angle it is also the process of merging in the change
deltas (for CVS type repositories; GIT does it differently, but conceptually
it is similar) However; if you think of the case of a main trunk branch (and
there can be multiple such branches); committing a branched change set, back
into main is the act of merging these changes into this trunk-line of main. 

 

On 30 March 2014 13:30, Russell Standish  wrote:

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish  wrote:
>
> > I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home.
> >
> Typical guy :-)
>

I don't know about the "guy" bit, but certainly typical for someone
with a spouse/significant other, and life outside of work :).

And as I mentioned, if I knew I was going to have a quiet evening at
home (as opposed to going out to theatre, say), and I thought the
commit was not likely to be problematic, then I would sometimes
commit later in the day on the understanding that I would log in again
remote at say 8:30 or 9 pm - just to check things, and fix any
unpredicted problems, or back out if things went completely pear
shaped.

The point was that the repository system (which is very common - the
only exception I know of is Aegis) forced this sort of behaviour.

Incidently, in Aegis, the start of a commit would lock the
repository. If the commit builds and passes its regression tests, the
code is added to the repository, otherwise its is failed, and the next
person attempting a commit is processed.

At no stage is it possible for a commit to break the build.

Trouble is Aegis is not popular, mainly because it doesn't play nicely
with the Windows operating system. I have tried to come up with a way
of implementing this protocol with the other popular SCMs used -
mainly subversion, but also perforce, but haven't succeeded. Git comes
close though - people commit to their local repo, then post a pull
request. The owner of the master repository then does a pull, and
either passes or fails the commit. If the master repository owner is
automated, then you get pretty much the Aegis protocol.

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

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
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.

 

-- 
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.

-- 
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: Climate models

[meekerdb]

On 3/29/2014 10:31 AM, John Clark wrote:
In the current issue of Science News is a article about clouds and it confirms that 
clouds are the single biggest unknown in climate models. Everybody agrees that clouds 
warm things through the greenhouse effect at night and cool things by reflecting 
sunlight during the day, and everybody agrees that the cooling effect is larger than the 
heating effect, but they disagree about just how much larger and on if we will have more 
clouds in the future or less. And a recently discovered fact complicates things further, 
clouds made of ice crystals and water droplets reflect light about equally but the ice 
crystal clouds have a stronger greenhouse effect than water clouds. As a result of all 
this confusion and uncertainty are rampant.


Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said that by 2100 
things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather large amount of 
uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years of hard work they just 
issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. Now they say between 
1.5 and 4.5.


Doesn't exactly comport with the theory that it's all an environmentalist 
conspiracy, does it.

The article also notes somewhat apologetically (Science News is a honest magazine but 
always leans toward the environmentalist view) that after 3 decades of increasing 
temperatures since 1998 the worldwide temperature has been roughly constant, and no 
climate model in 1998 predicted this.


But GCMs with constant net insolation energy gain still predict hiatus periods in surface 
warming:


Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling and Michael F. Wehner
Received 18 February 2009; revised 25 March 2009; accepted 30 March 2009; published 25 
April 2009.


Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media
have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is
now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even
cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are
found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in
climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century
forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the
climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce
periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged
surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight
cooling in the presence of longer-term warming.
Geophys. Res. Lett.,36, L08706,doi:10.1029/2009GL037810.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/doi/10.1029/2009GL037810/pdf

Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature 
hiatus periods
Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, John T. Fasullo, Aixue Hu & Kevin E. 
Trenberth

There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged 
surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 
(a hiatus period). However, the observed energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere for 
this recent decade indicates that a net energy flux into the climate system of about 1 W  
m−2 (refs 2, 3) should be producing warming somewhere in the system4, 5. Here we analyse 
twenty-first-century climate-model simulations that maintain a consistent radiative 
imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere of about 1 W m−2 as observed for the past decade. Eight 
decades with a slightly negative global mean surface-temperature trend show that the ocean 
above 300 m takes up significantly less heat whereas the ocean below 300 m takes up 
significantly more, compared with non-hiatus decades. The model provides a plausible 
depiction of processes in the climate system causing the hiatus periods, and indicates 
that a hiatus period is a relatively common climate phenomenon and may be linked to La 
Niña-like conditions.


http://www.nature.com.proxy.library.ucsb.edu:2048/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/pdf/nclimate1229.pdf

Brent


They conclude by saying "scientists say they need at least 20 to 30 years to determine 
if clouds respond to global warming the way simulations predict".


I have to say all this doesn't exactly give me confidence that I should bet my life on 
the fact that although they make lousy 17 year predictions climate models make wonderful 
100 year predictions.


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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[LizR]

If my joke works at all, it needs you to take that quoted line out of
context. (If I understand correctly, committing in a version control system
is booking in your changes so they are accessible to others...?)


On 30 March 2014 13:30, Russell Standish  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> > On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish  wrote:
> >
> > > I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home.
> > >
> > Typical guy :-)
> >
>
> I don't know about the "guy" bit, but certainly typical for someone
> with a spouse/significant other, and life outside of work :).
>
> And as I mentioned, if I knew I was going to have a quiet evening at
> home (as opposed to going out to theatre, say), and I thought the
> commit was not likely to be problematic, then I would sometimes
> commit later in the day on the understanding that I would log in again
> remote at say 8:30 or 9 pm - just to check things, and fix any
> unpredicted problems, or back out if things went completely pear
> shaped.
>
> The point was that the repository system (which is very common - the
> only exception I know of is Aegis) forced this sort of behaviour.
>
> Incidently, in Aegis, the start of a commit would lock the
> repository. If the commit builds and passes its regression tests, the
> code is added to the repository, otherwise its is failed, and the next
> person attempting a commit is processed.
>
> At no stage is it possible for a commit to break the build.
>
> Trouble is Aegis is not popular, mainly because it doesn't play nicely
> with the Windows operating system. I have tried to come up with a way
> of implementing this protocol with the other popular SCMs used -
> mainly subversion, but also perforce, but haven't succeeded. Git comes
> close though - people commit to their local repo, then post a pull
> request. The owner of the master repository then does a pull, and
> either passes or fails the commit. If the master repository owner is
> automated, then you get pretty much the Aegis protocol.
>
> 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
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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: Climate models

[meekerdb]

I see that John Baez (Joan's cousin) has gotten interested in the problems of climate 
change and sustainability:


http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week319.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/balsillie/

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/

Brent

On 3/29/2014 4:44 PM, LizR wrote:
Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if continue to pump 
out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives - and those of our children and their 
children on that assumption. If we try to keep CO2 levels down to somewhere around where 
they have been between, say, 1960 and 1999 (a period during which they increased by 
around 20%, I think), then we at least know roughly what to expect - a similar climate 
to what we had during that period, which isn't perfect but it's better than any runaway 
feedback situation (ice age or overheated greenhouse). That will give us time to control 
this damn planet better than we have managed so far, and my children (and preferably me) 
will go to the stars rather than relapsing into a medieval world.




On 30 March 2014 06:31, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> 
wrote:


In the current issue of Science News is a article about clouds and it 
confirms that
clouds are the single biggest unknown in climate models. Everybody agrees 
that
clouds warm things through the greenhouse effect at night and cool things by
reflecting sunlight during the day, and everybody agrees that the cooling 
effect is
larger than the heating effect, but they disagree about just how much 
larger and on
if we will have more clouds in the future or less. And a recently 
discovered fact
complicates things further, clouds made of ice crystals and water droplets 
reflect
light about equally but the ice crystal clouds have a stronger greenhouse 
effect
than water clouds. As a result of all this confusion and uncertainty are 
rampant.

Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said 
that by
2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a rather 
large
amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars and 7 years 
of hard
work they just issued a new report, and their uncertainty has actually INCREASED. 
Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5.  The article also notes somewhat apologetically

(Science News is a honest magazine but always leans toward the 
environmentalist
view) that after 3 decades of increasing temperatures since 1998 the 
worldwide
temperature has been roughly constant, and no climate model in 1998 
predicted this.
They conclude by saying "scientists say they need at least 20 to 30 years to
determine if clouds respond to global warming the way simulations predict".

I have to say all this doesn't exactly give me confidence that I should bet 
my life
on the fact that although they make lousy 17 year predictions climate 
models make
wonderful 100 year predictions.

  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.


--
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.


--
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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[Russell Standish]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:46:48PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> > I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home.
> >
> Typical guy :-)
> 

I don't know about the "guy" bit, but certainly typical for someone
with a spouse/significant other, and life outside of work :).

And as I mentioned, if I knew I was going to have a quiet evening at
home (as opposed to going out to theatre, say), and I thought the
commit was not likely to be problematic, then I would sometimes
commit later in the day on the understanding that I would log in again
remote at say 8:30 or 9 pm - just to check things, and fix any
unpredicted problems, or back out if things went completely pear
shaped.

The point was that the repository system (which is very common - the
only exception I know of is Aegis) forced this sort of behaviour.

Incidently, in Aegis, the start of a commit would lock the
repository. If the commit builds and passes its regression tests, the
code is added to the repository, otherwise its is failed, and the next
person attempting a commit is processed.

At no stage is it possible for a commit to break the build.

Trouble is Aegis is not popular, mainly because it doesn't play nicely
with the Windows operating system. I have tried to come up with a way
of implementing this protocol with the other popular SCMs used -
mainly subversion, but also perforce, but haven't succeeded. Git comes
close though - people commit to their local repo, then post a pull
request. The owner of the master repository then does a pull, and
either passes or fails the commit. If the master repository owner is
automated, then you get pretty much the Aegis protocol.

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

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[LizR]

On 28 March 2014 20:03, Russell Standish  wrote:

> I used to get everything to the commit stage, then go home.
>
Typical guy :-)

-- 
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: Climate models

[LizR]

Yes, exactly, if we assume that there will be no bad consequences if
continue to pump out pollution, we are indeed betting out lives - and those
of our children and their children on that assumption. If we try to keep
CO2 levels down to somewhere around where they have been between, say, 1960
and 1999 (a period during which they increased by around 20%, I think),
then we at least know roughly what to expect - a similar climate to what we
had during that period, which isn't perfect but it's better than any
runaway feedback situation (ice age or overheated greenhouse). That will
give us time to control this damn planet better than we have managed so
far, and my children (and preferably me) will go to the stars rather than
relapsing into a medieval world.



On 30 March 2014 06:31, John Clark  wrote:

> In the current issue of Science News is a article about clouds and it
> confirms that clouds are the single biggest unknown in climate models.
> Everybody agrees that clouds warm things through the greenhouse effect at
> night and cool things by reflecting sunlight during the day, and everybody
> agrees that the cooling effect is larger than the heating effect, but they
> disagree about just how much larger and on if we will have more clouds in
> the future or less. And a recently discovered fact complicates things
> further, clouds made of ice crystals and water droplets reflect light about
> equally but the ice crystal clouds have a stronger greenhouse effect than
> water clouds. As a result of all this confusion and uncertainty are rampant.
>
> Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said
> that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a
> rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars
> and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their
> uncertainty has actually INCREASED.  Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5.  The
> article also notes somewhat apologetically (Science News is a honest
> magazine but always leans toward the environmentalist view) that after 3
> decades of increasing temperatures since 1998 the worldwide temperature has
> been roughly constant, and no climate model in 1998 predicted this. They
> conclude by saying "scientists say they need at least 20 to 30 years to
> determine if clouds respond to global warming the way simulations predict".
>
> I have to say all this doesn't exactly give me confidence that I should
> bet my life on the fact that although they make lousy 17 year predictions
> climate models make wonderful 100 year predictions.
>
>   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.
>

-- 
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: [foar] Amoeba's Secret now available in paperback

[Chris de Morsella]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 12:03 AM 

> Yes, although I think you get (easier) second chances with programming. 
> 
> LOL that you do. though in many big environments if you break the 
> build once you get to eat raw broccoli; you break it twice you're 
> fired. So then again perhaps not, in some cases.
> 

>> That's tough love! In my last team, you had to buy the wine for the next
team lunch if you broke the build.
I like that better :) 
The eat raw broccoli lore comes from the windows team at Microsoft. For a
team of that size breaking the build is actually a big deal with large
downstream follow on costs, as literally many hundreds of engineers get
idled, delivery dates get slipped and so forth. 


>>That way: a) discourages you from being too cavalier with your submits, b)
mollifies your team-mates who might have had to have dealt with consequences
of the broken build and c) doesn't scare you shitless about having to commit
something that might break the build and possibly lose your job.
I agree -- Draconian punishment rarely encourages creative solutions, and,
in fact can lead to a situation where everyone conforms to a culture of not
touching anything for fear of breaking it.

To be fair -- to the Windows team at MS -- no one would lose their job if
the build got broken for reasons which the programmer who submitted the
changes could not have easily avoided. However if some stupid bug in the
checked in code -- that should have been caught in unit testing -- was the
culprit that brought the whole thing down then the heat would be applied.

>>If you've ever had to deal with a screwed subversion system after trying
to upgrade your boost libraries, or after trying to upgrade you Visual
Studio version, you'll know there are times when breaking the build is
inevitable. Also, if the build times are on the order of 3 hours (as it was
in one place), then the "no break the build" policy means that you cannot do
a commit after 11am, otherwise you potentially will be staying back after
work to fix the build. In that job I used to get everything to the commit
stage, then go home. There was an automatic script that synced the
repository to my local copy and built as much as possible. When I got in
next morning, I did another sync, and build, and usually I was lucky that
that finishes by 11am, so that I can commit that day. If not, I'd spend the
rest of the day trying to fix my local build, and once that was done, catch
up on code reviews, as I couldn't actually do any new coding until I had
successfully committed the previous stuff the following day.

LOL I have! Or when you have some large -- multi-file checkin -- with a lot
of changes in it that is unlucky enough to be on the end of a three or more
way resolve full of conflicts. I worked on one team where the build would
take around 4 hours (or longer) and they had a 1pm policy. In that case the
build script itself was generated by a whole series of other pre-processing
scripts which actually generated the build script based on a slew of factors
including a lot of environment type factors.

>>I much preferred the situation where I could bribe my colleagues with a
few glasses of wine if I needed to. Also, I have done my share of remote
login to check and fix builds after hours, but that's not always feasible
when you've got family depending on your being home.

Remote login is a double edged sword. On the one hand it is so convenient to
be able to remotely tunnel in and do things like check in on the state of
some long running process, and be able to address issues that may be
blocking it or causing it to hang, without having to make the drive. Really
like that aspect. 
On the other hand it opens up the door to the "working from home" trap. When
I get home I really don't want work following me... and in our business it
definitely has the tendency to want to do just that. Like it has with me
these last months on this very large scale data mining project I am on


Cheers,
Chris

-- 


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

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
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 mor

Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

[LizR]

This is fabulous (in places - some bits make me feel a bit sick)

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

This is like the one Bruno posted, but on hyperdrive...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohzJV980PIQ

This second one zooms to 10^1000 - which means the entire starting frame,
at the final resolution, would be far bigger than the universe. This is the
sort of thing that makes me think we aren't just inventing maths, but it's
"out there" waiting for the right tools (intellectual, computational) to
discover - but I may be wrong.

-- 
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.

Climate models

[John Clark]

In the current issue of Science News is a article about clouds and it
confirms that clouds are the single biggest unknown in climate models.
Everybody agrees that clouds warm things through the greenhouse effect at
night and cool things by reflecting sunlight during the day, and everybody
agrees that the cooling effect is larger than the heating effect, but they
disagree about just how much larger and on if we will have more clouds in
the future or less. And a recently discovered fact complicates things
further, clouds made of ice crystals and water droplets reflect light about
equally but the ice crystal clouds have a stronger greenhouse effect than
water clouds. As a result of all this confusion and uncertainty are rampant.

Back in 2007 the United Nations issued a report on climate change, it said
that by 2100 things would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees warmer than now, a
rather large amount of uncertainty; but after spending millions of dollars
and 7 years of hard work they just issued a new report, and their
uncertainty has actually INCREASED.  Now they say between 1.5 and 4.5.  The
article also notes somewhat apologetically (Science News is a honest
magazine but always leans toward the environmentalist view) that after 3
decades of increasing temperatures since 1998 the worldwide temperature has
been roughly constant, and no climate model in 1998 predicted this. They
conclude by saying "scientists say they need at least 20 to 30 years to
determine if clouds respond to global warming the way simulations predict".

I have to say all this doesn't exactly give me confidence that I should bet
my life on the fact that although they make lousy 17 year predictions
climate models make wonderful 100 year predictions.

  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.

Fwd: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 29 March 2014 19:27, Bruno Marchal

> wrote:

>
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> A functionalist could agree that a computer can replicate his
>> consciousness but it would not really be him. There is no explicit or
>> implicit position on personal identity in functionalism.
>>
>>
>> This is weird. I guess you mean your notion of functionalism, which is
>> too much general I think, but I was still thinking it could have a relation
>> with "functionalism" in the math sense, where an object is defined by its
>> functional relations with other objects, and the identity *is* in the
>> functionality.
>>
>> Then "function" is always used in two very different sense, especially in
>> computer science, as it can be extensional function (defined by the
>> functionality), or its intension (the code, the description, the "body").
>>
>> Could your functionalist say yes to a doctor, which build the right
>> computer (to replicate his consciousness), and add enough "original atoms"
>> to preserve the identity? Is someone saying yes to that doctor, but only if
>> a priest blesses the artificial brain with holy water a functionalist?
>>
>> Can you describe an experience refuting functionalism (in your sense)?
>> Just to help me to understand. Thanks.
>>
>
> A person could conceivably say the following: it is impossible for a
> computer to be conscious because consciousness is a magical substance that
> comes from God. Therefore, if you make an artificial brain it may behave
> like a real brain, but it will be a zombie. God could by a miracle grant
> the artificial brain consciousness, and he could even grant it a similar
> consciousness to my own, so that it will think it is me.
>
>
> Hmm... OK, but usually comp is not just that a computer can be conscious,
> but that it can be conscious (c= can support consciousness) in virtue of
> doing computation. That is why I add sometime "qua computatio" to remind
> this. If functionalism accept a role for a magical substance, it is
> obviously non computationalism.
>

Of course, the computer or computing device must be doing the computations;
if not it is unconscious or only potentially consciousness.


> However, it won't *really* be me, because it could only be me if we were
> numerically identical, and not even God can make two distinct things
> numerically identical.
>
>
> Even with God. This makes the argument weird. Even if God cannot do that.
> But it can make sense, with "magic" matter, many things can make sense.
>

It's not so weird, since even God or magic can't do something logically
impossible like make 1 = 2, and under one theory of personal identity
(which by the way I think is completely wrong) that is what would have to
happen for a person to survive teleportation.


>
> I don't accept this position, but it is the position many people have on
> personal identity, and it is independent of their position on the
> possibility of computer consciousness.
>
>
> OK.
>
> I think you have to specify whether comp means merely that a computer
>> simulation of a brain can be conscious or go the whole way with Bruno's
>> conclusion that there is no actual physical computer and all possible
>> computations are necessarily implemented by virtue of their status as
>> platonic objects.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not so much in virtue of their status as platonic object (which
>> seems to imply some metaphysical hypothesis), but in virtue of being true
>> independently of my will, or even of the notion of universe, god, etc.
>>
>
> But there is the further notion of implementation. The obvious objection
> is that computations might be "true" but they cannot give rise to
> consciousness unless implemented on a physical computer.
>
>
> Only IF you assume that one universal machine (the physical universe or
> some part of it) has a special (metaphysical) status, and that it plays a
> special role. Implementation in computer science is defined purely by a
> relation between a universal machine/number and a machine/number (which can
> be universal or not).
> u implements machine x if phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y) for all y, and that can be
> defined in the theory quoted below.
>
> A physicalist, somehow, just pick out one universal "being" and asserts
> that it is more fundamental. The computationalist know better, and know
> that the special physical universal machine has to win some competition
> below our substitution level.
>

But most computationalists are probably physicalists who believe that
consciousness can only occur if an actual physical computer is using energy
and heating up in the process of implementing computations. They don't
believe that the abstract computation on its own is enough. They may be
wrong, but that's what they think, and they call themselves
computationalists.


> Step 8 of the UDA says the physical computer is not neces

Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:41, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:





On 29 March 2014 03:24, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

On 27 Mar 2014, at 18:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

A functionalist could agree that a computer can replicate his  
consciousness but it would not really be him. There is no explicit  
or implicit position on personal identity in functionalism.


This is weird. I guess you mean your notion of functionalism, which  
is too much general I think, but I was still thinking it could have  
a relation with "functionalism" in the math sense, where an object  
is defined by its functional relations with other objects, and the  
identity *is* in the functionality.


Then "function" is always used in two very different sense,  
especially in computer science, as it can be extensional function  
(defined by the functionality), or its intension (the code, the  
description, the "body").


Could your functionalist say yes to a doctor, which build the right  
computer (to replicate his consciousness), and add enough "original  
atoms" to preserve the identity? Is someone saying yes to that  
doctor, but only if a priest blesses the artificial brain with holy  
water a functionalist?


Can you describe an experience refuting functionalism (in your sense)?
Just to help me to understand. Thanks.

A person could conceivably say the following: it is impossible for a  
computer to be conscious because consciousness is a magical  
substance that comes from God. Therefore, if you make an artificial  
brain it may behave like a real brain, but it will be a zombie. God  
could by a miracle grant the artificial brain consciousness, and he  
could even grant it a similar consciousness to my own, so that it  
will think it is me.


Hmm... OK, but usually comp is not just that a computer can be  
conscious, but that it can be conscious (c= can support consciousness)  
in virtue of doing computation. That is why I add sometime "qua  
computatio" to remind this. If functionalism accept a role for a  
magical substance, it is obviously non computationalism.



However, it won't *really* be me, because it could only be me if we  
were numerically identical, and not even God can make two distinct  
things numerically identical.


Even with God. This makes the argument weird. Even if God cannot do  
that. But it can make sense, with "magic" matter, many things can make  
sense.






I don't accept this position, but it is the position many people  
have on personal identity, and it is independent of their position  
on the possibility of computer consciousness.


OK.

I think you have to specify whether comp means merely that a  
computer simulation of a brain can be conscious or go the whole way  
with Bruno's conclusion that there is no actual physical computer  
and all possible computations are necessarily implemented by virtue  
of their status as platonic objects.



It is not so much in virtue of their status as platonic object  
(which seems to imply some metaphysical hypothesis), but in virtue  
of being true independently of my will, or even of the notion of  
universe, god, etc.


But there is the further notion of implementation. The obvious  
objection is that computations might be "true" but they cannot give  
rise to consciousness unless implemented on a physical computer.


Only IF you assume that one universal machine (the physical universe  
or some part of it) has a special (metaphysical) status, and that it  
plays a special role. Implementation in computer science is defined  
purely by a relation between a universal machine/number and a machine/ 
number (which can be universal or not).
u implements machine x if phi_u(x,y) = phi_x(y) for all y, and that  
can be defined in the theory quoted below.


A physicalist, somehow, just pick out one universal "being" and  
asserts that it is more fundamental. The computationalist know better,  
and know that the special physical universal machine has to win some  
competition below our substitution level.






Step 8 of the UDA says the physical computer is not necessary; which  
is a metaphysical position if anything is.



It is metaphysical, OK, but that is part of the subject matter. But it  
is not a "position" or "opinion", only a logical consequence, with  
some use of Occam, to be sure, as it is a consequence in *applied*  
logic. The whole meta-point is that we can do metaphysics and theology  
in the hypothetico-deductive way, free of a priori metaphysical  
assumption, except the "yes doctor", which is as much metaphysical  
than practical.


Bruno



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



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

Re: Scott Aaronson vs. Max Tegmark

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Mar 2014, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/28/2014 8:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Mar 2014, at 15:55, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:


Citeren Stathis Papaioannou :






Is electron position a continuous observable? Even if it is and  
there are
an infinity of brains, why should that result in an infinity of  
minds? It
would seem unlikely that brains would evolve so that an  
arbitrarily small

change in the position of an electron would cause a change in
consciousness, and we know that even gross changes in the brain,  
as occur

in stroke or head injury, sometimes have remarkably little effect.


--
Stathis Papaioannou



Yes, there are only a finite number of quantum states that even  
the entire visible part of the universe can be in.


In which theory? I mean, in which QM?

I think that even an electron in an atom of hydrogen can be in  
infinitely many quantum states, in non GR version of QM. I guess I  
miss something here.


That is only true of an idealized hydrogen atom in an otherwise  
empty, infinite universe.


You think about its energy state, but I was thinking more on the  
position of the electron, without GR.




 In the real world there are other atoms and fields that disrupt the  
Rydberg orbits.  Supposedly the number of states within the hubble  
sphere is limited by the holographic principle - although that's  
speculation based on on semi-classical analysis of horizons.



OK.

Bruno



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



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

Re: [foar] COMP => no cloning?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 28 Mar 2014, at 20:56, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno wrote 3-28 at 2/32:
"I would say that we can work only from what we believe or assume  
today, and might indeed be shown wrong tomorrow."


Thanks for adding 'belief' to my assume + suppose.


OK. I almost identify "assume" and "belief". I don't pretend those are  
equivalent concept, but for most matter, they are of the same nature.  
The key point is that we don't assert them like if they were true. We  
remain open it can be false. We might just find them plausible,  
because we don't have nagative evidence, and they works better than  
alternate assumptions/theories. But like the french poet said "De  
mémoire de rose je n'ai jamais vu mourrir un jardinier" (roses believe  
that gardener are immortal, as they usually don't see gardeners dying  
during their short life).






"How can I understand that without assuming that by using the word  
"and" you assume the same meaning than me, actually that both  
"assume" and "suppose" are inadequate.

But then your statement is self-defeating. "
So be it: I do not go for the TRURH.


OK. You go at least for consistency. Inconsistency entails false indeed.



"On the contrary, science works by making assumptions all the times.  
Why not?"

We are not of the best appriciation of 'science' in general, are we?


I think we can. If we do that "scientifically", it means only that we  
cannot be sure not being saying big stupidities. I might do that right  
now.






"You don't seem agnostic on the question if there is really  
something more that numbers (in company of their laws)."

How about being agnostic on NUMBERS (in company of their laws)?


OK, nice. But here I pointed on the "only numbers (with their laws)"  
consequence of the computationalist postulate.





I don't feel obliged to know things usually filling up the books.


But you might be supposed to believe in some of them, in some context  
at least. In many threads, like on relativity, or on the climate,  
absolutely nobody makes arguments like "you assume that the CO2  
molecules obeys 1 CO2 + 1 CO2 = (1+1) CO2 = 2 CO2, and so assume  
1+1=2, but nobody can be sure. Well, in computer science and  
computationalist metaphysics, we assume also that 1+1 = 2. That  
assumption is not metaphysical, it is only elementary arithmetic. We  
just use logic to make *all* our assumptions explicit, even on the use  
of elementary logical concept, like "and", "or," "implies" etc.





"I just offer an argument showing that if comp is true, then it  
makes no sense to say that there is more than arithmetic. No machine  
can conceived something more complex than arithmetic "seen" from  
inside. That's beyond mathematics."

Huh?
Is your(?) opinion how 'complex' a machine can conceive a  
fundamental truth?


I don't think it is a matter of opinion, but of theorem in computer  
science. My opinion is only that computationalism is enough plausible  
to get a theory precise enough to be refuted.




And now you call it mathematics? do you know the utter limits of it?  
(beyond!!).


Yes, by lifting (by comp) the consequence of the theorem limiting the  
formalism and machine. We can prove that some notion (like truth) are  
not definable in general by the machine. I don't make this into an  
absolute, but we can derive it in the context of the comp supposition.






Granted, we start from SOME (belief) system and try to fill in the  
voids. There is no evidence that we do the right thing (me included  
- why I do not want to 'persuade' anybody to accept my ideas).


Goo. We agree on this.To be persuaded on anything publicly  
communicable is a result of violence, authoritaitive argument,  
insanity, disease, etc.



I expose my argumentation to trigger some good responses what I can  
use in my further thinking.


I know that and I appreciate.
Like with Craig, I can say that your feeling are not a long way from  
the machine's feeling, including your quite sane doubting attitude  
about comp, which I certainly share. But that is a reason for me to  
dig on it, even if that is to refute it in some future.





Thanks for the reply


You are welcome, best,

Bruno





John M






On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 28 Mar 2014, at 02:54, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno: of course you cannot even fathom a 'Q-state' with so much  
unknow/able/n in everything we KNOW about, or don't even KNOW  
ABOUT. . Reproduce? No chance. You can work only on whatever is  
known today. (And that, too, is questionable in your (my?) science)


I would say that we can work only from what we believe or assume  
today, and might indeed be shown wrong tomorrow.






Assume and suppose are inadequate.



How can I understand that without assuming that by using the word  
"and" you assume the same meaning than me, actually that both  
"assume" and "suppose" are inadequate.

But then your statement is self-defeating.

On the contrary, science works by making assumptio