Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 4:47 am, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: >> Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers >> can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as >> the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. Last night I had a lucid dream (must be this thread getting into the unconscious and stirring all sorts of things up.) Your typical flying dream, complete with the waving of arms/wings flapping in order to levitate. It was all quite natural and easy. I "flew" up outside the apartment block where I live, to inspect the outside of the building (in "reality" we are about to undergo a re-pinning operation as the mortar is crumbling in spots) and I remember assuring myself as I was zooming around the outside that "yes, this is obviously where I live". At the same time, "I" was able to observe myself in the act of believing falsity. I could see that the building I was hovering outside (just like an avatar in Second Life") looked absolutely NOTHING like the building in which I really live, yet I both believed it was the true and correct building and simultaneously observed myself in the act of believing something false. Both states involved a level of self-observation and belief. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark Twain -- 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
From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 Apr 2014, at 03:08, Chris de Morsella wrote: > > > > > > From: LizR >To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:43 PM >Subject: Re: Climate models > > > >On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >> >>sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a >>man and a woman, >> >> >>If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am >>married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not >>real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that >>would affect my life. >>I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do >>so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated >>against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. >> >> >> neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, >> >> >>Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. >>We have already done so, using little more than cars, planes, ships, trains >>and power stations. > > >In fact we have already done so using nothing more than muscle power. Look at >how many areas -- including the fertile crescent -- have been desertified by >human presence. We probably began affecting climate when we discovered fire >and began large scale burns to clear brush and move game animals towards >hunters, by increasing the area of grasslands. One should not forget that the >salt pan deserts of southern Iraq were once the blooming agricultural >heartland of ancient Sumeria. And that northern Iraq and much of the entire >region was covered by ancient cedar forests. >Humans have been altering the face of the earth on a large scale since at >least as far back as the beginning of agriculture and I suspect even much >earlier than that when we learned to control fire and began to use it to shape >our environment. >> The cyanobacteria changed to planet the most, and rejected the most toxic >> molecules ever: the oxygen molecules O2. It killed all life species on the >> planet at that time (according to some), except those developing respiration >> to burn the O2 into CO2, and build food and candy instead. God created the plants, but then he realized he needs the animals to treat the plants pollution. Good thing for us that they did oxygenate the biosphere :) There are quite a few anaerobic microbes that have a very low tolerance for oxygen, but thrive in anoxic environments -- I had always assumed that these lineages go back to before the cyanobacteria. Maybe I am mistaken though. Not sure. >>We multiply quickly, and have to be cautious and responsible not breaking too >>many cycles in nature, and should pollute the less possible, and for this we >>have to find ways to avoid private interest interference with politics. About >>this, the signs are not currently encouraging. No they are not encouraging are they. Chris Bruno Chris > > > -- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >"Everything List" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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. -- 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
On 4/11/2014 8:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. I deliberately avoided writing 'artificial beings', but I think they will be 'artificial' in the sense of being deliberately constructed as opposed to developed just by Darwinian evolution. 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: My scepticism took a small knock today
Hee Hee! This is an ancient Hindu joke where the Guru and the King were having a discussion on reality. The Guru held the world was maya (illusion) and the King thought otherwise. While discussing this, the King and the Guru accidently walk up the trail of a Bull elephant during rutting season. The elephant turned and charged at the King and the Guru. Both men escaped and continued the discussion. "So, the King said, do you still think that everything is an illusion?" "Yes,the Guru replied, everything is all maya, an illusion." The King said: "But when the elephant charged I saw you running!" The Guru replied, "Yes, your majesty, but that too, was an illusion." -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 12:44 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. There is a California university psychologist who teaches his students how to get themselves to dream,lucidly. The psychologist believes that all the biblical visions of the Bible were all, in fact, lucid dreams. You can even buy or build "lucid dream" machine, which can help some people to awaken in the dream, and be lucid. (just search the net on "lucid dream machine"). It's fascinating and the thought comes to mind (my mind) that it's all a solipsism. My question then, would be, who is the dreamer? An indian was pleased to teach philosophy in lucid dreams, and he took pleasure to mock the audience by pretending *he* was the dreamer, and that he controls everything, and that the others where existing only thanks to him. Eventually, a guy of the audience came to him with a wood stick and begun to strike him, and then asked him "are you really sure you know who is the dreamer and who is in control", and continued to strike him until he woke up! :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day-dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring "control" habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a "big dream". It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. 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. -- 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.
Re: Climate models
On abortion, what I find objectionable (for me) is the percentage of women who have unplanned pregnancies, did so with the intention of 'trapping' a male in a relationship, by lying about or misusing birth control. It speaks to the women's insecurity and character do this. How large a problem this is, is something unknown by me. I haven't researched if it's 0.10% of or 20%? But I call it unethical. What about the male who promises commitment and abandons the female? Equally culpable. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 12:32 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. I liken abortion with abuse of hard drugs. It is not nice, but if prohibited, it still happens, but much more often, and always in worst conditions. Better to limit them by education and information, and reduce the harm by health care, and avoid criminalization. Bruno Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Cheers! - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of "gay rights" will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona : sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense p
Re: Video of VCR
On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Craig, > > > > I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get > > closer to a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument > > against comp is not valid, you vindicate being illogical, > > > > I don't vindicate being illogical, I vindicate being more logical > > about factoring in the limitations of logic in modeling the deeper > > aspects of nature and consciousness. Logically we must not presume > > to rely on logic alone to argue the nature of awareness, from which > > logic seems to arise. > > > > so I am not sure that repeating my argument can help. > > > > > > I will just sum up: > > > > 1) You keep talking like if the situation was symmetrical. You > > defending ~comp, and me defending comp. But that is not the case. I > > am nowhere defending the idea that comp is true. I am agnostic on > > this. > > > > I think that you are pseudo-agnostic on it, and have admitted as > > much on occasion, but that's ok with me either way. > > > > I am not convince by your argument against comp, that's all. That is > > the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. > > > > Part of my argument though is that being convinced is not a > > realistic expectation of any argument about consciousness. My > > argument is that it can only ever be about how much sense it makes > > relatively speaking, and that the comp argument unfairly rules out > > immeasurable aesthetic qualities from the start. > > > It does not. *you* rule it out. You make less sense. > If it doesn't rule it out, then comp is circular. For the statement that comp makes "consciousness is generated by computation" we have to assume first that comp is not already consciousness itself, otherwise we aren't saying anything. > > > > > > > My argument predicts the bias of comp in predicting the bias of non- > > comp, so in that aspect we are symmetric. > > > Not at all, because I don't conclude in either comp or not-comp from > that. You do an error in logic. That's all. > The "error" in logic is necessary to locate consciousness. Your calling it an error *is* the conclusion that makes comp seem possible. > > > > > > > > 2) you confuse truth and first person sense, all the time. > > > > I'm not confused, I'm flat out denying that truth can ever be > > anything other than sense, > > Then truth = sense, as I said. It isn't though. Blue isn't truth or non-truth. Truth is a quality of cognitive experience, but cognitive experience is not generated by truth. > But is is a cosmic or universal form of > sense, and you have to related it to the brain and flesh in some ways, > even making them delusion. > I'm not relating it to the brain or flesh at all. You have to stop thinking of sense as implying physical matter. I compare logically that 1+1=2 either makes sense because there is an unconscious property of truth which we can detect consciously, or that 1+1=2 makes sense because it re-acquaints us with a quality of coherence that we are compelled to accept. I think if it was the former, then it would be impossible to ever get a math problem wrong, and people would come out of the womb doing calculus instead of sucking their thumb. The latter makes more sense to me, because it does not take concepts like "1" and "=" for granted, but sees them as generalized stereotypes which are common in certain kinds of perception (especially visual and tactile). > > > > > > and I'm denying that sense has to be first person. It's an explicit > > part of my conjecture. > > truth = first person is just an open problem in comp theology. > Not sure what you mean by that, or how it relates. > > > > > > > > I can be OK with this, for some theory which assumes non-comp, but > > not for an argument, which should be independent of any theory, > > against ~comp. If you use your theory to refute comp, you beg the > > question. > > > > By constraining the terms of the argument to disallow aesthetic > > sense to transcend logical truth, > > There is no logical truth. It is always arithmetical truth. > Either way my point is the same. You are only allowing arguments that begin with a truth that is square when my argument requires that we admit that the square is sitting in a larger circle. > > > > > > you beg the question. We are symmetric here too. > > No, I make assumption, where you are the one pretending having a proof > those assumption is inconsistent. > I'm saying proof is likely impossible and irrelevant. It's about what makes more sense. > > I am OK with both ~[]comp and ~[]~comp. > > You are the one saying that comp is false. > I am not the one saying that ~comp is false. > If ~comp is true, then com
Re: Climate models
On 11 Apr 2014, at 03:08, Chris de Morsella wrote: From: LizR To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 11:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, If you insist on that definition of the word, I don't really care. I am married, but if it became generally accepted that my marriage is also not real according to some criteria, I wouldn't care either. I don't see how that would affect my life. I only care that people that love each other and want to live together can do so without being bullied by society or the state, and are not discriminated against in taxation, inheritance, adoption, etc. neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, Of course it can. We have nuclear weapons. We have already done so, using little more than cars, planes, ships, trains and power stations. In fact we have already done so using nothing more than muscle power. Look at how many areas -- including the fertile crescent -- have been desertified by human presence. We probably began affecting climate when we discovered fire and began large scale burns to clear brush and move game animals towards hunters, by increasing the area of grasslands. One should not forget that the salt pan deserts of southern Iraq were once the blooming agricultural heartland of ancient Sumeria. And that northern Iraq and much of the entire region was covered by ancient cedar forests. Humans have been altering the face of the earth on a large scale since at least as far back as the beginning of agriculture and I suspect even much earlier than that when we learned to control fire and began to use it to shape our environment. The cyanobacteria changed to planet the most, and rejected the most toxic molecules ever: the oxygen molecules O2. It killed all life species on the planet at that time (according to some), except those developing respiration to burn the O2 into CO2, and build food and candy instead. God created the plants, but then he realized he needs the animals to treat the plants pollution. We multiply quickly, and have to be cautious and responsible not breaking too many cycles in nature, and should pollute the less possible, and for this we have to find ways to avoid private interest interference with politics. About this, the signs are not currently encouraging. Bruno Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. There is a California university psychologist who teaches his students how to get themselves to dream,lucidly. The psychologist believes that all the biblical visions of the Bible were all, in fact, lucid dreams. You can even buy or build "lucid dream" machine, which can help some people to awaken in the dream, and be lucid. (just search the net on "lucid dream machine"). It's fascinating and the thought comes to mind (my mind) that it's all a solipsism. My question then, would be, who is the dreamer? An indian was pleased to teach philosophy in lucid dreams, and he took pleasure to mock the audience by pretending *he* was the dreamer, and that he controls everything, and that the others where existing only thanks to him. Eventually, a guy of the audience came to him with a wood stick and begun to strike him, and then asked him "are you really sure you know who is the dreamer and who is in control", and continued to strike him until he woke up! :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day- dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring "control" habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a "big dream". It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. 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- l...@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. -- 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: Climate models
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. I liken abortion with abuse of hard drugs. It is not nice, but if prohibited, it still happens, but much more often, and always in worst conditions. Better to limit them by education and information, and reduce the harm by health care, and avoid criminalization. Bruno Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Cheers! - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 11:53 am Subject: Re: Climate models On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: By the way, because it seems that you are interested, rejection of gays by men will never ever change. There are compelling evolitionary reasons. If any, the current promotion of "gay rights" will exacerbate true homophoby in the medium- long term. In the same way that feminism is increasing the violence against women. Alberto loves giving everybody here psychology lessons that are funny. But what is the psychological profile of somebody who reads some climate banter/debate and goes: - TOO BAD FOR SPACE TRAVEL, YOU KILLED IT YOU IDIOTS! (Elon Musk is either devil or saint... no compromises here!) - DAMNED FEMINISTS! WOMEN CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT MEN! - STUPID ABORTIONS! - HOLY MATRIMONY, SO HOMOSEXUALITY IS DOOMED! - LET NATIONALISM RISE AGAIN AS OUR ONLY HOPE (as if it doesn't show its tedious, harmful face on a daily basis) - F*** (ANYBODY THAT IS FOR) CHANGE! Especially through space travel... ;-) Yes, it could be some twisted sense of humor. The space travel contradiction is funnily stupid, yes, but istm Al's comedic writing needs some practice, more punchlines, and technique. Same for Steven's philosophy these days. Whatever guys, this is no discussion, not effective or even entertaining provocation, just transparent dullness. PGC 2014-04-10 16:59 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona : sex orientation can not be changed, neither a matrimony can be other than a man and a woman, neither climate can be changed by little ants like us, neither internationalism can be a genuine feeling, neither supranational identities can be fabricated, neither woman can live without depending on ideas and societies essentially made by men. Neither abortion can be promoted without immense pain in women for the assassination of his child. But that does not mean that a bunch of autonsanctified international delinquents can not make a living from idiots that believe in the idea that "things are gonna change" "another world is possible" and "a catastrophe is coming and we will not survive if the world do not do X" where X is invariably something very painful that demand a lot of concentrated power in a central elite. In the same way that 80 years of mass killings demonstrated that an economy can not be centrally planified, we are gonna suffer another cycle of wrong ideas thanks to the new generation of idiots and their shepherds 2014-04-10 12:51 GMT+02:00 Telmo Menezes : On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:
Re: Video of VCR
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Craig, I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get closer to a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument against comp is not valid, you vindicate being illogical, I don't vindicate being illogical, I vindicate being more logical about factoring in the limitations of logic in modeling the deeper aspects of nature and consciousness. Logically we must not presume to rely on logic alone to argue the nature of awareness, from which logic seems to arise. so I am not sure that repeating my argument can help. I will just sum up: 1) You keep talking like if the situation was symmetrical. You defending ~comp, and me defending comp. But that is not the case. I am nowhere defending the idea that comp is true. I am agnostic on this. I think that you are pseudo-agnostic on it, and have admitted as much on occasion, but that's ok with me either way. I am not convince by your argument against comp, that's all. That is the confusion between ~[]comp and []~comp. Part of my argument though is that being convinced is not a realistic expectation of any argument about consciousness. My argument is that it can only ever be about how much sense it makes relatively speaking, and that the comp argument unfairly rules out immeasurable aesthetic qualities from the start. It does not. *you* rule it out. You make less sense. My argument predicts the bias of comp in predicting the bias of non- comp, so in that aspect we are symmetric. Not at all, because I don't conclude in either comp or not-comp from that. You do an error in logic. That's all. 2) you confuse truth and first person sense, all the time. I'm not confused, I'm flat out denying that truth can ever be anything other than sense, Then truth = sense, as I said. But is is a cosmic or universal form of sense, and you have to related it to the brain and flesh in some ways, even making them delusion. and I'm denying that sense has to be first person. It's an explicit part of my conjecture. truth = first person is just an open problem in comp theology. I can be OK with this, for some theory which assumes non-comp, but not for an argument, which should be independent of any theory, against ~comp. If you use your theory to refute comp, you beg the question. By constraining the terms of the argument to disallow aesthetic sense to transcend logical truth, There is no logical truth. It is always arithmetical truth. you beg the question. We are symmetric here too. No, I make assumption, where you are the one pretending having a proof those assumption is inconsistent. I am OK with both ~[]comp and ~[]~comp. You are the one saying that comp is false. I am not the one saying that ~comp is false. You seem to have difficulties here. With respect to comp I am agnostic, and you are "atheist". You pretend to know that my sun in law is a doll. 3) You confuse levels in theories. You seem to infer that a theory can only talk about syntax and formal objects, because a theory is itself a formal object, but that is a confusion between a theory, and what the theory is about. No, you're projecting that confusion on me because my results disagree with yours. The results as such does not disagree, given that your theory is close to the machine first person phenomenology. I just patiently try to make you understand a mistake, that's all. I understand that the number 4 or the expression x are not intended to relate literally to the figures 4 or x, and I understand that your view of arithmetic assumes a correspondence to Platonic entities. It does not. You need only to agree that 0+x = x, etc. My view though is that no such entities can arise from anything other than the capacity to detect, feel, compare, control, etc. To just define "capacity", "detect", "compare" ... you need to assume things like 0+x=x. To give arithmetic entities experiential potentials makes comp beg the question from the start. How is arithmetic truth not conscious from the start, in order to produce machines that find themselves to be conscious? Arithmetical truth can be said conscious, except that it is not a person, and it is more the container and limiter of the consciousness differentiating flux of of the universal numbers. 4) You take "sense" for granted, and you object to elementary arithmetic. Again, why not, in your theory, but again, that beg the question as an argument refuting comp. Here I can only suggest you to study a bit more computer science and logic. We can just turn that around and say you take "arithmetic" for granted, and you object to elementary sense. But all scientist take arithmetic for granted, nine take sense for granted in the 3p sense of scientific theories (but
Re: Climate models
On 10 Apr 2014, at 19:09, meekerdb wrote: On 4/10/2014 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:51, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:37 AM, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Read Corona's post carefully. I did, and I find his general ideas interesting and worth considering. I don't quire agree that space exploration cannot compete with religion. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to catholic sunday school, and at the same time I was obsessed with space exploration. The former just bore me to tears, while the second gave me feelings of human transcendence. This video still works better for me than all of the religious attempts at showing the divine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoNITE-CLc It is sad that we are currently regressing in many ways. We lost the ability to do what that video shows, Not everyone, apparently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qzOzjRJpaU when we should be doing even more amazing things, and eventually starting colonising other worlds. We are also regressing in social ways, with the return of police states in the west and so on. I don't think that's a coincidence. I hope it's a bump in the road. The road is made of bumps. Things are not simple, and science is not yet born. On the fundamental, many people either believe in fairy tales, or confuse a scientific domain with theology, or eliminate the person. On the other hand, we expanded inwards with the Internet. I believe we still just saw the beginning of the transformative power of the Internet and the things it will enable. The ones in power sense this too, and they are fighting it. At the moment we seem to be heading in the direction of some cyberpunk dystopia. It is the continuation of evolution and its exponential speeding up. 99.9% of humanity will leaves this planet in the next millennia, and we can hope Earth will remain some carbon museum. I mean in the "normal" future. I hope you don't mean "leave" as a euphemism for "die". I think it very doubtful that humans will colonize another planet, much less immigrate wholesale. The nearest earth-like planet is going to be thousands of years away. It might be possible to establish a small research outpost on Mars and the Moon - but they're a lot more hostile than Antarctica and we'd have a hard time establishing a self-sufficient colony there. A king of china decide to put a large rug on the whole land to protect the feet of the subjects, but someone told him it would be more economical to cut small pieces of it and attach them under the feet of the subjects. I don't believe either in terra formation, nor even in planet colonisation, but *in the milennia* the computationalist will get quite different bodies, and lives in cyberspaces, mostly, and no "body" will leave the planet, only the souls or first person handled by I don't which quantum-micro-bacterial in fashion at that time. Even the receptors we will send will get close to light speed, and our mean of locomotion will be radio waves, laser, etc. We will learn the terrestrial lesson, and not try to adapt the universe to us, but us to the universe, and beyond. I think our aspirations should be (1) live sustainably on this planet I totally agree with this. If not, the program above might abort prematurely. and (2) create new race of beings, smarter and better than us, to explore the universe. This is what we do since the beginnings. We are them. The distinction between artificial and natural is artificial. But back to the gay issue. If the assumption is that "gay promotion" is part of a strategy to reduce the population, then that's just silly. That is hardly convincing, given the number of evidences that politicians can be silly. If anything, allowing gays to marry and be parents and adopt is only increasing the carrying capacity of our environment. I don't see how it affects our environment. It just moves parental responsibility around. You comment Telmo here. Adult people can do what they want, as long as they follow the mutual consent rule. Although I do think that children should get enough feminine presence, around them when very young. A nurse at least, or if possible the biological mother. 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.
MODAL+Re: [foar] Amoeba's Secret, by Bruno Marchal available from Kindle store
On 10 Apr 2014, at 03:52, LizR wrote:
I received my copy yesterday and am up to page 25. Very interesting
so far, and "discretely charming" :)
Thank Liz. I was euphoric when writing it, as I thought that 20 years
of stress would end up, but I was naive.
I feel like I should write a sequel, but I have not the mind up to it.
Yet there would nice chapters, like the everything-list, Plotinus,
Salvia divinorum, Eric Vandenbussch (who solved the first
conjecture), ... But also more dark chapters. Not sure I could avoid
9/11, climate changes and the general problem of the (Löbian) possible
deception(s). How far nature and arithmetic play that game already ?
You can interpret the formal "Gödel incompleteness theorem", <>t ->
<>[]f, into the machine's understanding that if she is in the lucky
situation where shit does not happen, then, necessarily shit can
happen. We are warned at the real start!
May be it is time to reread Alan Watts "The wisdom of insecurity".
Tell me, do you know the second incompleteness theorem? Do you see it
is <>t -> ~[]<>t, or ~[]f -> <>[]f? (When Gödel's provability
predicate beweisbar('p') interprets []p in arithmetic, with 'p' being
a number describing p.
(I ask your for planning the sequel of the math thread, if you are
still interested).
Are you still trying to prove (W, R) respects <>A -> []<>A iff R is
euclidian? It is the last which remains.
I recall that the goal is the derivation of physics from arithmetic,
(through a detour in "machine theology").
This necessitates a good understanding of UDA1-7, and, a good
understanding of how to translate "provable(x)" in arithmetic.
The relation with computation is that provable(x) is sigma_1 complete,
it defines a universal number/program/machine.
Comp can exploit a bit of computer science. There is no rush, but the
path is a bit long. I guess I will have to explain more on first order
logic. I have to explain enough so that you can grasp the enunciation
of the theorems used in the derivation.
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: Climate models
It's a matter of values or what one values, what is important. I am real good with robotic exploration of the solar system and super telescopes for exo-planets, but I am including the actual history of what really happened, from senators, Mondale, Proxmire, and Kennedy. It cost life with the reduction of funding the shuttle program. The senators involved didn't know this and left it to the engineers to work around the cutbacks. The cutback version of the shuttle did cost people their lives. The same mind set exists today in the democratic party (US not New Zealand) and it's a careless, unjustifiable over confidence. Yes, the moon program was a publicity stunt. But it was funded to succeed, and that's the difference. Well it was never supposed to be a proper space programme, was it? Sending robots to explore other planets is serious space exploration. Landing a man on the Moon so you can crow about how you've "won the space race" was just a big publicity stunt. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 06:45, wrote: The Russians have continued space travel and so have the Chinese. The Progressive BHO administration is disinterested, by in large, with space stuff. This was way true when senators Proxmire, Mondale, and Ed Kennedy,voted to cut the old space shuttle funding in half, so we got what we got and it exploded twice. Nothing changes, it's always the grand over- confidence that is their earmark, of the progressives. Well it was never supposed to be a proper space programme, was it? Sending robots to explore other planets is serious space exploration. Landing a man on the Moon so you can crow about how you've "won the space race" was just a big publicity stunt. -- 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
Hopefully this is a quick response from me.In no particular order. I will suggest that perhaps Lenin and Trosky might have been exactly as bloodthirsty as Stalin. On abortion, it makes me wonder about a woman's character, if she use's abortion as a means of entrapment. On Jesus, I don't worry about him, if he is not coming back. Coming back IS the Christian message. On corporations, please know that they fund the Marxist parties world-wide. Crony capitalism = Corporatism= Neo-Marxism, Neo-Stalinism, Progressivism. Weird but true. It's not just crusty old conservatives anymore. National power is good, except when it's not. Different people's can work together cooperatively, without rescinding their national rights. On medicine, space, energy, all that. The UN sucks because it's the world's worst people. A replacement org would be nice. Why should Kiwi's be under the boots of Yanks, for instance? Mao, Stalin, and the rest promised changed and the proletariat believed it because the leaders told them what they wanted to hear. The same thing works with used car sales persons. Buyer beware please. -Original Message- From: LizR To: everything-list Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 8:34 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On 11 April 2014 06:45, wrote: Feminism I am ok with because equal pay for equal work. As an element of Marxism it sucks, but otherwise its good. Actually Marxism is about equal pay for equal work, too. Abortions are tricky for me, a subject. It's easy to make generalizations if we are not the pregnant ones. wink. Yes, well said. Homosexuality isn't doomed, unless its the New Testament Jesus purging the sinners, and I don't know enough NT to know if this is what Revelations really says. Homosexuality seems to be a part of nature, and so on. I dunno, Jesus kissed Judas if I remember correctly, or was it the other way around? Probably no tongues though. Nationalism is ok, but people still have to work together to make success on many big troubles. On the other hand the idea that the UN should rule things is pathological, because it renders national power to the most corrupt, hateful, and murderous, people that now exist in the world today. So who's that, then? The Taliban? Al Qaeada? The US government? The CEOs of faceless multinational corporations? Change? Well Stalin and Mao promised and delivered change, and so did Adolf. Change is not always a great, good, thing, especially when peddled by progressives as a sales pitch aka propaganda. It's a means of calling dictatorship, which is something quite bad, good. Stalin, Mao and Hitler may have promised change, but they gave us the same boring old shite we've been getting since the year dot - charismatic psychopathic leaders starting their own cult-of-personality pseudo-religions. No change there, we've been doing it for millennia. I suppose it's possible that Lenin, Trosky and co might have achieved some sort of change if the rest of the world hadn't ganged up on them, but their vision was well and truly scuppered by the nations around them who were utterly terrified that their workers might also demand fair pay, or something equally reprehensible. Stalin just swanned into the resulting mess and took over. -- 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: My scepticism took a small knock today
YES! I strongly believe that the agenda of control in lucid dreams is a false path. It also doesn't work beyond a certain point. One encounters stronger and stronger resistance from the dream process against one's attempts to steer the dream in the direction desired by the ego. What lucid dreaming allows is a kind of conscious conversation with the unconscious (or the soul, whatever word you prefer). If you give up control you can surrender to a deep experience that has many similarities with a psychedelic 'trip'. On Friday, April 11, 2014 2:34:10 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: > > On 10 April 2014 22:54, > wrote: > >> Dream better, please. >> > > Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to > believe. > > > > My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just > the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day-dream fantasy > if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical > recurring "control" habits. > It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and > get on with the dream. > > I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more > big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a "big dream". > > It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of > course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only > (if your remember the proof?). > > Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on > lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, > Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). > > Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian > yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that > idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not > impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com . > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/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: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 8:34:10 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could >>> go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an >>> observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled >>> that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? >>> >> >> Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the >> equation itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly >> describnmope as a wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects >> nor the interference effects. And this hard component you call the >> WaveFunction proper. >> >> Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in >> which case there would be a case to answer, >> >> Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I >> derive this thing? >> e >> I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no >> legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and >> observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite >> absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. >> >> Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking >> > > > > P.S. thngs like 'collapse', 'wavefunction' are just words. There is no > particular need for what happens to characterize something collapsed. There > is no particular necessity that a wave function as you speak of it should > not exist, or that it whould collapse or not. > > They are just words. What matters are the relations and dependencies. You, > and you all,m interact about this matter as if it is my side that wants or > needs there to be a wavefunction that is tied to the interference,m or > wants or needs that this should collapse. > > I see no importance to all that in this context. What is important is that > the mathematical function is discontinous. That's the hard evidence. I > don't see any conflict between that and a wave function that never > collapses. A discontinuity at one level does not prevent continuinity a > wavefunction nevrer collapses can also ahave a discrete nature? Digital > nature? > > It's not me or my side that that demanding there is a link toiand collapse > that we observe is not a collapse at all but universex splittinhg. I mean > Liz, all of that would very strongly suggest that you do asoicater the > observed evetns with this wave function. You build a freaking multiverse > just to say it wasn't a collapse,. > > So ther strong implication ithat you must think that collapse like event, > is your wavefunction? Because if you don't, why all the frenzied effort to > explain it isn't? It's me or myside. What I want to say isx simply what > happens,The equation loses its descriptve v alue the interference pattern > goes away,and a large amount of that remains a mystery ato be solved. > > But the problem for you, is that on the one side you say non of those > oberved effects are the wavefunction, and it isn't observed to vanish. On > the o0ther hand, you sxy the 'apparent'collapse is decoherance and > universes splittinsg and the wavefunction is alive and wellthe effect > we see is local to u8s. > > So you say it is is, and i sin't the wavefucntion, effectively > ORif you are being consistent, then the reason you are is because that claim you mad4wbout the wave is not observed is hard tied to the multiverse already,. In which case, that is what I already suggested, Which would leave you open to hampant begging the question, Because you are in a process involving questions askerd at the root of that theory. -- 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: Max and FPI
On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:31:20 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Friday, April 11, 2014 7:14:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: >> >> This hasn't clarified matters, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could >> go back to my original comment, that wave function collapse isn't an >> observed fact, and tell me if you agree with that, then once we've settled >> that we can move on to the next point (whatever that is), and so on? >> > > Liz - unless you have a component of hard science that is not the equation > itself, and not the fact the equation is itself fairly describnmope as a > wavefunction, andn nor either the wave/particle effects nor the > interference effects. And this hard component you call the WaveFunction > proper. > > Unless you've actually got that, then you don't have anything at all, in > which case there would be a case to answer, > > Or just explaining this mercurial abstraction. In which QM equation may I > derive this thing? > e > I don't you have anything, and if you don't then it definitely has no > legitimacy Qat you overrule the hard connections between QM equations and > observed reality, on the grounds there might be something like that despite > absolutely no evidence for it. Or need. > > Please. Hit me with this huge chunk of science I've been overlooking > P.S. thngs like 'collapse', 'wavefunction' are just words. There is no particular need for what happens to characterize something collapsed. There is no particular necessity that a wave function as you speak of it should not exist, or that it whould collapse or not. They are just words. What matters are the relations and dependencies. You, and you all,m interact about this matter as if it is my side that wants or needs there to be a wavefunction that is tied to the interference,m or wants or needs that this should collapse. I see no importance to all that in this context. What is important is that the mathematical function is discontinous. That's the hard evidence. I don't see any conflict between that and a wave function that never collapses. A discontinuity at one level does not prevent continuinity a wavefunction nevrer collapses can also ahave a discrete nature? Digital nature? It's not me or my side that that demanding there is a link toiand collapse that we observe is not a collapse at all but universex splittinhg. I mean Liz, all of that would very strongly suggest that you do asoicater the observed evetns with this wave function. You build a freaking multiverse just to say it wasn't a collapse,. So ther strong implication ithat you must think that collapse like event, is your wavefunction? Because if you don't, why all the frenzied effort to explain it isn't? It's me or myside. What I want to say isx simply what happens,The equation loses its descriptve v alue the interference pattern goes away,and a large amount of that remains a mystery ato be solved. But the problem for you, is that on the one side you say non of those oberved effects are the wavefunction, and it isn't observed to vanish. On the o0ther hand, you sxy the 'apparent'collapse is decoherance and universes splitting and the wavefunction is alive and wellthe effect we see is local to u8s. So you say it is is, and i sin't the wavefucntion, effectively -- 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.
