Quantum Logic as Classical Logic
This may be of interest. Brent Quantum Logic as Classical Logic Simon Kramer (Submitted on 13 Jun 2014) We propose a semantic representation of the standard quantum logic QL within the classical, normal modal logic K via a lattice-embedding of orthomodular lattices into Boolean algebras with one K-modal operator. Thus the classical logic K is a completion of the quantum logic QL. In other words, we refute Birkhoff and von Neumann's classic thesis that the logic (the formal character) of Quantum Mechanics would be non-classical as well as Putnam's thesis that quantum logic (of his kind) would be the correct logic for propositional inference in general. The propositional logic of Quantum Mechanics is modal but classical, and the correct logic for propositional inference need not have an extroverted quantum character. The normal necessity K-modality (the weakest of all normal necessity modalities!) suffices to capture the subjectivity of observation in quantum experiments, and this thanks to its failure to distribute over classical disjunction. (A fortiori, all normal necessity modalities that do not distribute over classical disjunction suffice.) The key to our result is the translation of quantum negation as classical negation of observability. Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Logic in Computer Science (cs.LO); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); Logic (math.LO); Quantum Algebra (math.QA) Cite as: arXiv:1406.3526 [quant-ph] (or arXiv:1406.3526v1 [quant-ph] for this version) -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal between computers and humans: I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not *really* intelligent. John K Clark OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end failing and so having to keep buggering on. Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking about. Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot like you feel. So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was indistinctness, and still is now. Can't tell if it's less or more because that's indistinctness for you.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to be the great predictor. -Original Message- From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 9:37 pm Subject: Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute On 16 Jun 2014, at 1:14 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the skill with which the car is driven. If that's Edward de Bono's theory of intelligence then he might be able to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours. John, hW De Bono was not theorist, that is true. He merely worked with intelligence and showed how thinking ability can be hoisted up to more effective levels despite intelligence or IQ as educators refer to it, IQ being one of the favourite Aristotelian boxes into which people are dumped, forever to sink deeper. What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. Nobody ever understands what creativity is about who does not separate perception from thinking. I asked de Bono in 2012 if he felt it were possible that one day machines would actually think, according to his definition of true thinking, which involves a studied use of creativity. His response was only if they are allowed to do their own perception otherwise they will only be zombies. hY You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play one or understand the workings of a combustion engine to know how to drive a car. There is less of a need to have a theory of intelligence than there is a need for people to act intelligently. Someone can be plain daft and still show excellent thinking skills. There are many examples of those who made good with absolutely no chance at all in the IQ stakes. hR You don't have to worry about the size of your dick as long as you know how to use what you've been born with. Size may matter in some arcane respect but skill at use is what counts. The person who ultimately comes to possess a winning theory of intelligence may well be Mary Bloggs of Blainey who has no university education, was home-schooled and who cannot even complete a simple crossword, yet her perceptual ability outstrips a Nobel Laureate. hG Apart from that, I would say that a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to simply say that this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission. hR You will in all probability say that this is wrong or inadequate. Why should today be different. hW Some people have fast, powerful minds, others do not. The ones who don't have the V8 engines upstairs tend to be the ones who exercise caution and think slowly. You might have a lousy IQ but you can still succeed in life if you use what you've got and practise thinking. Machines, when and if they ever get an intelligence, will have precisely this issue to deal with as well. hR Intelligence is not the main issue. We've all got one but what we do not yet adequately understand is what makes a PERSON. For my money that has something to do with Comp. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Rats! I should have done that, not this!
Liz, have you Kiwis no sense of shame? http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-may-kick-start-race-mine-ocean-floor-211229873--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBJR66KJ5Taz0APtTQtDMD Ah, Kiwis,weak link, in the global chain of world socialism and environmentaly correct thinking! -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:34 pm Subject: Re: Rats! I should have done that, not this! On 16 June 2014 14:23, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 5:53 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 12:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 6/15/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote: On 16 June 201411:11, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 6/15/2014 3:10 PM, LizR wrote: On 16June 2014 06:14, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote: If youcan determine what a mouse, or a computer, is conscious of then you've engineered it. The point of using the word engineer is that engineering is aboutgetting the righteffects; you don't necessarily need a deep theory to do engineering. You've engineered what it's conscious of, but you haven't engineered its consciousness, as you claimed. That was already there. But you've only inferred it from behavior, which you've manipulated. So if you can manipulate it to make the behavior whatever you want you will have engineered its consciousness. I suspect that this is a semantic quibble. I object to the phrase engineered its consciousness, which I take to mean created its consciousness because its brain already does that. We've only influenced what it's conscious of. But perhaps that's all you meant anyway? No, I deliberately avoided created. I think engineered captures the idea. Engineers were able tobuild impressive structures without any knowledge ofstress-strain tensors or even of simple mechanics. OK, well you probably have a more precise knowledge of what engineered means. To a lay person like me it sounded as though you were saying this was a step in the direction of in some way bringing the rat's consciousness into being from scratch.
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to be the great predictor. Link? Clip? Interesting K -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:44:24 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Jun 2014, at 03:34, Pierz wrote: On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:52:02 AM UTC+10, Liz R wrote: On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote: Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already hugely mind-bogglingly incremental. It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised intelligence built in. Inspired by She I asked her what she was wearing, and she said, I can't tell you but it doesn't come off.). Well, I'm still agnostic on comp, so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however consider the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of the century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the computational power required for human intelligence is already present in a modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it. It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years. Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more cores, i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the predicted amount (or so I'm told). No - we are hitting limits now in terms of miniaturization that are posing serious challenges to the continuation of Moore's law. So far, engineers have - more or less - found ways of working around these problems, but this can't continue indefinitely. However, it's really a subsidiary point. If we require 1000x the power of a modern laptop, that's easily (if somewhat expensively) achieved with parallelization, a la Google's PC farms. Of course this only helps if we parallelize our AI algorithms, but given the massive parallelism of the brain, this should be something we'd be doing anyway. And yet I don't think anyone would argue that they could achieve human-like intelligence even with all of Google's PCs roped together. It's an article of faith that all that is required is a programming breakthrough. I seriously doubt it. I believe that human intelligence is fundamentally linked to qualia (consciousness), and I've yet to be convinced that we have any understanding of that yet. I am familiar of course with all the arguments on this subject, including Bruno's theory about unprovable true statements etc, but in the end I remain unconvinced. For instance I would ask how we would torture an artificial consciousness (if we were cruel enough to want to)? How would we induce pain or pleasure? Sure we can reward a program for correctly solving a problem in some kind of learning algorithm, but anyone who understands programming and knows what is really going on when that occurs must surely wonder how incrementing a register induces pleasure (or decrementing it, pain). Anyway. Old hat I guess. My point is it comes down to a bet, as Bruno likes to say. An statement of faith. At least Bruno admits it is such. I do more than admit this. I insist it has to be logically the case that it needs an act of faith. That is also the reason why I insist that it is a theology. It is, at the least, the belief in a form of (ditital) reincarnation. As things stand, given the current state of AI, I'd bet the other way. Comp is not so nice with AI. Theoretical AI is a nest of beautiful results, but they are all necessarily non constructive. We cannot program intelligence, we can only recognize it, or not. It depends in large part of us. In theoretical artificial intelligence, or learning theory(*), the results can be sum up by the fact that a machine will be more intelligent than another one if she is able to make more errors, to change its mind more often, to work in team, to allow non falsifiable hypothesis, etc. Certainly those look like sound approaches to problem solving. But if we consider our paradigmatic example of
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers can't do YET. Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that stopped being true in 1997. Being the best Jeopardy champion on the planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s. Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect on that fact while we still can, therefore I suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and creativity will no longer be required for image recognition. You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play one It's true that even a great pianist need not have any idea of how his piano works, but it's not true if he intends to make a better piano, then he had better have a very good theory of pianos. a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to simply say that this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission. Some signals in the brain move as slowly as .01 meters per second, the slow diffusion of some hormones for example, but even the very fastest signals in the brain move at only 100 meters per second. Light moves at 300,000,000 meters per second, and in a computer the distances the signal must travel will be shorter because the components are smaller. Game over. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 04:52, meekerdb wrote: On 6/12/2014 7:03 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 02:42, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Simply because you can give something you call a basic accounting of a painting by specifying the placement of pigments on a canvas doesn't preclude also describing it as a Monet of water lillies. You've chosen a level and called it basic and then complain that it leaves something out. I'd say it's just incomplete. You're right, it doesn't preclude it, but neither does it demand it. The painting wouldn't be any the less what it is *physically* were it to remain uninterpreted in perpetuity. Yes it would. Physics is interaction - not just existence, Physics talk only on many things, but a priori does not talk about existence, unless you mean physicist physics. and in fact QM teaches us that *things* don't exist without interacting. Like Mermin telling that today we know definitely that the moon does not exist when we don't look at it? It seems to me that this kind of weirdness exists only when we take QM +collapse. That's where I think Bruno's step 8 is misleading. If pursued rigorously I think it would require a whole world to implement all the counterfactuals. I don't think so. You need only the computations, which defines all the counterfactuals, and the logic of counterfactuals will be one (or many) among the main arithmetical modalities (hypostases). Step 8 just shows that making primitive matter genuinely necessary for consciousness reintroduce a non turing emulable, nor FPI-recoverable magic at the place where classical comp provides an experimental tool to measure that magic (which means that comp is false, or we are lied on the fundamental level (i.e. we are in an emulation done at a low level, in our hidden normal reality level). Physics just don't address the question of theology and metaphysics. The problem is that there is a widespread confusion due to the fact that many take physics for a theology, but that is physicalism. That might be true, but comp illustrates this is not necessarily the case, and evidences (from both the empirical reality, and the arithmetical reality) adds that the fundamentalreality might be not a physical one. With comp, it has to be arithmetical from outside/3p and is theological from inside, with the physical appearing to be the border of the universal mind (of the universal machine). It is the place where God loses control, and usually considered negatively by the mystics (roots of suffering, illusion, And if you only prove that an artificial consciousness can exist in an artificial world you have proved much except that artificial is relative. How could a universal machine can do would make an artificial consciousness emulated at the right level through the truth of arithmetical relations (actually deductible from the addition and multiplication axioms) wou Step 8 extends that relativity on the set of true arithmetical sentences. You need consciousness to be physical in a non Turing emulable and non FPI-recoverable sense to escape the conclusion. Logically you can always add something like holy matter to escape the conclusion, as step 8 cannot falsifies logically the primitive matter (which is not logical indeed), but step 8 shows it to be equivalent with don't ask about consciousness. The point is that the completion (i.e. the interpretation of the pigments on canvas as a particular work by Monet) is a supernumerary epistemological consequence that is not required (in the strict terms of this view) to singularise or otherwise determine the physical state of affairs. I think you are assuming the point in question, i.e. that all the physical interactions of brains with the painting and the rest of the world are irrelevant and that the physical description of the painting is *just* the pigment on the canvas. You take all that other interaction, which also has both physical and psychological description and leave it out and then you say the physical description leaves out something essential. That seems to imply that you believe philosophical zombies are possible? It is just that if you need if the physical can bring all the relevant descriptions, and that such description can be truncated digitally, and that yet you still survived, then *you* have to believe in infinitely many zombies in arithmetic. If you were able to convince me of the existence of primitive matter validly, there would be a local measure one (with respect to here and now) of Brent Meeker-zombies in arithmetic convincing validly a similar infinities of Bruno-Marchal-zombies. I think that even a zombie cannot make a valid deduction of something which we know (from the very definition of arithmetic) that it is trivially false. Comp *has* a notion of primitive matter (the sum on all
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
I thought I have commented this, but my computer claims I did not. Anyway, i make precisions. On 13 Jun 2014, at 17:07, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 01:27, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But although we may speculate that consciousness and physical events both depend on computation (perhaps only in the sense of being consistently described) it doesn't follow that a UD exists or the conscious/ physical world is an illusion. People throw around it's an illusion so freely that it ceases to distinguish rhinoceri from unicorns. You're right, oftentimes they do. But I wouldn't include Bruno in people here (if you see what I mean). Once one assumes the existence of the UD (or rather its infinite trace) the hard problem then becomes one of justifying in detail every aspect of the *appearance* of matter through its interaction with mind. So here I would just like to insist that we don't need to assume the existence of the UD, nor of its traces. Both exist in the (sigma_1) true arithmetical sentences. Then, as Bruno is wont to say, the problem turns out to be (at least) twice as hard as we might have feared. Yes. We did have a consciousness problem, and now we have a matter problem. As to the admissibility of the UD, for me, in the end, it's just another theoretical posit. As it happens, it strikes me as sufficiently motivated, because once computation is fixed as the base, I don't see how one would justify restricting its scope to certain computations in particular. Well, we could have taken only the total computable functions (despite this is not a computable, nor even semi-computable). That set has no proper universal dovetailing, but the UD dovetails completely through it, with the price of dovetailing on the non total computable functions too, generating the infinite histories. It also suits my Everything-ist predilection (when I'm wearing that hat) to see the world-problem formulated in terms of a self-interpreting Programmatic Library of Babel. But my preferences are neither here or there, of course. What counts, as always, is how fruitful a theory turns out to be. So the proof of the comp pudding, in the end, will lie in its ultimate utility. If it helps people to conceive one can be rational and non aristotelian, then it can help us to regain with a non authoritarian theology, respectful of the person from the universal numbers to the many gods and who know the one. But utility is a quite relative and indexical notion. Truth is I think the most intrinsic useful notion, and the search for truth seems to me useful per se. (I agree that is debatable though, and this did not mean than all truth we can find can be communicated or justified, certainly not as such). By that point, should it come, I guess most people will have stopped quibbling about the existence, or otherwise, of the number 2. It should be clear then, under such assumptions, that neither a conscious state, nor any local physical mechanism through which it is manifested, can any longer be considered basic; Aren't conscious thoughts epistemologically basic. They are things of which we have unmediated knowledge. Yes, they are. But on the comp assumption, they're still in a specific sense derivative. Admittedly this is a subtle distinction that must be handled with care. For example, I don't think that it wouldn't be accurate to say that conscious thoughts are caused by arithmetic or computation. It's more that the epistemological consequences turn out to be a logical entailment of the original ontological assumptions. And part of that entailment is that there is indeed a we that can have unmediated knowledge of certain truths. With Theaetetus, knowledge becomes mediated beliefs/representation + unmediated truth. Consciousness of the mediated beliefs is mediated by the unmediated truth, I think. Bruno rather, *both* must (somehow) be complex artefacts (albeit with distinctive derivations) of a more primitive (in this case, by assumption, computational) ontology. The relevant distinction, then, is between this set of relations and the alternative, in which both consciousness and computation are assumed to be derivative on a more basic (hence primitive) formulation of matter. I can agree with that. It is consistent with my point that primitive matter is undefined and could be anything if we just called it ur- stuff instead of matter. Good. Perhaps that's all a little clearer, then. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 13 Jun 2014, at 23:22, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. Given this scope, it must be true, ex hypothesi, that any and all higher-order derivatives, for example computational or neurological states, are re-descriptions (known or unknown) of the basic entities and relations and hence always fully reducible to them. Consequently such higher-order concepts, though explanatorily indispensible, are ontologically disposable; IOW, it's the basic physics that, by assumption, is doing all the work. By contrast, computationalism, as formulated in the UDA, leads to the hypothesis of an arithmetical ontology resulting in a vastly redundant computational infinity. This being the case, there is a dependency from the outset on a fundamental selective principle in order to justify the appearance of a lawlike observational physics; IOW before it can advance to the stage that physicalism has already assumed at the outset. That selective principle is a universal observational psychology, based on the universal digital machine, whose primary role is to justify the singularisation of a particular, lawlike physics that comports with observation. It should be clear, therefore, that the psychology of observation is not itself reducible to basic physics in this scheme of things. That would be an egregious confusion of levels. Moreover, it is not straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends on complex, computationally-instantiated epistemological states and their relation to modes of arithmetical truth. Absent those states and modes, there would be no physics, no observer and nothing to observe. Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. Well said. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-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: Pluto bounces back!
I absolutely agree! But my point was that these folks are not true pacifists by merely anti-Americans calling themselves pacifists. These types genuflect to M-L ideology as a parishioner does in Church on Sundays. It's like a religion (ideology) because they're faith-based. You'd have figured that after the 20th century failures, and slaughter these types would have withered away as Marx and Engels called the state to do, but they are here in the 21st century, and have adopted for survival. Again, the are not pacifists, simply protesters. :-) I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is? I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? I guess David meant physical fundamental entities, that is observable. The physicalist declares that something is real if it is observable. Platonist and mystics, or believers, tends to assume that the observable has some non observable reason to exist. They bet on something else, going from numbers (Pythagorus), an intelligible reality (Plato), mathematics (Xeusippes), the one (Plotin), ... and yes the fairy tales god(s) (once research in theology get forbidden, be it with plants, dances, or logic and math, still today). Given this scope, it must be true, ex hypothesi, that any and all higher-order derivatives, for example computational or neurological states, are re-descriptions (known or unknown) of the basic entities and relations and hence always fully reducible to them. Consequently such higher-order concepts, though explanatorily indispensible, are ontologically disposable; IOW, it's the basic physics that, by assumption, is doing all the work. I see nothing in your explication that really defines or distinguishes physicalism from any other 'ism that proposes to explain everything in terms of some fundamental entities. I tried to give a definition that physical meant sharable in an operational sense. Sharable by who? By the universal numbers? I am all with you. Did you reject that definition? In the above you seem to just assume that we know what is meant by physicalism and physics and we just know it's inadequate. By contrast, computationalism, as formulated in the UDA, leads to the hypothesis of an arithmetical ontology resulting in a vastly redundant computational infinity. And this is different from string theory because string theory assumes real numbers which makes it bigger than a computational infinity? Yes. That's why Tegmark is fuzzy on the ontology. The term mathematica can't be defined in mathematics. All attempts have failed up to now. My be with Quine NF, ... But with Church thesis we do have the miracle of a something both universal, and effective. The universal machine, and the limiting border of its capacities, which by the first person delay invariance get in touch with the machines statistically stable machine's point of view. This being the case, there is a dependency from the outset on a fundamental selective principle Which is? The consciousness of the owner of the memory diary. in order to justify the appearance of a lawlike observational physics The justification of lawlike observation in physics is a topic of research, mostly centered around hopes that decoherence theory will explain the appearance of the classical world, which is necessary for observation. Decoherence theory does not need to make the other world disappearing. That would reintroduce linearity where it can't be, if QM is correct. Decoherence just explains why it is hard to get the trace of the interference effect with the macroscopic states. ; IOW before it can
Re: Pluto bounces back!
China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What brings stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for other nations to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The anti-war types in the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals, progressives, maxists, whatever the call themselves. For example, none of them protested against the Soviet invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And, back in 39, this group suspended all criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of Steel was signed in August 39. The restarted their criticism of adolf only after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I can cite other patterns for this, but why give Liz eye strain? Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is? I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
Hold on a secI will youtube link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEq305SizA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aJPF5HJ9Is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DON-aM2tze4 -Original Message- From: Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 7:15 am Subject: Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute On 16 Jun 2014, at 8:42 pm, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Besides Di Bono, there's the dude Bruce Bueno Di Mesquito, who's supposed to be the great predictor. Link? Clip? Interesting K -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:43, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: On 13 June 2014 20:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: under physicalism, in accounting for the origin of matter (which is basic). This makes it coherent, at least in principle, to ask for an exhaustive physical accounting of any given state of affairs. In the final analysis *everything* must be reducible, by assumption, to one or another description of some basic set of underlying physical relations. Under computationalism, by contrast, the epistemological logic is absolutely central in differentiating the lawful appearances of matter from the exhaustive redundancy of the computational base. Hence on these assumptions, even in principle, no state of affairs above the level of the basic ontology could ever be exhaustively accounted for by any catalogue of descriptions, however sophisticated or multi-levelled, of its merely physical dispositions, absent the selective logic of its epistemology. ?? Too dense for me. I think logic can be accounted for in 3p and can be observed in brains, as in computers. I'm sorry if it's hard to follow my drift, but I'm also a little flummoxed that we're still flogging this particular horse. Why is such a fundamental distinction between physicalism and computationalism still so contentious after all the to-ing and fro-ing on this very point on this list over the years? We are not debating the correctness of either of the theories under discussion, but rather the distinctively different role that is played by their various conceptual elements. To summarise, then: physicalism is the hypothesis that an exhaustively reduced account of any state of affairs whatsoever can, in principle, be rendered by reference to a particular, restricted class of fundamental entities and relations. So those fundamental entities can be numbers and the relations can be functions in arithmetic? It appears so, so far, from observation of how physical theories that work have been constructed. E.g. Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg Hmm... Liz, how quick you are here. I see the point, but for an outsider out of context, this will seem unfair. I guess you will agree that even if God did the world, God did it is still not acceptable as an explanation. We would like to know why and how, and what did God, for example. yet the formula above, which looks like a solution of the SWE for a particles in some spherical forces field, and this is pretty uself, as it gives the precise amplitude of probability to find a particle somewhere. But yes this does not explain better than God did it when we ask about a fundamental equation, where here we will ask why and how are particles, why that equation and not some others, and where do such laws come from, and why does it hurt, also. The fundamental must tackle the origin of the fundamental questions itself. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 01:46, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 2:22 PM, David Nyman wrote: Moreover, it is not straightforwardly reducible to the underlying arithmetical entities and relations, because the selective principle in question *depends on complex, computationally-instantiated epistemological states What's an epistemological state of an arithmetical entity? Sounds like an egregious confusion of levels to me. :-) Well, our knowledge is, if comp is correct! :-) Yes. It is not different from the epistemological state of a machine, or better, of the person associated to the machine. And with Theatetus applied to the arithmetical beweisbar predicate of Gödel, we do obtain, thanks to incompleteness, the necessary nuances to have first person person ([]p p), and matter sharable first person ([]p p), although on p sigma_1, matter appears already in the first person. Those epistemological state does not apply to any arithmetical entities, but provably to those who will have relative self- referentially correct 3p discourse about themselves, including the 3p description of the other discourses. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 02:26, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. It's not clear what emulates means. I think Bruno proposes that arithmetical computation actually instantiates modal states like belief. But I think that may be stretching the meaning of belief. If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. Yes, as a propensity to act in a certain way, a belief is doubtless a complex data structure. (But if comp is correct it's a finite one.) Of course saying physically instantiated is assuming what you're trying to prove. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians who come armed with assumptions they call axioms. Proof is for all human beings, and alien or machines, who does not want to waste time with contradictory beliefs. Logicians just studies proofs and their working, like entomologists studies insects. But they proves their metatheorem about proofs and meaning in the usual informal ways, using english or natural languages, like all scientists. It happens that the working of universal machines has many relation with proof systems, although those are not equivalent. basically computability is sigma_1 provability, but provability is a quite different notions, it obeys different laws than the computable. Physically instantiated isn't even a sentence, so you must be referring to If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. I don't think that's just an assumption, it's an inductive inference given some ostensive definitions. Right. But you computer has been able to get the point, and send the mail. The net physically instantiantes application and their computations, and we can argued that the part of computations physically instanciated has always grown since the invention:discovery of the DNA. Acceleration occurs with the successive layers of universal systems, like DNA, cells' colony, brain (the amoebas get the cable!), languages, thought, computers, the internet, etc. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Hitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support, were mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush. Richard On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What brings stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for other nations to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The anti-war types in the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals, progressives, maxists, whatever the call themselves. For example, none of them protested against the Soviet invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And, back in 39, this group suspended all criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of Steel was signed in August 39. The restarted their criticism of adolf only after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I can cite other patterns for this, but why give Liz eye strain? Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is? I think you'll find pacifists are against *anyone *going to war. Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 05:32, meekerdb wrote: On 6/13/2014 5:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 12:26, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/13/2014 4:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 14 June 2014 10:01, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: Consequently, neither computation, nor the epistemological states it emulates, are dispensable (i.e. fully reducible) in this schema. It's not clear what emulates means. I think Bruno proposes that arithmetical computation actually instantiates modal states like belief. But I think that may be stretching the meaning of belief. If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. Yes, as a propensity to act in a certain way, a belief is doubtless a complex data structure. (But if comp is correct it's a finite one.) Of course saying physically instantiated is assuming what you're trying to prove. Proof is for logicians and mathematicians who come armed with assumptions they call axioms. That's right, which is why maths and logic appear to be the only things we can know about for sure. The question is whether that has any ontological implications. I don't know of any way to prove that it does or doesn't, which is why I remain agnostic. Physically instantiated isn't even a sentence, so you must be referring to If belief is defined in terms of propensity to act certain ways in certain contexts, then it seems it can be physically instantiated too. I don't think that's just an assumption, it's an inductive inference given some ostensive definitions. Do you want me to wear my fingers out? Obviously I'm referring to the quote immediately above, that's why it's there! Anyway, if that's an inductive inference it appears to be one that assumes the materialist position, unless you are being explicitly agnostic on what physically means (but most people who use it like that aren't, so I'd expect you to say so). I thought I'd been pretty clear that it's ill defined, a point on which I agree with Bruno. I tried to define it in the exchange with David, but he seemed to reject my definition and just assumed everybody knows what it means. The materialist position is the starting point of comp, so it will trip over the reversal unless you can point out where Bruno's gone wrong. I wrote several paragraphs on why I don't find Bruno's arguments very persuasive. It is a 99,9% deductive argument, but in step 8 we point to reality, in which case we need Occam razor to eliminate the non relevant axioms. Step 8 shows that you have to build a very special magical theory of primitive matter to escape the conclusion, or you compare the classical comp with nature, and this might give you a clue for that experimental theory of primitive matter. My point is that we just don't know, today, but I give a way to test this, and clues, that QM is going in the comp direction, even if we might improve at some stage the knowledge theory. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Selecting your future branch
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: If free will just means will then why stick on the free ? Because we believe that free does not add anything, Except bafflegab. except some emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of freedom. And here we go again, same old shit. What does freedom mean? The ability to make a choice. What does the ability to make a choice mean? Freedom. And round and round she goes and were she stops nobody knows. That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what I meant. So a Turing Machine has free will. I have never in my life said that first person indeterminacy does not exist, what I dismissed is that the discovery I sometimes don't know what I'm going to do or see next is profound and was first made by Bruno Marchal WONDERFUL! You act surprised but I've been saying the exact same thing over and over and over again for at least 3 years. I am glad you agree now with the FPI. So you accept step 3. Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since forgotten the details of your proof. But are you telling me that the grand conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage was I don't know? The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I stopped reading. You: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon all notion of free will. There is no notion of free will to abandon, all I'm saying that if members of the species Homo sapiens made the free will noise a little less often we could all live in a quieter environment. Me: non compatibilist free will is non sense thus let us abandon non compatibilism. The trouble with compatibilism is that it's entire purpose was to solve the free will problem but it never clearly explained what the free will problem was. But to be fair non-compatibilists can't explaine what the free will problem is either so it's not surprising they haven't solved it. You do the same error than with atheism: the christian literal God is non sense, so let us decree that all what the christian asserts on God is false. Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Well..., I will admit this, I am a Christian if and only if you are logical. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 14 Jun 2014, at 15:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Very roughly speaking, you have the materialists who believes there is a material universe with some primitive ontology (the aristotelians, with 0 ot more gods added), and those who thinks that the material reality is the sign of something else (which can be numbers (Pythagorus), or some god, or whatever. The first will tend to make physics the fundamental theory. The second will tend to make theology or mathematics, or computer science, or arithmetic (or something else) fundamental. It would be long to explain comp, which implies arithmetic will do for the ontological realm, or anything Turing equivalent) but you can read my sane04 paper and my last one, provided by Kim recently (which I should make online, but I procrastinate that kind of things). http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html I can send you the other one out of line, if you desire. Bruno John Ross On 12 Jun 2014, at 18:28, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I am well aware of the two slit experiment. You can't send tronnies one-by-one anywhere. They exist in twosomes and threesomes as electrons, positrons or entrons. The entron is the energy-mass of each photon. Photons are self propelled by internal Coulomb forces of their entrons. In the two-slit experiment the entron goes through one slit but its Coulomb force wave goes through both slits. Like Bohm and de Broglie. Today, this is known to introduce non local physical action. My theory does not deal with consciousness. It might the grain of dust which forces us to revise our opinion on Plato, on mind and physics. I argue that if the brain works like a machine, that is mainly in a local causal way (no magic), then Plato is right and the physical reality is the border of the universal mind, i.e. the mind of the universal machine (Turing, Church, Post, ...). I am afraid that the Ross theory is still in the frame of taking Aristotle theology for granted. Bruno On 08 Jun 2014, at 20:33, John Ross wrote: I am not trying to prove quantum mechanics incorrect. I am trying to prove my theory is correct. If my theory is correct, and quantum mechanics is inconsistent withmy theory then quantum mechanics may very well be incorrect. There is also a possibility that on some issues the two theories may both be correct. QM is the only theory (or scheme of theories) which has not been refuted for more than a century. All others theories in physics have been shown wrong in less than few years, when they are not suspected to be wrong at the start (wrong does not imply not useful in some context). So my question, which has been already asked, is simply what happens when you send tronnies, one by one, (or compounds of tronnies) on a plate with two close small holes? (have you heard and think about Young two slits experience?). You lost me with Turing emulable. We can come back on this later, but as you seem not so much interested in consciousness, that might be out of your topic, at least for now. Taking consciousness into account + the hypothesis that the brain is a natural computer might force us to make physics into a sort of illusion entirely reducible to the study of machine's psychology or theology. See my URL or post, if interested. Bruno JR From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 2:35 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: TRONNIES - SPACE On 07 Jun 2014, at 22:18, John Ross wrote: I do not explain consciousness. Fair enough. You are not searching to explain everything. Unfortunately, consciousness has something to say on the very origin of the beliefs in the physical laws. You are still an Aristotelian theologian (taking matter for primitive or granted with the naive identity relation (brain/mind)). To defend that relation, between brain and mind, you will need some special sort of actual infinities. With the thesis that a brain (or body) is Turing emulable, you can still attach consciousness to a brain, but you cannot attach a brain to consciousness, you can only attach an infinity of relative universal machine states to a consciousness. This might explain the many-world aspect of quantum mechanics. It is not yet clear to me what is your position on quantum mechanics, or your explanation of the two slits experiment. Bruno Jr From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:02 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re:
Re: Pluto bounces back!
On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is anti-war, when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is clear today, it was clear three decades ago, when anti-war protesters, protested only against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years before this, during the Vietnam war, where they were against American involvement, but said absolutely nothing about the Khmer Rouge slaying a million Kampucheans. It's just not their world-wide, and what the Soviets did was ok fine. So it was never war they were and are against. Nowadays the same people are against US involvement, but Islamist warfare, is something that they have zero comment over. Rhetorically, speaking, I wonder why? But we both know, really. People can often never be in favor of an idea or a policy, but there is a always the certainty of hated, that quickness the blood, and defines who they are. It's an old game, after all. What is the standard for authentic patriotism in the camp you're in? You are talking about Islamic warfare...there isn't a lot of that on the American continent. So where do you envisage this war talking place, next? Are you able to list what interests the American people have in the region you mention, and what is the dollar cost, you think, for what military objective? How will success or failure be measured? What value has the American people accrued from the Iraq war? It cost about a trillion and half. That's enough to have retooled American industry into a knock down competitive force. American might have had a very different last decade. A lot of people in America are poor, increasing numbers have job insecurity. What is your equation that fighting another war in the middle east (presumably) at presumably another trillion dollars, is a good way to spend those Americans taxes? Or is it a case of, guys that advocate for wars, in a time when vast resources have been poured down the toilet for similar wars with zero value as a result for American people, are by definition good patriots? I mean...what if your motivations aren't patriotic? What's the standard? How can anyone tell? ginal Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: Sent: 15-Jun-2014 14:58:21 + Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back! *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript: [ mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com javascript:] I style myself as informed about the aggressor. Then I take it you have never ever lived in or even visited a Muslim country… you probably do not know any Arabs or other Muslims on a personal level, and have never shared food with them. And yet you consider yourself informed. Strange way of getting informed. The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its contemporary form. Yes… I can see that this is what you have concluded, based on second and third hand accounts, written by propagandists with axes to grind. You are so sure of all of your conclusions, without ever having actually been to a Muslim country, without ever having actually met and lived amongst Arabs or other Muslims. You are sure because you read it somewhere, or more likely heard some talking head rave on about this “clash of civilizations”. This does not seem all that rigorous to me; actually it seems rather more like the weak gruel of a regurgitated diet of cherry picked sound bites. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is? Haha – are you suggesting that calling into question your extremist and ill-informed world views is a form of anti-American treasonous activity? Typical, and exactly what I expected from an armchair general such as yourself. You have never actually seen war; you do not know what war really is; you are prejudiced and you pine for a genocidal clash of civilizations – but a bloody hell, for other people to go die in and kill for…. because I don’t see you volunteering, chickenhawk! It is cowards, who demand war from the safety of their living rooms. Chris A few questions. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Have you ever been to any Muslim country at all? I ask, because you seem to style yourself an expert on the thinking and inner mind of people in the Middle East. So naturally I am curious about the nature of your
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 Jun 2014, at 22:16, meekerdb wrote: On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. The point is that he believed in physical substances. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - I think that even a cat find evident that there is milk, there, and I am pretty sure the cat believe in some primitive substance, even if he is not capable to acknowledge such a fact. and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. But with comp the point becomes that eventually primitive matter is just all magic by itself. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi attempted to produce a TOE based on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. It is neither. It is a bunch of truth though. Nothing in math is stuffy. Stuffy, like hard, soft, smelly, touchable belongs to the mathematical imagination of numbers (assuming comp and all is well), no doubt helped by long and deep (linear) histories. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Pluto bounces back!
Richard, I do know the history of the Bush regime, and all that. To be consistent, my point again is that the comies, liberals, and so forth were against Hitler because he railed against the 'Bolshevism' of Comrade Stalin. When Stalin and Dolf did the pact of steel, they were best buds to the point of trading raw materials and tech with each other before May 1941. So, for example, Pete Seeger, USA Stalin sympathizer and folk singer, requested that purchasers of a anti-hitler song, from early 1939, be returned, because it might offend Comrade Stalin's new buddy. In summer of 41, the record was re-issued. This is how the Left thinks, its a faith movement that is not often subject to reason and evidence. Which highlights my assertion that anti-protesters, are not pacifists, but loyal activists to the cause. One priciple of this cause is a hatred of the nation-state, founded in the later 18th century. aHitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support, were mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush. Richard Yes, Prescott Bush and Joe Kennedy felated the Nazis indeed. They were essential traitors as far as I am concerned. To your point, it was the German Industrialists like Krupp, created the Hitler Fund in 1927, and yes, they were extreme, conservative, racists, no doubt. The Communist Party of Germany during Weimar, were not pacifists either. -Original Message- From: Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 1:40 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! Hitler supporters, at least the ones that actually gave financial support, were mainly rich conservatives like Prescott Bush. Richard On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:05 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: China 89 was a different idea, because they were pragmatists and not ideologues. They were true pacifists, however unreasonable that is. What brings stability between China and everyone else, is the capability for other nations to leverage things that China doesn't want to do without. The anti-war types in the US 90% not Quaker, but instead, liberals, progressives, maxists, whatever the call themselves. For example, none of them protested against the Soviet invasions of Poland and Afghanistan. And, back in 39, this group suspended all criticism of Hitler, after the Pact of Steel was signed in August 39. The restarted their criticism of adolf only after May 41, when the Nazis invaded. I can cite other patterns for this, but why give Liz eye strain? Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, Jun 15, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On 16 June 2014 14:00, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 June 2014 00:09, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: I style myself as informed about the aggressor. The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and on for a few decades, in its contemporary form. I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, why this is? I think you'll find pacifists are against anyone going to war. Oh, and the reason people in the US protest against the US military is because they're in the US, and in a position to do so. Generally people who protest are only able to do so in their own country. The people in Tiananmen Square protested in their country, too. No doubt there were people asking why they only protested against their government, too. -- 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
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 15 Jun 2014, at 23:49, John Mikes wrote: How much was a day before Creation? and: wht happened 7 days before creation? who gave birth? Very good question. Comp is lucky for not being asked to answer this, as the outer god can be limited to the sigma_1 arithmetical truth, and it is not dependent of time or space or energy or primitive matter, or anything, actually. It does defines infinities of time, though (computations). Physical time and space and energy is an invention/discovery of the inner God, or universal soul, mathematically circumscribed at the propositional level by S4Grz1. And I am not saying it is true, but only that it follows from comp + the classical theory of knowledge, and that the theory is utterly precise about physics, and indeed is confirmed up to now by quantum mechanics (thanks to a result by Goldblatt + a result by myself). It is a theory in competition with the physicalist/materialist/ naturalist conception of reality, despite many physicalist/materialist/ naturalist believes in comp (and thus are inconsistent or vague). I would be happy if my work can help scientists to be more cautious and *agnostic* about which of Plato and Aristotle have the less wrong conception of reality. The beauty of comp is that it forces comp to be modest and agnostic on that point all by itself, preventing proselytism, and making it for what it is: a theology, with special funeral rite, like when accepting an artificial brain. Anyway, if we let the multinationals get monopolies, we might end up with artificial brain whatever we say to the doctor (like vaccination is obligatory), by social coercion or laws (mixing health and politics) in a world where people are no more encouraged to think and take responsibility. You might say yes to the doctor, because you can't afford the price of oxygen and the class of upper level types of objects. That is not for tomorrow. Bruno JM On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 6:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 15 Jun 2014, at 02:22, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 02:37, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Liz wrote: E.G.: Physical theory with words: GOD DID IT - Physical theory with numbers and so on: Untitled.jpg I think I never had the perseverance to decipher such a long expression, now I certainly don't. Question: how much is the NUMERICAL NUMBER OF GOD? According to The Pixies, God is Seven, which is just about the age he acts in most of the Old Testament. Wow. Interesting. At the creation time, God was only a seven day baby. We might not hold him/she/it for having been responsible of its act. Not sure that is consistent with the platonist God which is truth, or at least approximated by an encirclement of truth, and might not have an aging predicate. That would be like saying 23 is prime, OK, but since whence? 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: Pluto bounces back!
1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair as I am concerned. 2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as the Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. That's my criteria. 3. I heard that it was closer to 2 trillion dollars in national wealth wasted on the Saddam war. I would have gone into Pakistan, and pursed Bin Laden, and his protectors in the ISI. They would have deposed Musharef, our, Pakistani chum, and would have sought the annihilation of Al Qaeda and affiliated orgs. Bush was buds with the Saudis and that is no mistake, and explains much about the previous administrations decisions. 4. The economic complaint is bogus, in light of BHO's anti-jobs policies economically. He and his party do not believe in job creation that is not affiliated with the democrat party. So he is good with teachers unions, state workers, and federal employees, and trade unions, that funnel cash into democrat pacs. Small businesses provide little for his party, and he has no use for people who 'slow down the process.' Hence, this is why the US joblessness rate has been so high, even after the 09 market crash. Obama has much more crony capitalist contributors then Bush ever had, Koch's not with standing. The trillions would have gone into the pockets of his billionaires, his unions, as it did from 2009 forward. Wall Street loves him-contrary to Marxist prop. The poor get free phones and snap cards. 5. Sure, war is a waste, and a terrible one at that. But its somewhat better then seeing yourself or your buds, conquered and killed, which can be a bummer, sometimes. Let me ask you this? How many protesters do we see world-wide, against the Putin's incursions in the Ukraine, or protesting the war in Syria, the ISIS murders in Iraq?? The streets, had the US did something would have protesters-but! That's not the party way. Protestors are merely anti-US and not pacifists. -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 2:05 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is anti-war, when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is clear today, it was clear three decades ago, when anti-war protesters, protested only against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years before this, during the Vietnam war, where they were against American involvement, but said absolutely nothing about the Khmer Rouge slaying a million Kampucheans. It's just not their world-wide, and what the Soviets did was ok fine. So it was never war they were and are against. Nowadays the same people are against US involvement, but Islamist warfare, is something that they have zero comment over. Rhetorically, speaking, I wonder why? But we both know, really. People can often never be in favor of an idea or a policy, but there is a always the certainty of hated, that quickness the blood, and defines who they are. It's an old game, after all. What is the standard for authentic patriotism in the camp you're in? You are talking about Islamic warfare...there isn't a lot of that on the American continent. So where do you envisage this war talking place, next? Are you able to list what interests the American people have in the region you mention, and what is the dollar cost, you think, for what military objective? How will success or failure be measured? What value has the American people accrued from the Iraq war? It cost about a trillion and half. That's enough to have retooled American industry into a knock down competitive force. American might have had a very different last decade. A lot of people in America are poor, increasing numbers have job insecurity. What is your equation that fighting another war in the middle east (presumably) at presumably another trillion dollars, is a good way to spend those Americans taxes? Or is it a case of, guys that advocate for wars, in a time when vast resources have been poured down the toilet for similar wars with zero value as a result for American people, are by definition good patriots? I mean...what if your motivations aren't patriotic? What's the standard? How can anyone tell? ginal Message- From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everyth...@googlegroups.com To: everything-list everyth...@googlegroups.com Sent: 15-Jun-2014 14:58:21 + Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back! From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com] I style myself as informed about the aggressor. Then I take it you have never ever lived in or even visited a Muslim country… you probably do not know any Arabs or other Muslims on a personal level, and have never shared food with them. And yet you
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:03, LizR wrote: On 16 June 2014 08:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/14/2014 11:42 PM, LizR wrote: On 15 June 2014 01:54, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I have not attempted to correlate my theory with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. I would be happy to discuss this with you (my cell phone number is 858-353-0997) or to consider your specific thoughts as to how my theory relates to the thinking of these fellows. Aristotelianism is philosophical shorthand (so to speak) for theories which assume that matter/energy and space/time are primitive, which means they cannot be explained by anything simpler. Aristotle thought that all that existed were atoms and the void No, although that's what Bruno implies. Aristotle believed in substances which had inherent properties including teleological propensities (air rises, stone fall). He denied that a vacuum was possible. It was Democritus and Epicurus that hypothesized atoms and void. Oh yes, you're quite right, it was too. But please bear in mind that the point of this post is to explain to Mr Ross the Aristotle / Plato distinction that gets bandied around on this forum. Aristotelean in this context is just shorthand for primitive materialism, as far as I know. which is still roughly what materialist scientists think (Brent may disagree with this, but from what I've read this appears to be the tacit assumption of the majority of physicists). I'd say working hypothesis - but why not? They're doing physics. Exactly my point. I don't know why you made such a fuss about saying they didn't. The evidence for this view is mainly that it appears self-evidently true! I think that's a very limited view. It has only been self-evident for few hundred years - and only among a small segment of the world's population. Even on this list some argue that there must be some extra magic in humans and they can't be *just* matter. Yes, I meant specifically to physicists. Bear in mind this is supposed to be a short summary for J Ross' benefit. Platonism is shorthand for theories which assume that the universe is in some sense a reflection of some hidden underlying 'perfect forms - the modern take on this, due to Max Tegmark and others, is that these perfect forms are mathematical structures. I don't pretend to know what this would mean in practice, although A. Garret Lisi attempted to produce a TOE based on this idea (however, this hasn't stood up to scrutiny). Tegmark has suggested that the evidence for this view is that over the last 500 or so years, maths has been the royal road to physical explanations - there is nothing in physics which isn't maths plus what he calls surplus baggage - an interpretation of some underlying maths. Whether this has ontological significance is still unknown. And it depends a lot on what you think about mathematics; whether it's just a precise and and strictly logical subset of language or whether it's really real ur-stuff. Yes, that's one way to rephrase what I just said. My only addition is that if you think the former, then you should explain why it works so well. I'm open to suggestions, of course, but so far Tegmark's MUH seems to be the only one I've heard that seems to have any philosophical teeth. It is less wrong, but Tegmark is still mainly physicalist, and avoid the mind-body problem (and ignores computer science and mathematical logic). By mentioning self-reference Wheeler get closer. As in a quote of him by Jason, it seems he is only understanding now the FPI, but still not handling the points of view. (You just find him more cute than me, I think. Still, you should see me with my new glasses :) Yes physicians and theologians are like french and british digging under the see for the channel tunnel, and it is normal that we should met at some point, but note the difference in the approach. Coming from comp and math, you can take into account simultaneously the truth and the provable, and the difference, for the machine, which enrich a lot the spectrum of rational discourses (indeed it go up to the theological in the sense of some greeks and indians, and chinese). 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.
Re: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 6/16/2014 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Comp *has* a notion of primitive matter (the sum on all computations below the subst level, or []p t with p sigma_1), but it is defined as observable by a universal machine. And is this not the same as the defintion I gave as the physical is what is sharable? 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: Pluto bounces back!
On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:53:07 PM UTC+1, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair as I am concerned. 2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as the Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. That's my criteria. 3. I heard that it was closer to 2 trillion dollars in national wealth wasted on the Saddam war. I would have gone into Pakistan, and pursed Bin Laden, and his protectors in the ISI. They would have deposed Musharef, our, Pakistani chum, and would have sought the annihilation of Al Qaeda and affiliated orgs. Bush was buds with the Saudis and that is no mistake, and explains much about the previous administrations decisions. 4. The economic complaint is bogus, in light of BHO's anti-jobs policies economically. He and his party do not believe in job creation that is not affiliated with the democrat party. So he is good with teachers unions, state workers, and federal employees, and trade unions, that funnel cash into democrat pacs. Small businesses provide little for his party, and he has no use for people who 'slow down the process.' Hence, this is why the US joblessness rate has been so high, even after the 09 market crash. Obama has much more crony capitalist contributors then Bush ever had, Koch's not with standing. The trillions would have gone into the pockets of his billionaires, his unions, as it did from 2009 forward. Wall Street loves him-contrary to Marxist prop. The poor get free phones and snap cards. 5. Sure, war is a waste, and a terrible one at that. But its somewhat better then seeing yourself or your buds, conquered and killed, which can be a bummer, sometimes. Let me ask you this? How many protesters do we see world-wide, against the Putin's incursions in the Ukraine, or protesting the war in Syria, the ISIS murders in Iraq?? The streets, had the US did something would have protesters-but! That's not the* party* way. Protestors are merely anti-U and not pacifists. l If I was an American I would be totally against any more wars that cost American soldier lives and drain the we th of the country, based on what you are saying above.firstly for military reasons. You have spoken of the need to fight wars, but not actually said who against. Not in terms a military campaign can be planned around. I mean I'm not saying you need to decide an actual strategy But there are generic questions that need to be answered by anyone who things a war should happen. Like...for you.you want to send soldiers into harms way. What goal are hundreds or thousands of those young Americans laying down their lives for? The answer to that is not principle, what is the situation on the ground in the wake of war, and what are the reasons why that situation + the realignment of local power structures, is worth those lives and the cost? , What you said above, the Jesus/AI line: Firstly it doesn't seem like the US needs to fight these distant wars. Theres no problem on the American continent and the US has oceans either side. What is this survival threat, and what sort of calculations are you doing that you believe young soldiers should die by the hundred or thousand to secure? What is the payback? -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results. I just don't believe space can be curved. And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved. Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be explained with physics. We just need to use the right physics. As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on Einstein's equations. My understanding is that his equations say that time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity. The simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the time here on earth. My guess is that is what they do. John Ross On 15 June 2014 02:13, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Einstein says large masses create a curvature of space and that light beams are curved by these large masses. I say that large masses produce Coulomb grids through which light travels. Under both theories the paths of light are affected. I don't see any problem. OK, maybe you're right. It's possible all the CGs generated by all the masses involved average out to produce something akin to the smooth space-time curvature predicted by GR. Since neither of us has done the maths, who can say? Einstein and I reach the same conclusion. Hmm. He reached it via something like 13 tensor equations which can be solved to give exact results. You reach it via some vague wordy description... whether the universe is in fact a mathematical structure or similar, it sure *behaves* like it is, so personally, out of these approaches I would go for the maths and the exact predictions, which can actually be used for useful stuff like GPS and looknig for distant planets -- 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: Democracy
E.g.: stone the women piously, chop off hands piously, etc. Major branches, like Shia and Sunni? the jihadists? The problem is they have no pope with authority since 500AD. The US-dwelling Muslims refrain of declarations that would have defamed them, nevertheless pious honor killings are on. As I explained several times, this is not against Muslims, Christians kill as well (abortion Docs lately and Inquisition some time ago) - piously. Indians put widows into the fire consuming the husband's body - piously. Aztec etc. priests ate the executed human offerings (mostly girls with tender flesh) also very piously. Crap. On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent, I recall having written some response to your suggestion of a majority rule of the demos in advance. Your more modern conception can fit a religious (Islamic?) authoritarian government as well I don't think so. At least the Abrahamic religions don't recognize any sphere of privacay, they, in principle, can make anything subject religious demands - including thoughts. The major branches of Islam teach that society, not just individuals, must be pious. 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. -- 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: Democracy
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 6/15/2014 3:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: Telmo: I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word 'democracy' as the rule Cratos of DEMOS. the totality of people. You (and probably others, too) mean It as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY (majority - called) 'voters'. John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a misinformed average in the worst case. I would say that it becomes a dictatorship when it starts to legislate on things that it has no ethical basis to legislate on, usually in the guise of fear and the public interest. Thus the wars on nouns... Although it sounds commendable, it also is an oxymoron: not T W O people want the same (interest, policy, advantage, style and 1000 more, if you wish) so the 'voting' (hoax) is a compromise about those lies of the candidates: which are LESS controversial compromise - as formulated during the campaign. (It has little impact on the real activities an elected politician will abide by indeed). Ok. One thing is for sure: a MAJORITY vote implies a subdued MINORITY as a rule (in the US lately arond close to half and half). Furthermore I see no so callable democracy neither in authoritarian (religious, fascistic) systems, nor in extreme 'populist' attempts, like the Marxist-base, communist, or socialist (called in these parts: liberal) systems. Agreed. The CAPITA:ISTIC (evolved slavery?) variations are aristocratic/feudal at best, if not aristocratic/fascistic, ie. plutocratic. (I call it Global Economic Feudalism). This is true of modern global capitalism, no doubt. What do you propose? Best, Telmo. You and John Mikes are taking the original, literal meaning of democracy; rule by majority vote of the demos (which was not *all* the people, but let that pass). The more modern conception is constitutionally limited government; one in which there is a difficult to modify constitution that limits the scope of government(s) and ensures there scope for individual and community freedoms. There's an extra lock in the door, but it doesn't stop being a door. The majority can remove the restrictions on the scope of government. In practice, this doesn't seem to be necessary: constitutions are being removed by being declared unfashionable, and the majority referes to those who demands that their individual freedoms be respected as constitution nuts. The freedoms of the minorities exist only at the discretion of the majority. The only hope for democracy is that the majority can be sane (and remain sane). Unfortunately, many in middle-east ignore this last part and take democracy to mean that whoever is in the majority can impose their ideas at every level from foreign relations to what food can be eaten. Both American and EU governments (and I suspect other western powers are not different) currently start wars as they please, fund all sorts of military and para-military movements in other countries and heavily regulate which foods we can eat. The raw milk prohibition is one of the favourite tropes of the libertarians. Telmo. It is an unfortunate feature of Islam that it doesn't recognize a separation of church and state (and neither did Christianity until it was forced upon it). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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: Selecting your future branch
On 17 June 2014 05:57, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what I meant. So a Turing Machine has free will. Specifically, it does in Bruno's sense, since I assume a TM can know things (like the fact that it can't predict its own future actions). I am glad you agree now with the FPI. So you accept step 3. Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long since forgotten the details of your proof. But are you telling me that the grand conclusion of step 3 reached after pages of verbiage was I don't know? The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I stopped reading. You should read it, THEN criticise. (Although this seems to be a common mistake.) Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Well..., I will admit this, I am a Christian if and only if you are logical. Hallelujah! -- 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: Rats! I should have done that, not this!
On 16 June 2014 22:44, spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Liz, have you Kiwis no sense of shame? http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-may-kick-start-race-mine-ocean-floor-211229873--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBJR66KJ5Taz0APtTQtDMD Ah, Kiwis,weak link, in the global chain of world socialism and environmentaly correct thinking! I thought you'd be pleased! God there really is no pleasing you, is there? Clathrates are next up! (Eek! Armageddon outta here...) -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 17 June 2014 07:57, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: I don't know about Einstein's 13 tensor equations and their exact results. You should at least know that that is how a physical theory works. I just don't believe space can be curved. Why not? It just needs a higher dimension. Actually there are interpretations of Einstein's equations that don't require space to be curved, but just change the distances within it to give the same result (somehow - I'm not very up on this, but I think the explanation involved a picture by MC Escher). And I do believe Coulomb fields can be curved. I'm not sure what this means. How, and in what way? Our Universe is not a mathematical structure; it is a combination of atoms and molecules and light and other things that can be explained with physics. We just need to use the right physics. So why is maths so effective at explaining the nature of existence? As for correcting the clocks in satellites, I doubt if they rely on Einstein's equations. You're wrong. They do. My understanding is that his equations say that time passes slower at high speeds and faster at reduced gravity. The simple way to correct for time variations in the satellites is to adjust the clocks every now and then to make sure they are consistent with the time here on earth. My guess is that is what they do. They have to be adjusted constantly, since GPS would drift out by several meters / day otherwise. The point is that the time dilation of the GPS clocks is exactly what is predicted by Einstein's equations. If you're going to attempt to explain the universe, you need to do at least as well as relativity. PS I still have some questions about this cold plasma shell thing by the way. -- 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: Democracy
On 6/16/2014 2:02 PM, John Mikes wrote: E.g.: stone the women piously, chop off hands piously, etc. Major branches, like Shia and Sunni? the jihadists? The problem is they have no pope with authority since 500AD. The best thing about the pope is that he has no battalions. The US-dwelling Muslims refrain of declarations that would have defamed them, nevertheless pious honor killings are on. Honor killings are more a matter of tribalism. When giving young women in marriage is the main way of cementing tribal alliances the honor of the women becomes of existential importance to the tribe. Brent As I explained several times, this is not against Muslims, Christians kill as well (abortion Docs lately and Inquisition some time ago) - piously. Indians put widows into the fire consuming the husband's body - piously. Aztec etc. priests ate the executed human offerings (mostly girls with tender flesh) also very piously. Crap. -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:18:14 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal between computers and humans: I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not *really* intelligent. John K Clark OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end failing and so having to keep buggering on. Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking about. Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot like you feel. So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was indistinctness, and still is now. Can't
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:29:43 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: wrote: What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers can't do YET. Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that stopped being true in 1997. Being the best Jeopardy champion on the planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s. might be wrong but creatively seems almost as mercurial as consciousness. Not sure such thing exists but fair enough some word is needed to fill that blank. What you say about it above. Do you not find these mysteries of the brain interestingor is it more you sort of got fed up with endless navel gazing on such things? I mean...I bet you do think about these questions quietly, when no one is looking? Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect on that fact while we still can, therefore I suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and creativity will no longer be required for image recognition. You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play one It's true that even a great pianist need not have any idea of how his piano works, but it's not true if he intends to make a better piano, then he had better have a very good theory of pianos. a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to sim ply say that this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission. Some signals in the brain move as slowly as .01 meters per second, the slow diffusion of some hormones for example, but even the very fastest signals in the brain move at only 100 meters per second. Light moves at 300,000,000 meters per second, and in a computer the distances the signal must travel will be shorter because the components are smaller. Game over. 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: Pluto bounces back!
War is surely a drain, but often the lack of covalent violence often costs hugely in the number of lives lost and yes, suffering. Simply look at the policies of the last 2 American chieftains. One was bad, the newer one, awful. Simply cast your eyes to the goings of in Syria, and now Iraq. View with open eyes the policies of Boko Haram, in Nigeria, and earlier, today in Kenya. Things are clearly worse now, then 7 years ago, internationally. It reminds me of the isolationist policies of the 1920's and 30's that appeared to encouraged war, and mass murder. This was a rightist phenomena, as a reaction, not only to the First World War, but the US President, Woodrow Wilson. A man praised by liberals and Marxists of the time for his wartime suppression of constitutional rights. One historian called it (kindly) Democracy at bayonet point. Wilson was a law professor, I recall, and so was BHO at the U of Chicago. Things are rolling out of control, and as always, there is a cost to be paid. My wholly, Imaginary, campaign, at least with the Islamists (not their Liberal enablers) is a 3 pronged approach. One would be energy liberation from hostiles. We, no buy. We can do this, but our leader doesn't approve. Secondly, and the most baffling to everyone in the world, is a focus on the afterlife. Why? Because this is what gets the other fellows out of the bed in the morning, The Shahada. The prayer affirming Allah as the true God, the permission to die in battle against enemies of Allah, and last to be rewarded in the next world for the sacrifice and privilege, of dying as a shaeed, a martyr in Allah's battles. Last, is the military option. The enemy, see's Allah smiling upon them when the win, and lashing them when the come a cropper. Its complex, but knowing what the other fellow thinks opens up options. The dry diplomacy has its uses but doesn't hit the target. This is just me, mind you, reflecting on a big, big, problem. Will this sketch ever see the light of day? No. Your last statement you might consider re-thinking. because oceans no longer protect. The ICBM missile technology dates back to 1966, as MIRV'd weapons go, back in the days before microchips, and better telemetry. What I fear is a decapitation attack that eliminates command and control from a government. No nation that I know of has a really good chain of command, when their capital disappears. This includes the US. North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, along with China and Russia (likely) are priming the fission-pump, for fun and profit. DC and NYC go toasty, watch most of the world capitulate. My way of war fighting, depending on the enemy and situation would not be about holding the land, but about hitting the enemy with airborne attacks, and specifically drone attacks. Just keep wearing away at the Jihadis. Eventually they see that Allah the most merciful no longer smiles on their activities, and they seek a hudna, a truce. This is the best I can hope for if point 1, and 2 are not tried. On that point, it will never be done, because its not conventional thinking, of guys in suits and ties, who will let run us all. If I was an American I would be totally against any more wars that cost American soldier lives and drain the we th of the country, based on what you are saying above.firstly for military reasons. You have spoken of the need to fight wars, but not actually said who against. Not in terms a military campaign can be planned around. I mean I'm not saying you need to decide an actual strategy But there are generic questions that need to be answered by anyone who things a war should happen. Like...for you.you want to send soldiers into harms way. What goal are hundreds or thousands of those young Americans laying down their lives for? The answer to that is not principle, what is the situation on the ground in the wake of war, and what are the reasons why that situation + the realignment of local power structures, is worth those lives and the cost? , What you said above, the Jesus/AI line: Firstly it doesn't seem like the US needs to fight these distant wars. Theres no problem on the American continent and the US has oceans either side. What is this survival threat, and what sort of calculations are you doing that you believe young soldiers should die by the hundred or thousand to secure? What is the payback? -Original Message- From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Jun 16, 2014 3:41 pm Subject: Re: Pluto bounces back! On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:53:07 PM UTC+1, spudb...@aol.com wrote: 1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair as I am concerned. 2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as the Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. That's
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal between computers and humans: I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally judged on what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. I do agree with thisbut wonder how easily such things would be compared. In an early step in your wider argument about consciousness/intelligence, from memory you basically separate them...hence talking here about intelligence alone The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always show up together, never one on its own. Some are more or less intelligence/conscious, but when we aren't conscious, and not in REM, not a lot is going on. In REM - something interesting might be going on, but we probably don't have much conventional intelligence. So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and consciousness are mutually independent? I have no sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I've never heard that about Einstein. The guy won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a nobel-genius. There was an earlier discussion we about Hilber having published the complete equations a week earlier...which Hilbert simply didn't bother claiming for...a possible reason the Nobel Committee never awarded Einstein for that one. I remember in that conversation, your main line of argument that Hilbert wasn't credible was that he was a mathematician. I had to think about that...but you are aware that Maxwell, Poincaire, Newton I think...in fact possible the majority of the top table geniuses in science werepossibly. FWIW I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. I feel exactly the same way. Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? What sort of results does that explanation produce? Someday computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not *really* intelligent. There's a lot of assumptions going into that. I'd agree 'all else being equal' that you make a reasonable prediction. But how often is all else equal? -- 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: Democracy
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 03:40:52PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 6/16/2014 2:02 PM, John Mikes wrote: E.g.: stone the women piously, chop off hands piously, etc. Major branches, like Shia and Sunni? the jihadists? The problem is they have no pope with authority since 500AD. The best thing about the pope is that he has no battalions. Interestingly, during the reunification of Italy in 1870, the Papacy did put up a token military resistance to defending Rome against the advancing Italian army, even though overwhelmingly outnumbered. The Pope did not voluntarily relinquish his real world territory. This lead to nearly 50 years of bickering between the Pope and Italy that was eventually resolved by Mussolini in the creation of the Vatican. In practice, the real political and military power of the Pope was broken by Napoleon some 70 years earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:29:42AM -0400, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote: What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that yet. The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers can't do YET. Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that stopped being true in 1997. Being the best Jeopardy champion on the planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s. Solving differential equations still requires creativity, and will always do so, as not all DEs have closed form solutions, and no algorithm will find the closed form solution for all equations that do. Perhaps you mean computing a numerical approximation, which hasn't required creativity since the mid-1800s, though still does if the aim is to compute the approximation to desired levels of accuracy in practical amounts of time. On a slightly lesser note - I disagree that being a research librarian doesn't take creativity, although obviously Google has completely changed the rules. As for Chess - doesn't Deep Blue exhibit some forms of bounded creativity anyway? Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect on that fact while we still can, therefore I suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called Image Recognition Appreciation Day. On this day we would all reflect on the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and creativity will no longer be required for image recognition. I don't think image recognition ever took creativity - it was always something we're kind of good at for evolutionary reasons. It might take creativity to create a machine that is good at it, but I doubt that machine itself will be creative. -- 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: Films I think people on this forum might like
It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA Well The Prestige is a film about obsession and the lengths people go to meet them. Its not about the UDA. It does contain a teleport machine in it and the naughty magician keeps duplicating himself and killing off one of the duplicates. At one point, when arguing about what sacrifices he has made for his art, he points out that every night he is in a state of horror because he doesn't know whether he will end up at the back of the stage or drowning in the vat. ofcourse, he is just in a state of denial because he ought to know precisely what he will experience: survival to the prestige AND drowning. Its not as if there could be any doubt about it. The set up makes both experiences certain. But its not really a flaw in script, because the audience sees it clearly. Its why its such a macabre ending. Here is man so obsessed with bettering his rival that he reduces his life to a living hell drowning himself every night. The goody magician's sacrifices are bad enough, losing a finger, losing a wife, losing a brother. But the naughty magicians sacrifices are deliberate and knowing self annihilation and its this that makes his story so horrifically tragic. Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 13:53:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like From: johnkcl...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: The Prestige may just be the best movie in the last 15 years. So we agree on this. Yes. It makes even more mysterious your resistance to UDA I see absolutely no contradiction between thinking that The prestige is saying something profound that rings true and thinking that the things that the Universal Dance Association says that are profound are not true and the things that it's saying that are true are not profound. 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.
