date:20140618

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!

 It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/24263642/rejection-of-mining-proposal-victory-for-common-sense/

-- 
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: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

2014-06-18 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:48PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
 What is baffling to me is that photosynthesis in algae relies on
 absorption in the red and blue part of the spectrum, but reflects
 the big green part in between??  Why didn't it evolve another
 pigment to capture that in order to live in low light conditions?
 

The idea I've heard is that the original photosynthesiser absorbed the
green portion of the spectrum, and then the current photosynthesiser
came along later, and made use of the remaining bits of the spectrum
(red+blue), and ultimately outcompeted the earlier photosynthesis
system.

I gather the earlier photosynthetic system might still be around - the
so-called purple bacteria, which use a different photosynthesis process
producing sulfur, not oxygen.

This also explain why the atmosphere was not oxygenated until ca 2Gya.

But it does illustrate the way evolution can get stuck in a local
optima. And also further evidence that any purported Creator must be
completely incompetent.

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: O-machines


 Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
 functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
 value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
 performs.
 In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
 of ﬁddling with machine tables will suﬃce to improve a TM to Trurl’s level.


Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in the
oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a (very
large) number which is equivalent to the result of a particular computation?

Or does it???



On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the
 argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he
 posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result
 of the halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all
 lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

 Regards,
 Quentin


 2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

  Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia
 argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?

 http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

 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.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 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: O-machines

Mind you anyone who uses The Cyberiad for his names (or indeed The
Sandman for that matter) is OK with me.


On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
 functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
 value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
 performs.
 In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
 of ﬁddling with machine tables will suﬃce to improve a TM to Trurl’s
 level.


 Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in the
 oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a (very
 large) number which is equivalent to the result of a particular computation?

 Or does it???



 On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the
 argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he
 posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result
 of the halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all
 lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

 Regards,
 Quentin


 2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

  Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia
 argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?

 http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

 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.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 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: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

I suppose the Sun's spectral characteristics might have changed a bit since
chlorophyll evolved - though I wouldn't think *that* much. However, I agree
with Brent - I would think that any plant that evolved the ability to
absorb green light (not to mention infra red and all the other EM radiation
knocking around) would have a distinct advantage over the current lot, and
like Ice 9 the situation is surely unstable against something wandering
into that part of the genetic landscape. But having no knowledge of
biochemistry and suchlike I have no idea how likely that is.


On 18 June 2014 19:31, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:48PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
  What is baffling to me is that photosynthesis in algae relies on
  absorption in the red and blue part of the spectrum, but reflects
  the big green part in between??  Why didn't it evolve another
  pigment to capture that in order to live in low light conditions?
 

 The idea I've heard is that the original photosynthesiser absorbed the
 green portion of the spectrum, and then the current photosynthesiser
 came along later, and made use of the remaining bits of the spectrum
 (red+blue), and ultimately outcompeted the earlier photosynthesis
 system.

 I gather the earlier photosynthetic system might still be around - the
 so-called purple bacteria, which use a different photosynthesis process
 producing sulfur, not oxygen.

 This also explain why the atmosphere was not oxygenated until ca 2Gya.

 But it does illustrate the way evolution can get stuck in a local
 optima. And also further evidence that any purported Creator must be
 completely incompetent.

 Cheers

 --


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

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

 

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


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

Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

2014-06-18 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:06:00PM +1200, LizR wrote:
 I suppose the Sun's spectral characteristics might have changed a bit since
 chlorophyll evolved - though I wouldn't think *that* much. However, I agree
 with Brent - I would think that any plant that evolved the ability to
 absorb green light (not to mention infra red and all the other EM radiation
 knocking around) would have a distinct advantage over the current lot, and
 like Ice 9 the situation is surely unstable against something wandering
 into that part of the genetic landscape. But having no knowledge of
 biochemistry and suchlike I have no idea how likely that is.
 

I guess its rather unlikely, given that photosynthesis evolved twice
in 4 billion years, with the last time poisoning the atmosphere
causing a massive extinction event that has not been seen since.



-- 


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: O-machines

2014-06-18 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2014-06-18 10:40 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:

 Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
 functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
 value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
 performs.
 In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
 of ﬁddling with machine tables will suﬃce to improve a TM to Trurl’s
 level.


 Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in the
 oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a (very
 large) number which is equivalent to the result of a particular computation?


The example he uses is a lookup containing the halt/no halt for every
program...  you cannot construct this lookup in the first place without
having an oracle that give this answer and allow you to construct it... so
yes if you have such a lookup, the lookup plays the role of an oracle...
that doesn't mean every lookup is an oracle.

Quentin


 Or does it???



 On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the
 argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he
 posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result
 of the halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all
 lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

 Regards,
 Quentin


 2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

  Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia
 argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?

 http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

 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.




 --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)

 --
 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.




-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

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

Re: Tegmark's new book

2014-06-18 Thread ronaldheld

 *arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf* 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348] 
Title: Our Mathematical Universe? 
Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield* 
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1 
Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL* 
http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014 
  
 I just saw thsi.
   Ronald
 
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a 
 State of Matter, 
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics- 
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote:

 Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
 has the most members in it.

 For another try I have read the following:


  arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in his 
 book?
Ronald

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




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

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:





 On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 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.


 Kim, what do you think of this:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna


 I find that very exciting indeed, Telmo. This indeed looks like real
 creativity to me. The process of selecting the right shape came about by a
 random generator followed by evaluation of usefulness. That's precisely
 what Lateral Thinking is and does.


Glad you liked it!



 This bit is even more to the point:

 The resulting antenna often outperforms the best manual designs, because
 it has a complicated asymmetric shape that could not have been found with
 traditional manual design methods.

 Creativity involves CURIOSITY (Suck it and see...). There is some kind
 of attractor that pulls the interest, the attention for a human that sends
 the mind in a certain direction. Judgement is suspended while exploration
 takes place. The machine on the other hand can approximate that with random
 choice algorithms.


This is something that I always felt strongly about: the importance of
randomness in true AI. I find it somewhat surprising how it is absent
from most discussions of AI, excluding the evolutionary computation
community.


 The only thing missing here from this is self-awareness.


Maybe...


 Otherwise I would say we have the basis of personhood. So, I was wrong. A
 machine can pull something out of nothing. It's still a bit zombified but
 getting close.
 Thanks.


Cheers
Telmo.



 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!

2014-06-18 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


True. Notice please that the elites are not exploring and funding fixes as you 
or I would. They will be forced to with the Antarctica process.  

At this moment the big threats seem to be resource depletion and climate 
change. If we can face up to them and tackle them, we'll be better prepared for 
whatever is coming down the track next.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: Rats! I should have done that, not this!



On 18 June 2014 14:46, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

Fair enough. In any case the undersea volcanos seem to do what AGW cannot, and 
the fixes are identical, if it was fully, true. There is also the wonderfulness 
of exploding calderra's, meteors, a new ice age, disease breakout, so here we 
are, as always, on the edge of oblivion.



The only way to avoid it, imho, is to keep advancing our technology. We have to 
keep advancing because if we fail - if we lose our technological abilities - 
there are no easily available fossil fuels to start a new Industrial 
Revolution. And then we will be stuck on this planet, sitting ducks for the 
next comet or disease or whatever.


At this moment the big threats seem to be resource depletion and climate 
change. If we can face up to them and tackle them, we'll be better prepared for 
whatever is coming down the track next.


-- 
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!

2014-06-18 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


N! Its probably benighn as the environment around black smokers, is 
volcanic, and biology adapted mightily to heat, acidity, low oxygen. 

It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 2:56 am
Subject: 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!



It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection 
Agency.


https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/24263642/rejection-of-mining-proposal-victory-for-common-sense/
 



-- 
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 Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:

  I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
 built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
 keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.


  That's fair enough. Obviously I missed the blunder in step 3 when I read
 it - what is it?


If after saying whats wrong with Bruno's vacuous proof over and over and
over and over and over and over again for 3 years and you still ask what
is it then what would be the point of me repeating it yet again?

  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: O-machines

2014-06-18 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were conjectured 
about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin. 
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 4:54 am
Subject: Re: O-machines

Mind you anyone who uses The Cyberiad for his names (or indeed The Sandman 
for that matter) is OK with me.

On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia performs.
In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
of ﬁddling with machine tables will suﬃce to improve a TM to Trurl’s level.

Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in the oracle is 
non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a (very large) number 
which is equivalent to the result of a particular computation?

Or does it???

On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the argument he 
uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he posits that he is 
able to construct a lookup table that contains the result of the halting 
problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all lookup tables are then 
oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

Regards,
Quentin

2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

Bruno, I wonder if  you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia 
argument, which  of course also applies to the MGA?

  http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

  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.

-- 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)

-- 
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

2014-06-18 Thread jross

My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.

Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity. 
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.  Time passes at the same rate
everywhere in our Universe.

Light travels through Coulomb  grids which are curved by massive objects.

Gravity is produced in Black Holes with the destruction of protons to
release neutrino photons that keep stars in orbit around the Black Holes. 
Some of the neutrino photons are absorbed by stars and planets and later
released to give these objects their gravity.

When Einstein developed his relativity theories, he was not aware of
Coulomb grids or the internal structure of protons.

John Ross

 On 18 June 2014 08:43, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

 I understand clocks in satellites do not run at the same speed as clocks
 here on earth.  However, I just can't understand why we would use
 Einstein's equations to adjust the clocks on satellites when it would be
 so easy to adjust them in accordance to the exact time here on earth.


 That isn't the point. For all I know they may adjust them using clocks on
 Earth. The point is that the satellites provide yet another way to test
 special and general relativity, and since scientists are always trying to
 check their theories are correct, they consider it worthwhile to work out
 how fast or slow these theories say the satellites' clocks will run and
 compare this to the measured values. The results are in accordance with
 both theories - working out the time dilation due to the satellites'
 relative motion and their position in the Earth's gravity field gives the
 observed result.

 Note that SR and GR give this result without needing any free parameters
 to
 be tweaked. SR involves simple geometry applied to 4 dimensional
 space-time; as far as I know the only free parameter is the speed of
 light. GR involves the gravitational constant (I think) but I'm told there
 are no simple ways in which the equations can be modified to give similar
 results. Hence the clock rate is forced to have a particular value in
 both theories - the result falls out naturally from the theories without
 any need to introduce any corrections that could equally well have given
 other results.

 Here http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html is
 a more detailed description of this effect.

 If you have a theory that can give the same result (with a similar lack of
 wriggle room for adjusting free parameters) then you should get some
 serious interest from scientists.

 --
 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: Tegmark's new book

2014-06-18 Thread Richard Ruquist

Nothing about only 37 bits of information available for computation in the
human brain in Butterfield's paper.
Richard


On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:

  *arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf*
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348]
 Title: Our Mathematical Universe?
 Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield*
 http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
 Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL*
 http://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-universe-0; 2014

  I just saw thsi.
Ronald

 On Sunday, February 2, 2014 2:31:17 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:

 Having just read arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other] Title: Consciousness as a
 State of Matter,
 my take on its conclusion is that human consciousness cannot be understood
 on the basis of classical or quantum mechanics-
 the former yields only a max of 37 bits
 and the latter even less.
 Richard


 On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Ronald Held ronal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
 has the most members in it.

 For another try I have read the following:


  arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Mathematical Universe
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many lives in many worlds
 arXiv:0905.1283 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: The Multiverse Hierarchy
 Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
 arXiv:0905.2182 [pdf, ps, other]
 Title: Many Worlds in Context

  including  arXiv:1401.1219 [pdf, other]
 Title: Consciousness as a State of Matter

 Am I going to getting anything different or more clearly explained in
 his book?
Ronald

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


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

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:

  OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
 better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.


  Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
 definitely.


Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20
years and Mathematica can beat its programers too.

 There are new solutions being discovered all the time,


And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time.

 and its by humans,


But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught
by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for
discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers
had teachers too and so

 Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator) is
 basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such as
 [blah blah]


Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be broken
down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and
impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves
be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and
awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and
dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then
conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist?

 Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task.


Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task performed
by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself. Therefore it's
true that creativity is not related to the absolute difficulty of the task
but it is related to how difficult it would be for you to do it; so what's
creative to you might not be for me.


  I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its not
 creative.


You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy.
But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference
between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the
difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat
you'd say he was wonderfully creative.

  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 Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

 Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
 Clock speeds may be effected but not time.


OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to
describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime. I
would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the same
or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But we
certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even
exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is also
no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it does
a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime but
even if time exists it doesn't matter.

  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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

2014-06-18 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
 wrote:

   OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential
 equations better than Mathematica?  I don't think so.


  Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
 definitely.


 Bullshit. Chess programs have been beating their programers for over 20
 years and Mathematica can beat its programers too.

  There are new solutions being discovered all the time,


 And Mathematica is being upgraded all the time.

  and its by humans,


 But those humans don't get credit for doing that because they were taught
 by other humans; it's Einstein's teachers who should get the credit for
 discovering relativity not Einstein. But then again, Einstein's teachers
 had teachers too and so

  Mathematica's integrate operator (and the equivalent desolve operator)
 is basically a convenient interface that applies standard algorithms such
 as [blah blah]


 Anything no matter how grand and impressive and awe inspiring can be
 broken down into smaller parts that are themselves a little less grand and
 impressive and awe inspiring than the whole, and those parts can themselves
 be broken down into sub-parts that are even less grand and impressive and
 awe inspiring. Eventually you will come to a part that is pedestrian and
 dull as dishwater (like a switch that can only be on or off); do we then
 conclude that grand and impressive and awe inspiring things don't exist?

  Creativity is not related to difficulty of the task.


 Creativity is a subjective judgement made by a observer of a task
 performed by somebody else, it is not inherent in the task itself.
 Therefore it's true that creativity is not related to the absolute
 difficulty of the task but it is related to how difficult it would be for
 you to do it; so what's creative to you might not be for me.


  I agree that image recognition is computationally difficult. But its
 not creative.


 You say that for only one reason, you find image recognition to be easy.
 But if it took you a month of intense concentration to tell the difference
 between a whale and a watermelon and then you met a man who could tell the
 difference between a Grey Whale and a Humpback Whale in one second flat
 you'd say he was wonderfully creative.


I don't think this analogy holds. For example, most people can't juggle 5
balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks they are creative because of it.
Accountants used to be able to sum columns of numbers much faster than the
average person. They are the stereotype for non-creativity.

I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty. Maybe
coherent at the human-brain level. Here are a number of things that are
quite creative but not necessarily hard to create:

http://www.reddit.com/r/fifthworldpics

The problem with AI-generated art is perhaps similar to the problem with
the Turing test: the only way to win is by faking something. Genuine AI art
might only be appreciated by other AIs.

Telmo.




   John K Clark




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


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

Re: Does 'free will' stem from brain noise?

2014-06-18 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Among  computet administrators, there is an old say :

Jesus saves. But only Buddah perform incremental backups
El 12/06/2014 03:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com escribió:

 In Lisp, god can define himself.


 On 12 June 2014 13:08, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
 everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:



   --
  *From:* LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 11, 2014 4:00 PM
 *Subject:* Re: Does 'free will' stem from brain noise?

 On 12 June 2014 11:02, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:40:47AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
  On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
 
   Are 'angels' rational?
  
 
  I don't know but I do know that God is real, unless declared an integer.

 Hah! but only in Fortran! The younger whipsnappers will not get this
 joke.


 In C you can have a double precision God, or so I'm told.

 In C++ you can even have a complex one.

 In C++ you can get an object oriented god... it can become like a
 religion 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.


-- 
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 Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
 is conscious is you. 


The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 

But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
not be...
 

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which 
would require listing important characteristics of the 
consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness are mutually independent?


 I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
 conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
 intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
 can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
 consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
 information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
 conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
 least one.   

  The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
 he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
 nobel-genius. 


 I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
 meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
 silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
 saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
 that bullshit reason?

  Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 


 I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of Quantum 
 Mechanics.  

  What sort of results does that explanation produce?


 The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
 the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
 possibility that life will develop.  

  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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this 
later  with the rest, cheer.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
 is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
 and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
 experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
 are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
 not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness are mutually independent?


 I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
 conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
 intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
 can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
 consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
 information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
 conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
 least one.   

  The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
 he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
 nobel-genius. 


 I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
 meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
 silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
 saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
 that bullshit reason?

  Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 


 I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of 
 Quantum Mechanics.  

  What sort of results does that explanation produce?


 The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
 the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
 possibility that life will develop.  

  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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

 most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
they are creative because of it.

I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
creative than not juggling, at least a little.  Its just that in today's
world most don't find  watching a person juggle to be very interesting, but
it's more interesting than watching a person just sit there and stare
blankly into empty space.

 I think that creativity is the ability to generate coherent novelty.


It needs one more attribute, it needs to be interesting; firing a paintball
gun at a canvas will produce a novel pattern never before seen on this
planet, but it is unlikely to be judged very interesting by many. Therefore
creativity is not in the thing itself but in the eye of the beholder;
what's new and exciting to me may be old hat and boring to you.

  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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic



On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:





On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:
Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is löbian  
in the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb rule:  if  
K proves  []A - A, for some modal formula A, then K proves A. [] 
([]A-A)-[]A is true about K.


I will take a look when I have the times, and I hope it is not  
trivial, as K is indeed very weak and very general, and  I could  
argue that there is some substance (pun) in Birkhoff and von Neumann.


I felt a bit uneasy about this going through the paper with  
refutation ringing in my head, so any observations are most  
welcome :-) PGC



Quantum logic usually designates the logical structure associated to  
the lattice of the subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert  
space, where lives the atomic physical states (the rays, or unit  
vectors, the so called pure states). A base of pure states define an  
observable, and the linear structure of the Hilbert spaces determine  
the yes-no logic obeyed by the observable. Typical axioms of classical  
logic are violated, like the distributivity (a  (b V c) is no more  
equivalent with (a  b) V (a  c). The logic is rich, but miss the  
tensor products to get close to the quantum formalism per se. Also,  
von Neumann algebras and non commutative geometry formalism can be  
related, although nothing is very easy there. QL can also be related  
to quantum computation, but here too, the relation are not trivial at  
all.


When I say that comp + classical theory of knowledge is refutable, I  
mean that you can compare the QL infered by empiric studies, and the  
QL given by Z1*, X1*, S4Grz1.
van Fraassen wrote a paper entitled the labyrinth of quantum logics,  
but comp provides only three one, and it should be compared to the  
more reasonable (empirically) quantum logic. the comparison must be  
done in term of the measure one logic, not necessarily in term of  
this or that formalism, which can ofetn be related by representation  
theorems.


UDA should explain why we have to proceed in this way, and the  
advantage is that we get the nuances, on the physical reality, between  
the core physics, the geography, the communicable, the sharable, etc.


The translation in arithmetic is made necessary by the self-reference  
incompleteness (Gödel, Löb) and the nuances on provability brought by  
that incompleteness.


May be I am quick  explaining the importance of the logic of self- 
reference, but UDA is based only on self-referential question (like  
probability of surviving here or there).


Feel free to ask for any precision. (Just expect some answer delays  
due to June business).


Bruno





He might also be fuzzy on observer. The comp hypothesis  
automatically enrich the normal and non normal modalities.


Bruno


On 16 Jun 2014, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:


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- 
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

Re: Selecting your future branch



On 16 Jun 2014, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:





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.


Only because you quote an half sentence.




 except some emphasis on the needed existence of some degree of  
freedom.


And here we go again, same old shit. What does freedom mean?


Degree of freedom? it refers like in physics to a spectrum of possible  
move.





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.


This is not relevant.







 That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that  
is what I meant.


So a Turing Machine has free will.


Not all turing machine, you need one which can guess that she does not  
know. An ability to hesitate and find solution to non computably or  
non tractably soluble conflict.








 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.


You have confuse the 1-view and the 3-view at different places. yes,  
you will beat the record of people not understanding step 3.










 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?


and you can not know, and you can know that you don't know, and this  
shows in a purely deterministic context (indeed arithmetic) the  
existence of an indeterminacy (indeed at step 8 you understand that it  
bears on all sigma_1 sentences).






The first 2 steps must have been even more trivial, no wonder I  
stopped reading.


So good! Step 3 is even less trivial than step 1 and 2?

What about step 4?

All steps in a proof, are supposed to be trivial, especially when the  
proof is general, and can be understood by a wide audience.


Time for step 4, John. I hope it does not take you N years for step N!




 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.


There are many, according to your theology, and to your definition of  
free-will. You can read the literature.

I agree with you, there is no such problem in comp.



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.


They made it insoluble at the start, unless with some non-comp theory  
(which today are the speculative one).





 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.


Yes. If you look at theology from a platonist perspective, atheism is  
a variant of Christianity. Same creation and dogmatic materialism,  
same conception of God (just the sign differ).


And same opposition to the idea that theology might be studied with  
the scientific method.


Bruno








  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.


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

Re: Selecting your future branch



On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/13/2014 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will or will are high level cognitive ability of machine  
having enough introspective ability.


But not to much!  :-)



Indeed :-)

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 13 Jun 2014, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/13/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:


On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb  
theorem in fuzzy logic (meaning that they  use the  
closed interval [0, 1] has set of truth values. They illustrate  
that the truth values of most fixed points in self-reference  
logic describe chaotic trajectories (in the set of truth value).


I don't understand what they a fixed points of, if not truth  
value?


In the (classical) self-reference logic, they are sentences, and  
they are fixed point in the sense of being a solution of a self- 
reference.


The self-reference x - ~[]x has solution the sentence f   
(beweisbar(0=1)).  (Gödel 1931)
The self-reference x - []x has solution the sentence t  (or  
0=0)   (Löb 1955)
The self-reference x - []~x has solution the sentence []f   
(beweisbar(0=0))  (Jeroslow, Smullyan)
The self-reference x - ~[]~x has solution the sentence f (or  
0=1).   (Gödel)


But in fuzzy logic, some of those fixed points are not fixed, and  
moves in the truth set in a chaotic way, with a variety of  
attractors.


Ok, so it's some chaotic attractor that is fixed, not a point. I  
understood a fixed point to be the the value of f(x) where x=f(x)  
when the value exists in the sense of convergence in the limit of  
iterating f.



OK. Just realize that x denote sentences, not numbers. In logic the  
variables are formula or sentences.


But in Fuzzy logic, formula can have truth values in more complex  
structures, and here yes, we can say that the attractor is fixed. Hmmm  
OK. Should reread Grim for the official definition.


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 18 Jun 2014, at 00:41, LizR wrote:


On 18 June 2014 04:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 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.)


I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is  
built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be  
idiotic to keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been  
found.


That's fair enough. Obviously I missed the blunder in step 3 when I  
read it - what is it?


Glad you ask, but you did see how he answered, I guess.

Some people are kind enough to assume that they have a point, and want  
to know them, and they don't take the opportunity to make it. Not only  
that, but they go to the insult mode.


I think this means that they lose the battle, but for big ego reason  
(as witness by the insults) , cannot admit it.



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: Selecting your future branch



On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:26, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
 I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof  
is built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be  
idiotic to keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been  
found.


 That's fair enough. Obviously I missed the blunder in step 3 when  
I read it - what is it?


If after saying whats wrong with Bruno's vacuous proof over and  
over and over and over and over and over again for 3 years


You insisted indeed, but you don't seem to even realize that nobody  
was convinced, or able to explain to anyone what it is, but a  
confusion between 1p and 3p.






and you still ask what is it then what would be the point of me  
repeating it yet again?


You never made it.


Bruno





  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.


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: Films I think people on this forum might like



On 18 Jun 2014, at 02:19, chris peck wrote:

 That is logically impossible from the first person point of view.  
You describe the 3p view only.


Nice straw man! Whats practically impossible is for one point of  
view to simultaneously accomodate the experience of both surviving  
and dieing.


Yes; and that is why the first person discourses differentiates  
(assuming the n-iterated WM-duplication, and give the arbitrary  
histories, whose predictable one get negligible as n augments.






No one questions that.


Glad to hear that!  You can move to step 4.



However, that an individual could anticipate both surviving and  
drowning, and anticipate the certainty of both experiences in a  
duplication context doesn't even approach logical impossibilty.


Exactly, in the 3-1 view. You talk about your (future) self from  
outside, gently assuming the 1p consciousness to both. That is useful  
to define the domain of the indeterminacy indeed, but is not related  
to the experience effectively lived by any experiencers resulting from  
the experiment.








 In the 3p pictures, yes. Not in the 1p views. Given the protocol  
given, you cannot from the first person view simultaneously drawn  
and not-drawn. There is no telepathy between the copies.


The fact that copies have different experiences doesn't introduce  
doubt into the mind of the original about what he will experience.


Without making precise which points of view you talk about, this is  
ambigous.






In this instance, he will anticipate both.



Sure, excellent strategy, given that he will live with certainty only  
one of that both. He will not anticipate living both at once in  
the 1p view, even if he can bet he will be both at once, in God's eye.


I think we agree so, what about step 4?

Bruno




he will have 1p nightmares about drowning and 1p dreams about the  
glory of the prestige.  Alternatively, he will reject the idea that  
they are actual copies of him at the requisite substitution level  
and never conduct the illusion (he'll say no to the doctor).


You cant have it both ways.

In anycase, the movie is clear on the matter. It is the magician's  
macabre fate to know he will suffer drowning to ensure he can reap  
the glory. Its what makes him such a pitiful character.


Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:08:24 +1200
Subject: Re: Films I think people on this forum might like
From: lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com

Seconded. One could I suppose put the posts in small faint letters  
to make them less noticeable, but I can't see any SPOILER tags on  
this forum!



On 18 June 2014 03:28, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
On behalf of the people who haven't actually seen the film, could  
people please put Spoiler Alert in the email before you give away  
crucial details to a movie?  Many of the films mentioned in this  
thread I haven't seen. If I had read Chris's post before watching  
The Prestige I would have been pissed off.


Thanks,
Terren


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:20 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:


  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

Re: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

2014-06-18 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List



On 18 Jun 2014, at 04:13, LizR wrote:


[That paper]

































(my head)



Well, mine too. (even without paper).

Other comments more later,

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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

2014-06-18 Thread Platonist Guitar Cowboy

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:




 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is löbian in
 the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb rule:  if K proves
  []A - A, for some modal formula A, then K proves A. []([]A-A)-[]A is
 true about K.

 I will take a look when I have the times, and I hope it is not trivial,
 as K is indeed very weak and very general, and  I could argue that there is
 some substance (pun) in Birkhoff and von Neumann.


 I felt a bit uneasy about this going through the paper with refutation
 ringing in my head, so any observations are most welcome :-) PGC



 Quantum logic usually designates the logical structure associated to the
 lattice of the subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space, where
 lives the atomic physical states (the rays, or unit vectors, the so called
 pure states). A base of pure states define an observable, and the linear
 structure of the Hilbert spaces determine the yes-no logic obeyed by the
 observable. Typical axioms of classical logic are violated, like the
 distributivity (a  (b V c) is no more equivalent with (a  b) V (a  c).
 The logic is rich, but miss the tensor products to get close to the quantum
 formalism per se. Also, von Neumann algebras and non commutative geometry
 formalism can be related, although nothing is very easy there. QL can also
 be related to quantum computation, but here too, the relation are not
 trivial at all.

 When I say that comp + classical theory of knowledge is refutable,


I'm not sure we're on the right level here, as I wasn't precise enough.
Apologies.

I meant the paper's claim that Van Neumann thesis is refuted, that logic of
QM is non-classical. I think I can see the outlines of the point, but my
answer would still be yes and no!' at this point. PGC


 I mean that you can compare the QL infered by empiric studies, and the QL
 given by Z1*, X1*, S4Grz1.
 van Fraassen wrote a paper entitled the labyrinth of quantum logics, but
 comp provides only three one, and it should be compared to the more
 reasonable (empirically) quantum logic. the comparison must be done in term
 of the measure one logic, not necessarily in term of this or that
 formalism, which can ofetn be related by representation theorems.

 UDA should explain why we have to proceed in this way, and the advantage
 is that we get the nuances, on the physical reality, between the core
 physics, the geography, the communicable, the sharable, etc.

 The translation in arithmetic is made necessary by the self-reference
 incompleteness (Gödel, Löb) and the nuances on provability brought by that
 incompleteness.

 May be I am quick  explaining the importance of the logic of
 self-reference, but UDA is based only on self-referential question (like
 probability of surviving here or there).

 Feel free to ask for any precision. (Just expect some answer delays due to
 June business).

 Bruno





 He might also be fuzzy on observer. The comp hypothesis automatically
 enrich the normal and non normal modalities.

 Bruno


 On 16 Jun 2014, at 08:16, meekerdb wrote:

  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

Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

 From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping 
the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:48PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

 What is baffling to me is that photosynthesis in algae relies on
 absorption in the red and blue part of the spectrum, but reflects
 the big green part in between??  Why didn't it evolve another
 pigment to capture that in order to live in low light conditions?

The idea I've heard is that the original photosynthesiser absorbed the
green portion of the spectrum, and then the current photosynthesiser
came along later, and made use of the remaining bits of the spectrum
(red+blue), and ultimately outcompeted the earlier photosynthesis
system.

Interesting! Did not hear about this hypothesis... so thanks for sharing. I 
have also wondered why the green spectrum is not being used in photosynthesis.

I gather the earlier photosynthetic system might still be around - the
so-called purple bacteria, which use a different photosynthesis process
producing sulfur, not oxygen.

This also explain why the atmosphere was not oxygenated until ca 2Gya.

But it does illustrate the way evolution can get stuck in a local
optima. And also further evidence that any purported Creator must be
completely incompetent.

Evolution always must begin with a preexisting platform -- so to speak -- and 
builds on top of it (in an evolutionary way). Take the human brain as an 
example. We remain stuck with the (local optima) of our reptilian brains for 
example, and much of our functioning is still centered in these ancient parts 
of our brain. Evolution needs to live with what it got and build upon it 
and human brain anatomy tells this story of hundreds of millions of years of 
tinkering, adapting and adding new systems on top of older preexisting systems 
(as opposed to radical from the ground up re-building).

Cheers,
Chris

Cheers

-- 

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

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

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

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

Re: O-machines

As far as I can see the only connection here is the fact they both used the
letter O. O-regions are interesting of course but don't appear to be
relevant to the current discussion?

On the subject of O-machines, in the case of Olympia I believe this is a TM
with access to a trace from another TM. Why would a TM which is able to
read in data constitute an oracle? Can't TMs generally read in data from an
outside source, and if not, what does that do to the MGA?



On 19 June 2014 01:30, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were
 conjectured about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf



 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 4:54 am
 Subject: Re: O-machines

  Mind you anyone who uses The Cyberiad for his names (or indeed The
 Sandman for that matter) is OK with me.


 On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
 functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
 value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
 performs.
 In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
 of ﬁddling with machine tables will suﬃce to improve a TM to Trurl’s
 level.


  Is this what yo mean? I don't see how whatever value is stored in the
 oracle is non-Turing-Computable, surely the Oracle just stores a (very
 large) number which is equivalent to the result of a particular computation?

  Or does it???



 On 18 June 2014 18:37, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the
 argument he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he
 posits that he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result
 of the halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all
 lookup tables are then oracle... that doesn't seem correct to me.

  Regards,
 Quentin


 2014-06-18 7:23 GMT+02:00 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net:

  Bruno, I wonder if you're aware of this critique of Maudlin's Olympia
 argument, which of course also applies to the MGA?

 http://www.colinklein.org/papers/OlympiaOMachines.pdf

 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.




  --
 All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
 Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
 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.


-- 
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 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

 My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
 relativity theories is faulty.


In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all
non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based
on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely
falling observers. What's wrong with the logic?


 Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
 Clock speeds may be affected but not time.  Time passes at the same rate
 everywhere in our Universe.


Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link I
posted?

If not, here is a direct link to it ...
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html

Look in particular at the photon clock and tell me where the flaw in the
logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've
tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile
to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation.

-- 
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 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:

  Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
 Clock speeds may be effected but not time.


 OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to
 describe whatever it is that clocks actually measure, lets call it zime. I
 would submit that we could not tell even in theory if time stayed the same
 or sped up or slowed down or went sideways or even ceased to exist. But we
 certainly notice zime! Therefore there is no way to know if time even
 exists and given that it does absolutely positively nothing there is also
 no reason to care if it does or not; but zime certainly exists and it does
 a hell of a lot. There is nothing more important in our life than zime but
 even if time exists it doesn't matter.

 I might just add, in case it isn't clear, that to say that clocks slow
down is also to say that atomic vibrations and everything else slow down,
including people's thoughts and perceptions. I should also mention that SR
says this is a measurement effect while observers move at a constant speed
relative to one another. It's only when they (or one of them) accelerates
that you get a twin paradox where the overall elapsed time along one path
through space-time is not equal to another one, even though they have the
same start and end points.

-- 
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 19 June 2014 01:26, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
 :

   I read the first 3 steps,  Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
 built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
 keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.


  That's fair enough. Obviously I missed the blunder in step 3 when I
 read it - what is it?


 If after saying whats wrong with Bruno's vacuous proof over and over
 and over and over and over and over again for 3 years and you still ask
 what is it then what would be the point of me repeating it yet again?


a) I haven't been around here for 3 years

b) If you said it in the middle of one of those interminable exchanges
which gets nested 25 levels deep and takes up about 20 screens' worth of
scrolling, I may easily have missed it.

c) If you've said it that many time then you shouldn't have a problem
summarising it once more. Preferably you could start a new thread (and
please don't leave any extra stuff from previous threads at the end of your
post). Or failing that, could you at least refer me to somewhere you've
said it before?

-- 
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

PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two
steps. Most people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go
for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the argument that we don't need a
physical universe). Step 3, iirc, is just the demonstration of first person
indeterminacy, which is I would think no more contraversial here than it is
in Everett.

-- 
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 19 June 2014 01:21, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 True. Notice please that the elites are not exploring and funding fixes as
 you or I would. They will be forced to with the Antarctica process.


I wouldn't have been fulminating about the elites not exploring or funding
fixes for the last 15 years if they had, so yes, I have, noticed. I don't
know why you think they will be with the Antarctica process though.
They've sat on their hands over climate change so far (mostly), so why
would they suddenly stop doing so --- just because a few scientists say
there's a problem that will lead to sea level rise? But more than a few
scientists have been saying that for decades.

 At this moment the big threats seem to be resource depletion and climate
 change. If we can face up to them and tackle them, we'll be better prepared
 for whatever is coming down the track next.




-- 
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 19 June 2014 01:25, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

N! Its probably benighn as the environment around black smokers,
is volcanic, and biology adapted mightily to heat, acidity, low oxygen.

The proposal I saw involved dredging up iron sands, nothing to do with
black smokers.

It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection
Agency.

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 18, 2014 2:56 am
Subject: 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!

It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/24263642/rejection-of-mining-proposal-victory-for-common-sense/

--
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: Quantum Logic as Classical Logic

On 19 June 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 Quantum logic usually designates the logical structure associated to the
 lattice of the subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space, where
 lives the atomic physical states (the rays, or unit vectors, the so called
 pure states).


That sounds rather Platonic.

-- 
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: Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys

On 19 June 2014 06:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 It just hard to interview the machine on GR and compare.

 I read a SF novel in which life was created from lots of mini black holes
(Raft I think). Maybe you can build a Turing machine using just GR.

-- 
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: Does 'free will' stem from brain noise?

On 19 June 2014 03:30, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:

 Among  computet administrators, there is an old say :

 Jesus saves. But only Buddah perform incremental backups

That made me LOL.

Wasn't the other one Jesus saves, but Pele scores on the rebound (or
insert name of contemporary famous footballer) ?

Jesus saved, and now he can afford a new dinner set...

Jesus saved up his silver but the Tao is silent, and silence is golden.

(Maybe that's enough mixed metaphors.)

-- 
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

This is why when someone asks me what I will be doing over the holidays I
am tempted to reply that I will be going away, not going away, crowned
Empress of the Universe, killed in a car crash, spontaneously combusting,
being kidnapped by aliens, having a conversion experience, and many other
things.

But I don't, of course, even though physics tells me the above is true.

-- 
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 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
 there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
 humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 
 bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered 
 entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute



On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

  sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 


 No problem. 

  The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 


 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 


 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.


 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 


 So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
 say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
 would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
 ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
 to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
 intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
 intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
 may. 

 And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
 with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
 have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
 consciousness. 

 But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
 individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
 actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
 forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
 indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
 a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
 say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
 involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
 answer to. 

 Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
 humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
 do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
 fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
 general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
 complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
 be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

 We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
 suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
 no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
 that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
 isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
 turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
 hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
 we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
 the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

 There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
 objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
 table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
 beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

 In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply 
 because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and 
 intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack 
 on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet 
 undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

  So...I

Re: Selecting your future branch



On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:

 PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably 
 you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most 
 people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA 
 (i.e. the reversal - the argument that we don't need a physical 
 universe). Step 3, iirc, is just the demonstration of first person 
 indeterminacy, which is I would think no more contraversial here than it is 
 in Everett.


Well actually, although for me it was about the initial assumption in a lot 
of ways, step three certainly stuck out the most for the 
most straightforward reasoning. I have used step three therefore 
myself, as an example. Because it has knock-down characteristics of what 
would be expected if my more general argument was possible AND present as 
an explanation
. 
I would certain admit I'm not at a point of being willing to BEHAVE and/or 
be purely motivated by, an adequately detached/objective 
positioning regarding what took place in that thread, particularly toward 
the end. What I could promise but not be willing to provide or evidence of, 
is that already by the time that closing phase began, I had actually been 
through a process at my end, of regarding the overall thread as a failure, 
and been through and completing a process of analysing that, purely from 
the perspective (i.e. as a principle of the process) taking full 
responsibility. Not for some angelic purity, but because there were 
aspects in play there, involving goals, that are important to me to 
understand in terms of barriers and skills and competencies at my 
end. There can be no interest in what other people do wrong when there is 
commitment to a goal. And in that process I identified several - mostly 
occurring very early - strategies that I knew would create certain 
impressions, but that I felt would fall away once things became clearer. I 
was wrong..for large reasons nothing to do with individuals here (because 
that wouldn't be interesting either). Wrong because certain impressions can 
be very very 'sticky', particulary first ones.  A case of a well known 
truth, missed due to a different and new context (for me).

So with that said. From where I'm standing Liz, it isn't reasonable to be 
asking people to bother with anything less than gushing adoration for Bruno 
and his theory. Not 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