Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:31:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: Solar power's bright future
Here's another breakthrough on the horizon - in Scotland (of all places to be using solar power! :) http://www.sciencescotland.org/feature.php?id=69 -- 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 7:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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. Ok, I'll admit it. 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. Right, but this already contains a clue that interesting is more relevant than difficult when it comes to creativity. But it begs the question a little bit, because you could define creativity as the ability to generate interesting things. Of course, you could then say that generating interesting things is difficult, but I would say that it's a very specific type of difficulty, that doesn't generalise well to all cognitive tasks. (thus my accountant example) 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. Again, I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular definition. 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. Agreed. Then novelty is also in the eye of the beholder, and at a certain level of abstraction there is nothing novel about a paintball pattern for most people. It might look novel to some naive pattern recognition algorithm. Higher level image recognition might always say this is a paintball pattern, no matter what the specific pixels are. It will also take higher level modelling of human minds and culture to be able to decide if a paintball pattern is novel, or interesting to a human. My point is that equating creativity with difficulty seems to simplistic. Creativity is difficult, but it doesn't follow that difficult is creative. 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who believe him) could be wrong. It is true that the measured speed of light in a vacuum is always c. On that Einstein and I agree. In accordance with my model, Coulomb grids completely fill our Universe, every cubic nanometer of it (including all vacuums) and light travels in Coulomb grids at a speed of c. Therefore, if the Coulomb grid is moving in the same direction as a beam of light at a speed of b then the beam is moving at a speed of c plus b. But we need to have a reference to know how to figure the speed b. That reference could be the center of our Universe or the cosmic background radiation. In this respect my theory includes relativity features. But it does not require that the passage of time changes with speed or gravity or that massive objects produce a curvature of space. The article Liz cited is a nice article and it attempts to explain some of Einstein's concepts simply. However, I note that the article does not attempt to explain Einstein's concept of gravity. And I admit I do not understand his concept of gravity. Liz has earlier referred to as set of equations that I gather relate to the curvature of space. Since I am convinced that space cannot be curved, I don't see how the equations can accurately explain gravity. It is possible that his equations accurately predict the path of light as it passes by the sun. But that would not prove that massive objects curve space. My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. There is a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy. The Black Hole continuously consumes portions of its galaxy. It breaks down the molecules and atoms of the consumed portions into protons, electrons and positrons and neutrino entrons and other entrons. It produces anti-protons from the electrons, positron and entrons and it allows the protons and anti-protons to destroy each other to release more neutrino entrons some of which escape the Black Hole as neutrino photons to produce the gravity of the galaxy and some of which help produce more anti-protons. Some neutrino photos are temporally stopped in stars, planets and moons and later released to give these objects their gravity. Photons have a mass that is equivalent to the energy of the photons. The paths of these photons are curved by neutrino photons released from stars, planets and moons. I have shown on page 136 of my book that the consumption per earth-day of an earth-size planet by the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would produce a neutrino photon flux here on earth of about 68,000 neutrino photons per second per square meter. Liz has my book. She can confirm that I have made this calculation. I have read that gravity travels at the speed of light. My neutrino photons travel at the speed of light. My theory also explains anti-gravity as being carried by photons, much lower energy photons that apply a photon pressure on the huge surface areas, of faraway galaxies. My theory proposes the previously unknown entron (two circling tronnies) that provide all of the mass of our Universe (except for the portion provided by electrons and positrons). if I am correct we could avoid a lot of wasted efforts looking for the Higgs boson. John Ross On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: 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 p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else
Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: you could define creativity as the ability to generate interesting things. OK. I was trying to avoid interesting to not get into a circular definition. There is no circularity. Although there are several competing definitions of complexity they all have one thing in common, they're all objective; but interesting is 100% subjective, it is a desire to find out more about something. interesting is more relevant than difficult when it comes to creativity. There is a connection between the two; if something is too simple then our curiosity about it has been satiated and there just isn't any more information about it to know, and if it's very complex and we haven't yet done our homework to put the information already available into some sort of logical order in our mind then there is little desire to obtain yet more information. Yes a scientist may desire more information about puzzling phenomenon X in the hope of solving the problem, but only after he has already mastered the information already known about the strange X effect. novelty is also in the eye of the beholder It can be but something like a paintball splatter is novel to everyone, and it's complex too, but few would desire more information about it so it's not very interesting. My point is that equating creativity with difficulty seems to simplistic. It is too simplistic, I equated creativity with difficulty and novelty and interest. Creativity is difficult, but it doesn't follow that difficult is creative. True, but I would always call coming up with something that was difficult (or complex) and novel and interesting 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little, if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity would enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you train yourself, using inventive techniques. But that's not at all necessary. Creativity in juggling comes into play in terms of tricks, but that's a different point than what Telmo was saying. Terren On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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. -- 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 Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we were more than three to show you that in each case, you were confusing 1-views and 3-views. That was your one and only retort in our debate, no explanation just a repeat of the mantra, you really should get a rubber stamp made of you're confusing 1-views and 3-views. And yet I would humbly submit that there is not a single person on planet Earth who confuses the 1-view from the 3-view; or at least nobody this side of a looney bin. 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. This means you don't suspect errors in the sequel. Nice. I have no idea if you made additional errors and I don't care, it doesn't matter how strong the walls of a skyscraper are if it's built on top of a mound of jello it's going to come crashing down. After an error has been made in a proof everything that follows is just gibberish. 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: Context effects reveal quantum probabilities in surveys
On 6/18/2014 11:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote: Quantum effects in belief. Can comp explain this? I have not the time look at that definition of belief, but actually (this is not a confession, I have already explain this, but probably not so lately) a consequence of the loss of the necessitation make the comp quantum logic into a belief theory (in the sense of Dempster-Shafer). Comp is close to Fuch and Pauli and Heisenberg: the wave describes relative belief state. But I have stop to look at those who see the quantum directly in term of beliefs, as it does not fit well neither comp nor the quantum, it is only quantum in a very weak sense. Now, why do you keep asking me if comp can explain this or that, when my contribution is that comp leads to the *necessity* of explaining matter from mind, and mind from arithmetic? I submit a problem, translate it in arithmetic, and begun to solve it. You might ask yourself can non-comp explain this., If you mean can physics explain it, almost certainly not now. It's a psychological phenomena and is probably not even related to quanta since at the level of answering poll questions I'd expect the brain to be purely classical in it's function. On the other hand coming at the problem from modalities of belief I thought you theories my have something to say about it. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]
On 6/18/2014 3:15 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: 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). Yes, I'd heard the story about the purple bacteriodopsin that used the middle part of the visible spectrum. But the implication is that these bacteria were shading the bacteria or algae that developed chlorophyll. Which might be true, but they've not been shading them for the last billion years or so since plants came onto the land. So I don't see it has a local optimum. There's a big chunk of spectrum right there adjacent to the spectrum being used. There doesn't seem to be any significant barrier. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP
On 18 Jun 2014, at 05:53, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 06:54:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:42, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:02AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 Jun 2014, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 01:33:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Jun 2014, at 12:13, Russell Standish wrote: Changled title again, as this has wandered a lot from tronnies. On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:08:08AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and incarnate consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate validly Brunos and Davids finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't belong only to arithmetic, which would be false, and that is a mathematical contradiction, even if Why is it false? Why couldn't the numbers X and Nu belong both to arithmetic and the primitive matter? That could happen, but that could also not happen. Then the proof is not false. Yes, it is. If the proof was correct, it could not happen. Are you trying to suggest that you've derived a contradiction here? If so, then I don't see it. Are you OK with the fact that the existence of primitive matter is consistent with arithmetic, but that the non existence of primitive matter is also consistent with arithmetic? Yes. OK. If yes, the contradiction comes from the fact that the zombies (in this context) in arithmetic would be able to validly prove the existence of primitive matter, when assuming Peter Jones could *validly* argues (= proves) that there is primitive matter and simultaneously say yes to the doctor. Why is that a contradiction? In fact there are two contradictions. I explain the contradiction which is relate to about. 'To prove A', classically, is equivalent to showing that ~A leads to a contradiction, that is ~A is inconsistent. This mirrors the fact that []A is the same as ~ ~A. To prove the existence of anything is equivalent to prove that its non existence leads to a contradiction, or 0=1. So you cannot prove *validly* the existence of Primitive Matter (PM, hereafter) and keep your belief (above) that the non existence of primitive matter is consistent with arithmetic. validly means that all models (or consistent extensions) satisfy what you prove. This is usually guaranty by the relevant soundness and completeness theorem. There is a more direct contradiction. By definition or primitive matter it cannot be proved to exist. It would be proved from what? Something primitive means something which has to be assumed. And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove* the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact. I played the devil advocate. I put my foot in Peter Jones' food, and imagine he could convince us of the existence of primitive matter, and from that I get a contradiction. In the case such a valid proof exist, it is just trivial to make a mechanical procedure to find it, that's why I said any zombie can find it. Validity is a recursive/decidable/total-computable/sigma_0 notion, unlike provability, which is sigma_1 (partial-computable, semi- decidable), and consistency, which is pi_1 (like Riemann Hypothesis). If no, then you have to tell me which of 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ... *is* primitive matter (only the standard numbers, as only them belongs to all models of the arithmetical theories (RA, PA). But you can't do that, as we already know at this stage that the appearance of the primitive matter involves infinities of arithmetical relations. We cannot decide to put 0 and its successors in the primitively material without doing a category error. It seems like we're talking finitism here, rather than primitive matter. But in any case, I answered yes, above. The properties of arithmetic shouldn't depend on the existence of primitive matter. All right, Best, Bruno -- 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: Selecting your future branch
2014-06-19 19:25 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: You mean that you made many attempts to find a blunder, but we were more than three to show you that in each case, you were confusing 1-views and 3-views. That was your one and only retort in our debate, no explanation just a repeat of the mantra, you really should get a rubber stamp made of you're confusing 1-views and 3-views. And yet I would humbly submit that there is not a single person on planet Earth who confuses the 1-view from the 3-view; or at least nobody this side of a looney bin. 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. This means you don't suspect errors in the sequel. Nice. I have no idea if you made additional errors and I don't care, it doesn't matter how strong the walls of a skyscraper are if it's built on top of a mound of jello it's going to come crashing down. After an error has been made in a proof everything that follows is just gibberish. Sure, but the only one repeating gibberish here is you... you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI despite *YOU HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED*, yet you don't accept it in a simple classical duplication experiment... please do not come again with the I could meet my doppelganger crap. As usual, reject both or proceed with the argument. Quentin 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. -- 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: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute
I'm ok nowadays with creativity, beauty, aesthetics as undefinable pointer to transcendental properties better not named or scrutinized, but inhabited, lived and interpreted by various entities. Difficulty, novelty, interest, as with any list, or the various definitions laid down by history, seem to ignore incompleteness' possible role here; even the Jobs definition á la Creativity is just combining two previously uncombined things; that's why creative people don't think of themselves as creative, they just seized an opportunity unique to their pov at that time... fails in the transcendental, not nameable department. Because that's it's main spice, if I had to place a bet... which is also why there will always be arguing about taste, contrary to the saying. Arguing about taste should be prohibited. Not even mentioned. I mention it only to point out its perils ;-) Creative is whatever computers can't do; there is some truth to this beyond the pride of humans. Perhaps for good reason. PGC On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote: As someone who can juggle 5 balls, I would say there really is very little, if any, creativity involved. It's purely training of muscle memory over hundreds/thousands of repetitions. I'm not even sure how creativity would enter the equation... I suppose you could be creative about how you train yourself, using inventive techniques. But that's not at all necessary. Creativity in juggling comes into play in terms of tricks, but that's a different point than what Telmo was saying. Terren On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 1:31 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: 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. -- 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 Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what I meant. So a Turing Machine has free will. Not all turing machine, you need one which can guess that she does not know. There is nothing stopping Mrs Turing Machine from guessing if she will ever find the solution to the problem she's working on, but we've known for 85 years that there is no way for her to consistently guess correctly. And incidentally Human Beings are not one bit better at doing that than Mrs Turing Machine is, so either both of us have free will or neither of us do. you will beat the record of people not understanding step 3. That's because there is nothing in step 3 to understand. You have confuse the 1-view and the 3-view As I say you really need to get a rubber stamp made of that. 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 I took my own advice, I had a rubber stamp made of the following: Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. and to your definition of free-will. There are only 2 definitions of free will that are not gibberish: 1) Free Will is a noise made by the mouth. 2) Free Will is the inability to always know what you will do next even in a stable predictable environment You can read the literature. There is no literature on theology or on Free Will, coloring books maybe but no literature. Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Yes. So it wasn't just my imagination, you really said it! atheism is a variant of Christianity. Like a recurring nightmare you said it yet again! So according to you not believing in God is a variant of Christianity, and obviously believing in God is another variant of Christianity, therefore every human being who ever lived is a Christian except for those who don't believe in God AND don't don't believe in God. From this I conclude that one of the following statements must be true: 1) If ET exists then he's a Christian too. 2) Bruno Marchal is not a logician. 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: Selecting your future branch
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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? If you've said it that many time then you shouldn't have a problem summarising it once more. Personal pronouns. Preferably you could start a new thread I'd rather eat ground glass. 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
My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe, no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang should be the same everywhere. John R 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. -- 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:25 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That machine does not know in advance its future state, and that is what I meant. So a Turing Machine has free will. Not all turing machine, you need one which can guess that she does not know. There is nothing stopping Mrs Turing Machine from guessing if she will ever find the solution to the problem she's working on, but we've known for 85 years that there is no way for her to consistently guess correctly. And incidentally Human Beings are not one bit better at doing that than Mrs Turing Machine is, so either both of us have free will or neither of us do. you will beat the record of people not understanding step 3. That's because there is nothing in step 3 to understand. You have confuse the 1-view and the 3-view As I say you really need to get a rubber stamp made of that. 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 I took my own advice, I had a rubber stamp made of the following: Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12. and to your definition of free-will. There are only 2 definitions of free will that are not gibberish: 1) Free Will is a noise made by the mouth. 2) Free Will is the inability to always know what you will do next even in a stable predictable environment You can read the literature. There is no literature on theology or on Free Will, coloring books maybe but no literature. Oh yes I remember, according to your logic atheism is a branch of Christianity and thus John K Clark is a Christian. Yes. So it wasn't just my imagination, you really said it! atheism is a variant of Christianity. Like a recurring nightmare you said it yet again! So according to you not believing in God is a variant of Christianity, and obviously believing in God is another variant of Christianity, therefore every human being who ever lived is a Christian except for those who don't believe in God AND don't don't believe in God. From this I conclude that one of the following statements must be true: 1) If ET exists then he's a Christian too. 2) Bruno Marchal is not a logician. Your repeated attempts to frame what you extend into the absurd as Bruno's personal nonsense is not even a geographical cultural thing; even US scientists, as I've posted this before, find the definition perfectly reasonable (to lay to rest that this is some fancy Euro-Theology thing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos But that cartoon you keep posting again and again: the guy at the end is a white humanist with Christian roots, still keeping with their prohibitions in law and justice system, although he sees himself as emancipated from their cause. Puhleez...PGC 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: O-machines
On 18 Jun 2014, at 07:23, meekerdb wrote: 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 Hmm. I should read that at ease, and not after ten hours of oral exams, ... but why did he say that Olympia is a Turing Machine? Only Olympia + the Claras incarnate a Turing machine. The fact that Olympia and Olympia+the Claras are *physically* equivalent (at the relevant level) is a problem for the physical supervenience, but not necessarily for other form of supervenience (like the comp one where consciousness is associated to all computations going through the relevant states). Hum... ( I read a bit) ... Not sure his definition of 'trurl' make sense, nor his use of the oracle. (by the way, I love Stanislam Lem) Hmm... he is wrong on the notion of oracle. An oracle is just a sort of divine entity complete for non computable set. A typical example is the Halting oracle, which is pi_1 complete (more powerful than a universal machine, it knows about the Riemann Hypothesis!). The tought was that with some such oracle, may be we could solve all arithmetic problem. But such gods obeys the same incompletness phenomenon, and a pi_1 god, for example, can still not filtrated the total and strictly partial code/machines, in a universal enumeration of machines/programs. For that you need a pi_2 god. universal machine: complete for the provability of sigma_1 sentences, type ExP(x) with P decidable/sigma_0. After that you have the pi_1 complete sets, or notion (like consistency, Halting, ..) which are thge non computable negation of the sigma_1 sentences: ~ExP(x) = Ax ~P(x) and if P is sigma_0, ~P is also sigma_0, and so the pi_1 formula are the formula of type AxP(x), with P decidable. Then you have the sigma_2 notions, ExAyP(x,y) the pi_2 notions (set, relations), again, negation of the sigma_2 (using again the fact that if P(x, y) is decidable, then ~P(x, y) is decidable too), so they are equivalent of proposition of type AxEyP(x,y). Oracles have been invented to explains that even when you might know the whole pi_7 truth, you can't solve the sigma_8 problems. Other type of oracles are possible, like the random oracle, which does not add any power in the sense above, but can add a lot of power on the tractability issue. Is there a god having the knowledge of all the pi_i and sigma_i gods? Of course, that's the definition of the arithmetical truth. But machines cannot give it a name, and the set of all true proposition is not definable in arithmetic. And do the god arithmetical truth know everything? No. For example, the quantified modal logics of provabilty qG and qG*, are undecidable (unlike the propositional G and G*)), and indeed as much as possible from their definitions. qG is pi_2 complete, and qG* is pi_1 complete in the oracle of arithmetical truth. In the comp theology, even with the full help of God, you have still an infinite task to accomplish to get the Noùs/intelligible reality/ worlds of ideas. Note that QM implies that nature provides a random oracle, as far as we can purify some 1/sqrt(2)(0+1) state. For many tasks, classical pseudo-random are enough. 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: O-machines
On 18 Jun 2014, at 08:37, Quentin Anciaux 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. I think he did not understood Maudlin's point, nor what is an oracle. But my brain is stoned, not by plant, but by tiredness. I will certainly read it at ease later, but at first sight it does not make sense to me either. Regards, Bruno PS (I will comment other posts later, bye) 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. 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3 distinction. please do not come again with the I could meet my doppelganger crap. In MWI the laws of physics forbid Quentin Anciaux from ever meeting Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger so it's always clear who personal pronouns refer to, but in Bruno's thought experiment it's ridiculously easy for Quentin Anciaux to meet Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger, yet Bruno still insists on throwing around personal pronouns with abandon which makes a question like what will you see? be as nonsensical as how long is a piece of string?. John Clark understands that not using personal pronouns can make prose a little awkward, but if the ideas are clear that's all the trouble it makes; however Bruno is simply incapable of expressing Bruno's ideas without pronouns, and that is a sure sign that Bruno's ideas are muddled. Please explain why complaining about that is crap. 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: Selecting your future branch
2014-06-19 21:10 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3 distinction. please do not come again with the I could meet my doppelganger crap. In MWI the laws of physics forbid Quentin Anciaux from ever meeting Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger so it's always clear who personal pronouns refer to, No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see spin up *UNDER MWI WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT*, that I will answer 0.5 but when asking the same I who will push the button what is the probability he'll see washington *UNDER THE COMP DUPLICATION EXPERIMENT WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT* he talks bullshit about doppelganger and invalid pronous use... well John... bullshit and bullshit again... do us a favor, reject MWI. Quentin but in Bruno's thought experiment it's ridiculously easy for Quentin Anciaux to meet Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger, yet Bruno still insists on throwing around personal pronouns with abandon which makes a question like what will you see? be as nonsensical as how long is a piece of string?. John Clark understands that not using personal pronouns can make prose a little awkward, but if the ideas are clear that's all the trouble it makes; however Bruno is simply incapable of expressing Bruno's ideas without pronouns, and that is a sure sign that Bruno's ideas are muddled. Please explain why complaining about that is crap. 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. -- 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: Solar power's bright future
Beautiful...and this is still not the last word John M On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:22 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Here's another breakthrough on the horizon - in Scotland (of all places to be using solar power! :) http://www.sciencescotland.org/feature.php?id=69 -- 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see spin up *UNDER MWI WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT*, that I will answer 0.5 And in the MWI how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct? YOU repeat the experiment many times, YOU write down the results and then YOU see if about half the time it was spin up and about half spin down. Pronouns cause no problem. But in Bruno's thought experiment how is it determined if the probabilistic prediction about which city YOU saw was correct or not, which YOU should I ask? Should I write down Moscow or Washington? If YOU say both then YOU saw Washington and Moscow and the probability is 1.0, if you say ask neither then YOU didn't see Washington AND YOU didn't see Moscow and the probability is 0.0, in neither case is it 0.5. 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: Selecting your future branch
2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see spin up *UNDER MWI WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT*, that I will answer 0.5 And in the MWI how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct? And in the comp experiment how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct? YOU repeat the exeperiment many times and you write the result in a diary, and almost all YOU will arrive at the correct frequency *exactly* like almost all YOU in MWI wil arrive at 0.5. YOU repeat the experiment many times, YOU write down the results and then YOU see if about half the time it was spin up and about half spin down. Pronouns cause no problem. But in Bruno's thought experiment how is it determined if the probabilistic prediction about which city YOU saw was correct or not, which YOU should I ask? The same you as always *ALL OF THEM* like in MWI. Should I write down Moscow or Washington? If YOU say both then YOU saw Washington and Moscow and the probability is 1.0, if you say ask neither then YOU didn't see Washington AND YOU didn't see Moscow and the probability is 0.0, in neither case is it 0.5. 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. -- 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: Selecting your future branch
2014-06-19 22:52 GMT+02:00 Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com: 2014-06-19 21:55 GMT+02:00 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: No the I before measuring the spin, is as clear as the I pushing the button, no confusion... When I ask that I what is the probability he'll see spin up *UNDER MWI WHERE YOU'LL BE DUPLICATED DOING SUCH EXPERIMENT*, that I will answer 0.5 And in the MWI how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct? And in the comp experiment how will YOU know if the 0.5 prediction was correct? YOU repeat the exeperiment many times and you write the result in a diary, and almost all YOU will arrive at the correct frequency *exactly* like almost all YOU in MWI wil arrive at 0.5. YOU repeat the experiment many times, YOU write down the results and then YOU see if about half the time it was spin up and about half spin down. Pronouns cause no problem. But in Bruno's thought experiment how is it determined if the probabilistic prediction about which city YOU saw was correct or not, which YOU should I ask? So in MWI, the same question arise... which YOU, it's all of them in their respecting branch, almost all of them will arrive at the correct frequency of 0.5... In COMP, same, almost all of them will arrive at the correct frequency of 0.5 by looking their diaries. The same you as always *ALL OF THEM* like in MWI. Should I write down Moscow or Washington? If YOU say both then YOU saw Washington and Moscow and the probability is 1.0, if you say ask neither then YOU didn't see Washington AND YOU didn't see Moscow and the probability is 0.0, in neither case is it 0.5. 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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: TRONNIES - SPACE
On 19 June 2014 14:34, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: 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 p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my eyes during the time I've been Thank you, I appreciate that :-) (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). I'm sorry to hear that. But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would strongly guess including you... John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top risks we all face when our ideas for whatever reason have been either exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in fan clubs. Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense... Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog sitting outside chained to a post. One wolf is saying to another I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED I'm fairly sure that's a Far Side cartoon and the caption's a bit longer - listing symptoms (those glazed eyes, etc) - hang on a minute while I try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you mean. Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do with the ideas at all. But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin, thet rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for that
Re: Disproving physicalism from COMP
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 07:53:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: And why do you say that anybody (whether zombie or not) can *prove* the existence of primitive matter? We don't know that for a fact. I played the devil advocate. I put my foot in Peter Jones' food, and imagine he could convince us of the existence of primitive matter, and from that I get a contradiction. In the case such a valid proof exist, it is just trivial to make a mechanical procedure to find it, that's why I said any zombie can find it. Validity is a recursive/decidable/total-computable/sigma_0 notion, unlike provability, which is sigma_1 (partial-computable, semi-decidable), and consistency, which is pi_1 (like Riemann Hypothesis). Ah, yes I see that now. I guess I was implicitly assuming that such a proof didn't necessarily exist. Non-existence of the proof does not entail that primitive matter doesn't exist. But I understand you've now shown that such a proof cannot exist. I wasn't party to your conversations with Peter Jones (I probably skipped over them at the time when they got interminably long), so cannot comment how that result fits in with that discussion. But I don't see how you parlay this into a proof of step 8. -- 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: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]
Perhaps because the two mechanisms function quite differently and apparently evolved independently. But I also sometimes wonder why in the many hundreds of millions of years of time that no species has found a way to utilize the missing chunk of spectrum. A perfect plant would have jet black leaves -- and use photons across all wavelengths of the spectrum. Then there truly would be black forests. Chris Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll. Read more about bacteriorhodopsin in the Bou... View on www.boundless.com Preview by Yahoo Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll. KEY POINTS * Bacteriorhodopsin is a proton pump found in Archaea, it takes light energy and coverts it into chemical energy, ATP, that can be used by the cell for cellular functions. * Bacteriorhodopsin forms chains, which contain retinal molecule within, it is the retinal molecule that absorbs a photon from light, it then changes the confirmation of the nearby Bacteriorhodopsin protein, allowing it to act as a proton pump. * While chlorophyll based ATP generation depends on a protein gradient, like bacteriorhodopsin, but with striking differences, suggesting that phototrophy evolved in bacteria and archaea independently of each other. [snip] These [bacteriochlorophylls ] also produce a proton gradient, but in a quite different and more indirect way involving an electron transfer chain consisting of several other proteins. Furthermore, chlorophylls are aided in capturing light energy by other pigments known as antennas; these are not present in bacteriorhodopsin-based systems. Last, chlorophyll-based phototrophy is coupled to carbon fixation (the incorporation of carbon dioxide into larger organic molecules) and for that reason is photosynthesis, which is not true for bacteriorhodopsin-based system. From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)] On 6/18/2014 3:15 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: 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). Yes, I'd heard the story about the purple bacteriodopsin that used the middle part of the visible spectrum. But the implication is that these bacteria were shading the bacteria or algae that developed chlorophyll. Which might be true, but they've not been shading them for the last billion years or so since plants came onto the land. So I don't see it has a local optimum. There's a big chunk of spectrum right there adjacent to the spectrum being used. There doesn't seem to be any significant barrier. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)]
I have long thought that plants should be black, too, for this reason. Anyone know why not? On 20 June 2014 11:40, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Perhaps because the two mechanisms function quite differently and apparently evolved independently. But I also sometimes wonder why in the many hundreds of millions of years of time that no species has found a way to utilize the missing chunk of spectrum. A perfect plant would have jet black leaves -- and use photons across all wavelengths of the spectrum. Then there truly would be black forests. Chris Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ [image: image] https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Bacteriorhodopsin - Boundless Open Textbook https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll. Read more about bacteriorhodopsin in the Bou... View on www.boundless.com https://www.boundless.com/microbiology/microbial-metabolism/phototrophy/bacteriorhodopsin/ Preview by Yahoo Bacteriorhodopsin acts a proton pump, generating cellular energy in a manner independent of chlorophyll. KEY POINTS - Bacteriorhodopsin is a proton pump found in Archaea, it takes light energy and coverts it into chemical energy, ATP, that can be used by the cell for cellular functions. - Bacteriorhodopsin forms chains, which contain retinal molecule https://www.boundless.com/definition/molecules/ within, it is the retinal molecule that absorbs a photon from light, it then changes the confirmation of the nearby Bacteriorhodopsin protein, allowing it to act as a proton pump. - While chlorophyll based ATP generation depends on a protein gradient, like bacteriorhodopsin, but with striking differences, suggesting that phototrophy evolved in bacteria https://www.boundless.com/definition/bacteria/ and archaea independently of each other. [snip] These [bacteriochlorophylls ] also produce a proton gradient, but in a quite different and more indirect way involving an electron transfer chain consisting of several other proteins. Furthermore, chlorophylls are aided in capturing light energy by other pigments known as antennas; these are not present in bacteriorhodopsin-based systems. Last, chlorophyll-based phototrophy is coupled to carbon fixation https://www.boundless.com/definition/fixation/ (the incorporation of carbon dioxide into larger organic molecules) and for that reason is photosynthesis, which is not true for bacteriorhodopsin-based system. -- *From:* meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes specifically)] On 6/18/2014 3:15 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: 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). Yes, I'd heard the story about the purple bacteriodopsin that used the middle part of the visible spectrum. But the implication is that these bacteria were shading the bacteria or algae that developed chlorophyll. Which might be true, but they've not been shading them for the last billion years or so since plants came onto the land. So I don't see it has a local optimum. There's a big chunk of spectrum right there adjacent to the spectrum being used. There doesn't seem to be any significant barrier. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Selecting your future branch
On 20 June 2014 06:32, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 7:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: 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? If you've said it that many time then you shouldn't have a problem summarising it once more. Personal pronouns. Ah, now something comes back to me. Is it just a question of whether the duplicates are the same I as the original? This is irrelevant to the argument of step 3, because that's defined using the diaries each person is supposed carry, and make notes of their experiences in. Whether they argue about who is the real successor to the original doesn't come into it, as far as I remember. Since you haven't mentioned the assignment of probabilities, I assume you don't think there's a problem with that? Preferably you could start a new thread I'd rather eat ground glass. Very dramatic (you aren't my 12 year old daughter under an alias, by any chance?) -- 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 20 June 2014 07:10, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: you accept 1/3 distinction in MWI Forget MWI, EVERYBODY who is not in a padded cell accepts the 1/3 distinction. OK, so there isn't any real problem then, only which pronoun to use. But technology often makes us revise our language, as in for example There's too much sex on the television. please do not come again with the I could meet my doppelganger crap. In MWI the laws of physics forbid Quentin Anciaux from ever meeting Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger so it's always clear who personal pronouns refer to, but in Bruno's thought experiment it's ridiculously easy for Quentin Anciaux to meet Quentin Anciaux's doppelganger, yet Bruno still insists on throwing around personal pronouns with abandon which makes a question like what will you see? be as nonsensical as how long is a piece of string?. However, this doesn't affect the argument. It's trivial to see what Bruno *means*, even if you don't agree with his use of personal pronouns. (Even I can see it, with a brain that is probably only 89% the size of yours.) What he means is exactly the same as a physicist who believes in the MWI would mean if they said the results they expect from a quantum experiment are... I expect to randomly see outcome A 50% of the time, and to see outcome B the other 50% of the time. So if you ask Helsinki-man what he expects to see when he steps out of the matter transmitter, he will probably say that he expects there's a 50% probability he'll see Washington, and 50% probability he'll see Moscow. He will obviously consider this to be trivially true if he doesn't actually *know* the MT is a duplicator. Suppose for the sake of argument he has used it a few times already, but been kept separate from his duplicates - that would give the illusion that it sends him to a randomly chosen destination. So now if we ask all the duplicates what they expect to see next time they use it, we'll get the above answer. Once he knows it's really a duplicator, that could make him uncertain of what answer to give - but he will still feel exactly as he did before when he appears in Moscow, just as the physicist still feels he's seen outcome A when he runs his experiment. But if he says Well, I'll see both, of course, because I'll be duplicated! that doesn't actually alter the logic of the argument, which is only concerned with what he reports in his diary. -- 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 20 June 2014 06:48, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: My point is that time passes at the same rate everywhere in our Universe, no matter where you are or how fast you are traveling. For example, if we knew exactly when the Big Bang occurred, the time since the Big Bang should be the same everywhere. This is simply not true, as a large number of observations have shown. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for particles moving near lightspeed, which have longer decay times than ones at rest. Time doesn't pass at the same rate for satellites orbitting the Earth every 12 hours as it does for people on the Earth. Time doesn't pass at the same rate aboard an aircraft flying around the Earth as it does on the Earth's surface. Time doesn't pass at the same rate at the top of a tower as it does at the bottom. These have all been measured. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity -- 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
Just saw this: When Elon Musk dreams... he certainly dreams big... and he has a track record of making his seemingly wild ideas come true... SpaceX and Tesla Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years | KurzweilAI Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest... Utility-scale solar farm (credit: Silevo) Elon Musk, chairman of SolarCity, America's largest solar power provider, announced Tuesday with other SolarCity View on www.kurzweilai.net Preview by Yahoo Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years Solar panels, paired with batteries to enable power at night, can produce several orders of magnitude more electricity than is consumed by the entirety of human civilization --- Elon Musk -- 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 20 June 2014 04:42, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote: Thanks for the advice. However, I don't think you should feel sorry for me for believing that I am right and everybody else is wrong. I have a feeling that even you would admit that there is a possibility, however unlikely, that i could be correct and Einstein (and all of those who believe him) could be wrong. It is on a par with the Earth turning out to be flat after all, as far as your views on time dilation are concerned. It is true that the measured speed of light in a vacuum is always c. You've put measured in quotes - as opposed to what? The speed of light is continually being measured as constant by the fact that we can see a coherent picture of the world. When it varies we get interesting effects like mirages. We don't see many of those outside the Earth's atmosphere, indicating that c is constant in a vacuum. On that Einstein and I agree. In accordance with my model, Coulomb grids completely fill our Universe, every cubic nanometer of it (including all vacuums) and light travels in Coulomb grids at a speed of c. Therefore, if the Coulomb grid is moving in the same direction as a beam of light at a speed of b then the beam is moving at a speed of c plus b. But we need to have a reference to know how to figure the speed b. That reference could be the center of our Universe or the cosmic background radiation. In this respect my theory includes relativity features. But it does not require that the passage of time changes with speed or gravity or that massive objects produce a curvature of space. The article Liz cited is a nice article and it attempts to explain some of Einstein's concepts simply. However, I note that the article does not attempt to explain Einstein's concept of gravity. And I admit I do not understand his concept of gravity. Liz has earlier referred to as set of equations that I gather relate to the curvature of space. Since I am convinced that space cannot be curved, I don't see how the equations can accurately explain gravity. It is possible that his equations accurately predict the path of light as it passes by the sun. But that would not prove that massive objects curve space. I believe GR explains gravity by saying that space-time operates on matter in a manner that can be modelled as a curvature in a higher dimension. I don't think it says that the curvature or the higher dimension necessarily exist. However, GR has been tested to fairly high precision and shown to be accurate, regardless of how one interprets the equations. My theory provides a better simpler explanation of gravity. Hmm. But not, so far, as accurate, as far as I can tell. To quote the man himself, a theory should be as simple as possible to explain the observed facts, but no simpler. There is a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy. The Black Hole continuously consumes portions of its galaxy. It breaks down the molecules and atoms of the consumed portions into protons, electrons and positrons and neutrino entrons and other entrons. It produces anti-protons from the electrons, positron and entrons and it allows the protons and anti-protons to destroy each other to release more neutrino entrons some of which escape the Black Hole as neutrino photons to produce the gravity of the galaxy and some of which help produce more anti-protons. This is a fascinating concept but I'm not sure it's crazy enough to be true. You need some mathematical modelling before you can claim that situation X produces result Y. Some neutrino photos are temporally stopped in stars, planets and moons and later released to give these objects their gravity. Photons have a mass that is equivalent to the energy of the photons. The paths of these photons are curved by neutrino photons released from stars, planets and moons. How does that work? I have shown on page 136 of my book that the consumption per earth-day of an earth-size planet by the Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way would produce a neutrino photon flux here on earth of about 68,000 neutrino photons per second per square meter. Liz has my book. She can confirm that I have made this calculation. I'm sure you have but without the mathematical underpinning for the whole theory it doesn't tell us much. For example, what is the cross section for neutrino absorption by stars, planets, etc? Current theories make this very, very low indeed, certainly not enough to provide a significant flux that somehow provides gravity as a by-product. I have read that gravity travels at the speed of light. My neutrino photons travel at the speed of light. My theory also explains anti-gravity as being carried by photons, much lower energy photons that apply a photon pressure on the huge surface areas, of faraway galaxies. As I have mentioned before, this would be a differential pressure, so lighter components should get pushed out of
Re: Solar power's bright future
Wow. I hope he has plans to protect those Marsnauts from cosmic rays. On 20 June 2014 13:56, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Just saw this: When Elon Musk dreams... he certainly dreams big... and he has a track record of making his seemingly wild ideas come true... SpaceX and Tesla Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years | KurzweilAI http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 [image: image] http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest... http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 Utility-scale solar farm (credit: Silevo) Elon Musk, chairman of SolarCity, America's largest solar power provider, announced Tuesday with other SolarCity View on www.kurzweilai.net http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 Preview by Yahoo Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years Solar panels, paired with batteries to enable power at night, can produce several orders of magnitude more electricity than is consumed by the entirety of human civilization --- Elon Musk -- 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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future Wow. I hope he has plans to protect those Marsnauts from cosmic rays. Once on Mars, Mars dirt (piled a few meters thick on top of the habitat) can do the job. it is on the way there and on the way back that is hard to see how they could be shielded. On 20 June 2014 13:56, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Just saw this: When Elon Musk dreams... he certainly dreams big... and he has a track record of making his seemingly wild ideas come true... SpaceX and Tesla Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years | KurzweilAI http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 image http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest... Utility-scale solar farm (credit: Silevo) Elon Musk, chairman of SolarCity, America's largest solar power provider, announced Tuesday with other SolarCity http://www.kurzweilai.net/musk-announces-plans-to-build-one-of-the-single-largest-solar-panel-production-plants-in-the-world?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletterutm_campaign=637110a742-UA-946742-1utm_medium=emailutm_term=0_6de721fb33-637110a742-281942553 View on www.kurzweilai.net Preview by Yahoo Musk announces plans to build ‘one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world’ and send people to Mars in ten years Solar panels, paired with batteries to enable power at night, can produce several orders of magnitude more electricity than is consumed by the entirety of human civilization --- Elon Musk -- 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: Disproving physicalism from COMP
On 6/19/2014 10:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Why is that a contradiction? In fact there are two contradictions. I explain the contradiction which is relate to about. 'To prove A', classically, is equivalent to showing that ~A leads to a contradiction, that is ~A is inconsistent. This mirrors the fact that []A is the same as ~ ~A. To prove the existence of anything is equivalent to prove that its non existence leads to a contradiction, or 0=1. So can you prove that the non-existence of Bruno Marchal leads to 0=1? So you cannot prove *validly* the existence of Primitive Matter (PM, hereafter) and keep your belief (above) that the non existence of primitive matter is consistent with arithmetic. That's only true if you prove the existence of PM from the same axioms as arithmetic. And why shouldn't PM exist without a proof. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Solar power's bright future
On 20 June 2014 14:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *LizR *Sent:* Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:09 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: Solar power's bright future Wow. I hope he has plans to protect those Marsnauts from cosmic rays. Once on Mars, Mars dirt (piled a few meters thick on top of the habitat) can do the job. it is on the way there and on the way back that is hard to see how they could be shielded. Yes, I realise that. I was thinking of the journey. The only viable method known at present is to find an asteroid that crosses Earth's and Mars' orbits and burrow into that (for both journeys - so you spend more or less the entire trip underground, one way or another!) -- 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
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 9:20 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future On 20 June 2014 14:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:09 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future Wow. I hope he has plans to protect those Marsnauts from cosmic rays. Once on Mars, Mars dirt (piled a few meters thick on top of the habitat) can do the job. it is on the way there and on the way back that is hard to see how they could be shielded. Yes, I realise that. I was thinking of the journey. The only viable method known at present is to find an asteroid that crosses Earth's and Mars' orbits and burrow into that (for both journeys - so you spend more or less the entire trip underground, one way or another!) Interesting idea. It could also be done with electric rockets (such as the VASIMIR) that could cut the travel times down to around five months, which is doable in terms of accumulated radiation dosage (from the cosmic rays and solar flux)… especially if the astronauts are older. The big problem with these rockets – besides the power they need, is how to get rid of the waste heat. With a chemical (or nuclear thermal) rocket the heat is removed in the hot gas thrust; electric rockets (from what I have heard) require large radiator systems in order to radiate away excess waste heat. Nothing is easy in space. -- 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.
