date:20141130

John,

Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at some
point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which despite
it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same wave
function- so they say. It seems to me that if all particles in the universe
share the same wave function, that must be a state of very low entropy. I
invite discussion on whether my thinking is correct.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 4:29 PM, George gl...@quantics.net wrote:

  http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-3016-9 As I have
 explained in previous posts, it is my opinion that Loschmidt was wrong in
 thinking that a Maxwellian gas column could power a perpetual motion
 machine of the Second kind which would decrease in entropy in an isolated
 system.


 Yes, Loschmidt was wrong about that.

  Loschmidt was wrong with respect to the direction of time. In summary:
 entropy can decrease but time always flows forward.


 Loschmidt said the link between the second law and time can explain why
 entropy will be higher tomorrow than today, but it can't explain why it was
 lower yesterday than today. And Loschmidt was quite right about that, you
 have to take initial conditions into consideration to explain that. In
 retrospect this shouldn't have been surprising, even in a Newtonian world
 the laws of physics alone are NEVER enough to figure out what a physical
 system will do tomorrow or did yesterday, you also have to know exactly
 what state the system was in for at least one moment in time before
 yesterday. Only then can you use the laws of physics to figure out how the
 system will evolve.

  His argument was that if the laws of physics are perfectly reversible,
 then entropy is just as likely to increase as to decrease.


 No, it would be far worse than 50/50. His argument was that even if the
 laws of physics were perfectly reversible entropy would still almost
 certainly increase because there are astronomical to the astronomical power
 more ways to be disorganized than organized, so the chances are
 overwhelming that yesterday, the state that produced the state that things
 are in today, was one of those EXTREMELY numerous states. But nobody really
 thinks that entropy decreased between yesterday and today; the thing that
 saves us from this paradox is initial conditions, the universe must have
 started out in a very very low entropy state and has been winding down ever
 since.

   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: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Nov 2014, at 11:51, Richard Ruquist wrote:




On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

Richard,

On 28 Nov 2014, at 19:19, Richard Ruquist wrote:

It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no  
quantum effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world.  
Or in general if most natural processes are classical, then we are  
mostly in one world, maybe with a little fuzziness.


Classical, or quantum, will not change the fact that we must sum up  
on all computations occurring in arithmetic.


I can understand the need for summation from the Many Histories  
(Feynman) quantum theory.


OK.





But Bruno, I wonder why you say it is necessary. Does the summation  
requirement come from the arithmetic or the logic,

or some other principle?


Yes, it is a quasi-logical consequence of computationalism. The  
quasi comes from the fact that once we apply the theory to  
reality, we still needs some amount of Occam.


But the summation is just there to quantify on your infinite sets of  
your arithmetical realization in arithmetic. It results from the FPI  
(the first person indeterminacy) of any machines with respect to the  
infinitely many realizations.



Relativizing the state of the observers in the Q wave is not enough,  
or has to be justified on theoretical computer science grounds. We can  
only relativize on the arithmetical (sigma_1, Turing-complete truth).


The mystery is not the summations, but more the subtractions, that QM  
wave allows. The self-reference logics used for deriving matter gives  
a clue where the subtraction comes from, by imposing a quantum logic  
on the bottom (the sigma_1 proof and statements, the foliation of the  
universal dovetailing, the global FPI domain).


For a computationalist, QM apparent indeterminacy, the apparent non- 
locality, and the many-world aspect of nature confirms its many-dreams  
internal interpretation of arithmetic, by itself, and its foundations  
of physics and theology.


But it is still possible that comp entails too much realities, and get  
disproved. I am not saying that this or that is true or false. Just  
saying that with computationalism, something like QM was to be  
expected, directly, by the FPI, or the inability for a machine to pick  
out one computation/universal-machine among an infinity.


Bruno






There is no quantum cloning (in arithmetic or in some quantum  
reality), but there is still multiple preparation of the states,  
both in arithmetic and in some possible quantum reality.


Normally the quantum aspect of nature is due to the inside or  
internal points of view in arithmetic, but of course this must be  
continually verified. The verifications done so far confirm this.


Bruno







Richard

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com  
wrote:

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in  
that there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other  
individual fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a  
head injury. Now let's jump into the shoes of objective reality.


OK but remember you said objective reality, Evolution can't  
detect subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us  
Evolution can see actions but it can't see intentions.  And the  
more intelligent a animal's actions are the more likely it is that  
its genes get passed into the next generation.


 we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and  
its delivery has been negatively impacted.


And the only way you or Evolution could have happened to know  
that is if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and  
made a deduction from that using a theory, the theory being that  
intelligence implies consciousness. A century ago, long before the  
invention of the computer, this theory would have been completely  
uncontroversial, and even today everybody, even the most anti-AI  
people on this list, use this theory every single hour of their  
waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when they're  
talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the  
idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the intelligence/ 
consciousness link is controversial.


I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are  
not the way we wish they were.


 Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities

If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that  
it is) then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for  
consciousness too.


 Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have  
the efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery.


Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how  
could it if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100%  
certainty that Evolution did somehow manage to produce  
consciousness at least once and

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.



On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:03:53 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote:




  On 29 Nov 2014, at 10:08 am, Richard Ruquist yan...@gmail.com 
 javascript: wrote: 
  
  It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part, 
  but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent 
  as a group than individually. 
  
  I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement 
  in a mind/matter duality. 
  Richard 


 Do you want to put up a new thread about this? I am deeply interested in 
 groupthink and see it as largely unacknowledged. 


I think you should kick off a thread about this. 

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

Re: Quantum Mechanics Violation of the Second Law

2014-11-30 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 Experimental results at several high-energy colliders suggest that at
 some point in the big bang the universe was a quark-gluon plasma, which
 despite it's high energy, is a BEC where all the particles share the same
 wave function- so they say. It seems to me that if all particles in the
 universe share the same wave function, that must be a state of very low
 entropy.


Yes, the entropy of a  Bose–Einstein Condensate would be as low as you
could get, but I hesitate to say a quark-gluon plasma is the reason the
early universe's entropy was so low; for one thing a  quark-gluon plasma is
more like a Fermion that a Boson, and for another Quarks and Gluons only
account for about 4% of the universe, 96% is Dark Matter and Dark Energy
which we know almost nothing about.

  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: real A.I.

2014-11-30 Thread John Mikes

Telmo: - funny.
First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???)
in fairly reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they
format The World. Bruno said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to
me. I took his word - am not an argue-boy.

Secondly: MY agnosticism is not the one 'on the books': it sais (if I
pretend to know it at all) that there are things galore we DONT know - yet
even those influence the 'world' we carry. And yes, I agree with Bruno  in
some aspects, as it turned out over those 20some years we exchange ideas
online. Sometimes I even ask questions...

Thirdly: who said Napy Bony and Superman do NOT exist? in the moment when
we THINK about them, they *DO* *exist* in our mentality (you do not want to
say: 'soul', do you).  And so is the existence of all that 'Fantasieland' I
call Science. A theory EXISTS - even if it is fallse. And so do ideas.
I do not draw the line between physical (???) and ideational existence.
The little I learned in my natural sciences made me think twice about both.
And please, do not ask questions about this: I am agnostic.G


On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:



 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 5:18 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Telmo: reasonable thinking. My wife Maria (almost as old as I am) had
 long ago her own ideas abou the zookeeper syndrom: we are kept here safe
 for SOME purpose *They* know, *We* don't. When we finished our
 usefulness it is out with us, as long as we are useful (unidentified) for
 THEM, we live.


 Maybe you've read The Hitchicker's Guide to the Galaxy? If not, I
 suspect you'd like it.

 Lately I like to imagine the human experience as the result of a
 transcendental being taking some very weird drug. I imagine the being
 taking a deep breath, gaining some courage, thinking fuck it and
 swallowing the pill. And suddenly popping out of a vagina.


 This is based on a MWI different from the usual scientific set of
 identicals (my narrative) in which violations of the infinite equilibrium
 (=super symmetry) of the Plenitude (to which we have NO access or even
 knowledge of) re-dissipated *timelessly* into the equilibration, YET
 observed f*rom the inside* (as in our case) as a 'physical' system -
 *ours* in space and time. We have NO access to 'other' universes (=
 violational complexities) besides our own, *THEY *(some?) may have to us
 (viz. the  zookeepers?).


 Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to agree a lot with what Bruno
 proposes.




 In the spirit of such narrative we have no way to 'test' *OTHER *
 universes.


 I think we do, but only in the first person. And by risking death.


 All concerned MWI stories (of identical universes) seem 'fantasy-land'
 immagination. Mine is not 'proven to 'positive' reasoning, nor is theirs.


 But what is fantasy land? What is the difference in terms of reality
 status between Napoleon Bonaparte and Superman? Neither exists in the
 physical sense, both are ideas.



 One more thing: *Creation ex nihilo* is reasonable looking at the
 figments of our physical 'world' sciences: take the more and more primitive
 ingredients of *MATTER(?) *and you get to NO-MATTER (math?) items: a
 *NIHIL* indeed.


 I fluctuate between mathematical realism and math as just another idea.
 What you say seems to support one or the other, depending on the mood. This
 fundamental indecision makes me a fellow agnostic.

 Cheers,
 Telmo.




 On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
 wrote:



 On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 wrote:


 On 26 Nov 2014, at 14:42, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 Nice :)

 One of the funny things about our sense of self-importance is that we
 imagine super-intelligent entities trying to destroy us, but we rarely
 consider the possibility that they would just have no desire to interact
 with us.


 Calvin and Hobbes did that too. Hobbes (the tiger) was listing many
 human stupidities, and Calvin concluded that the best proof of the higher
 intelligence of the aliens is that they seem to avoid earth by all means
 ... :)



 https://poietes.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/calvin-and-hobbes-math.jpg?w=676
 :)



 Bruno




 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 8:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  http://xkcd.com/1450/

 --
 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

Re: Edge: Myth of A.I.



On Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:57:38 AM UTC, John Clark wrote:


 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect 
 consciousness 


 It can't and neither can we.

  (because we can't, I think you said) 


 The reason isn't because of us, it's just that neither we nor Evolution 
 nor anything else can detect consciousness other than our own, we can only 
 detect actions. If Evolution can detect it then so can we and so can the 
 Turing Test, and if Evolution can't then none of them can.

  What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of 
 difference between the same traits in two individuals,


 Only if those different traits produce different actions. If a intelligent 
 but non-conscious animal behaves differently than a intelligent and 
 conscious animal then Evolution can detect that and so the Turing Test.  
 And Evolution will favor whichever behavior is smarter, and if I'm correct 
 and you can't have intelligence without consciousness then that would make 
 Evolution's choice easy.

  Natural Selection will just favour the more overall efficient traits for 
 that purpose. The same goes for consciousness .


 Exactly, otherwise you and I would not be conscious.

   This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution cannot detect 
 consciousness.


 It can't.

  you seem to be saying you don't know what my post is disproving 


 That is exactly correct, I don't know what your post is disproving, 
 certainly not that Evolution can not see consciousness. 

  Go to the post and give your counter argument if you have one. 


 Give me a argument that Evolution can see consciousness and I'll either 
 give you a counterargument or concede and thank you for correcting my 
 error, but so far all I've heard is that consciousness makes a animal 
 behave differently, something I already knew MUST be true or Evolution 
 would have never produced it. And if it effects behavior then the Turing 
 Test must work for consciousness too because lack of consciousness implies 
 lack of intelligence and that implies lack of intelligent actions.  


OK thanks for the above points, particularly that you steered clear of 
stock phrases. That's appreciated simply because although some of 
those phrases are superior in their succinctnessre-use within an actual 
challenge can give the impression of not being authentically open to the 
challenge. Doesn't have to be true in fact to be a legitimate impression. 

I can see that although I said it didn't matter what your basis actually 
was, in fact I was wrong in the important sense of, it mattered if I was 
effectively working on an assumption that considerably devalued the 
thinking you had done. Which believing you had said evolution couldn't see 
consciousness BECAUSE humans cannot, actually does amount to. Not knowingly 
on my side, but all the same. 

I'll get back to you, dude.






-- 
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: real A.I.

2014-11-30 Thread meekerdb

On 11/30/2014 2:19 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Telmo: - funny.
First I would appreciate a hint from you about mathematical realism (???) in fairly
reasonable terms about where numbers come from and how they format The World. Bruno
said it is 'deeper' than waht he could explain to me. I took his word - am not an
argue-boy.
Secondly: MY agnosticism is not the one 'on the books': it sais (if I pretend to know it
at all) that there are things galore we DONT know - yet even those influence the
'world' we carry.

The question is, are there things we DO know?

And yes, I agree with Bruno in some aspects, as it turned out over those 20some years
we exchange ideas online. Sometimes I even ask questions...

Thirdly: who said Napy Bony and Superman do NOT exist? in the moment when we THINK about
them, they *DO* *exist* in our mentality (you do not want to say: 'soul', do you). And
so is the existence of all that 'Fantasieland' I call Science. A theory EXISTS - even if
it is fallse. And so do ideas.

So the idea of unicorns exist, but do unicorns? Do they exist when we think about them or
is it just that the idea of unicorns exists. Does Superman exist or just the idea of
Superman? ISTM we need some word to distinguish the difference between exists and idea
of exists.

I do not draw the line between physical (???) and ideational existence.
The little I learned in my natural sciences made me think twice about both.
And please, do not ask questions about this: I am agnostic.G

How do you know that?

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: Edge: Myth of A.I.



On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:38:54 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, spudboy100  wrote:

  The word purposeless is purposeless unless there is a referent. 
 Purposeless for who?  Maybe the universe finds me to be purposeless but I 
 don't care any more than the universe would care if I found it to be 
 purposeless; we both just ignore the others opinion of and continue to go 
 about our business. 


  But the universe is stronger than you are


 But I am smarter than the universe. Lots of people are smarter than me but 
 the universe is as dumb as a sack full of rocks and at least I'm smarter 
 than that.

  John K Clark


I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards 
before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that. 

Opinion: this matter has been caricatured as a debate between creationism 
and naturalism. This isn't a logically reasonable position simply because, 
even from a perspective of natural selection, the point at which natural 
selection begins to act, and why...or what is the pressure driving a force 
of natural selection, is unresolved until we actually begin to approach a 
convincing explanation of life. At the moment, the price of separating 
'origins' from life - by talking about self-replication as the origin of 
natural selection forces - is tantamount to 'backing off' all the really 
hard questions to a nebulous period prior to life. 

Which has been damaging to scientific discovery in historically observable 
ways, with historically observable roots that fall short of the values, let 
alone standards,  of science. 

We'd have to go back to the stand-off following Darwin's publication. That 
battle - at the time with Christian values - was effectively won in the 
19th century. Yet science and its supporters continued to thrash away at 
religious belief when arguably a more magnanimous conciliatory framework 
would have been far more appropriate. Assuming the goal was for science to 
be left in peace. 

There was no way for Christian faith to take back the ground, because 
science was by then all over the world, and its product had become 
fundamental to the relative wealth and status - and military might - of 
nations. It was desirable, but not critical whether or not classrooms in 
every district taught evolution. Science was driven by small intellectual 
elites from the beginning. 

The behaviour toward faith backfired in science in ways that are still 
being felt today. By pushing faith into a corner, science created a 
dogmatic culture within its own interior that allowed a small cadre of 
'darwinists' to effectively control the direction of enquiry. Anything 
remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural selection 
worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root. 

By the same turn faith was pushed ever further back, toward the limits of 
science itself. Origins. This same cadre did not think this through, and 
did not see it coming clearly until it was upon them. By that time, too 
much was at stake for them to concede any ground...even ground that was 
scientifically reasonable to concede. Therefore they had no alternative but 
to conjuren up a fallacious argument that 'origins' was not a scientific 
question. 

As a result no work was done that might have been, on anything pertaining 
to 'origins'. It is no coincidence that the sheer vertical brick wall 
science now finds itself up against, is all about origins. 

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound 
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the 
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same 
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid 
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why 
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier 
 reply I got (not from you)

 OK I see what you were saying. I don't know the answer but I think Bruno 
then Bruce provided a plausible explanation for this. 

Just going on the fact the data is from a single source and goes back to 
June and has not seen a large amount of panic, would suggest the finding is 
tenuous at present. 

Where I was coming from, in posting it, was to lay down a marker as it 
were, that this is one to watch. 

You're point was fair...I was somewhere at the time :O) 

-- 
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: Edge: Myth of A.I.

For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was
wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that
Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that
attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better
pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the
point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all,
the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and
the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically
to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation?

I'd guess because...

1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler creatures.
2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if they
can't really.

(I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they don't
like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...)



On 1 December 2014 at 13:08, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, November 29, 2014 7:38:54 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:


 On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, spudboy100  wrote:

  The word purposeless is purposeless unless there is a referent.
 Purposeless for who?  Maybe the universe finds me to be purposeless but I
 don't care any more than the universe would care if I found it to be
 purposeless; we both just ignore the others opinion of and continue to go
 about our business.


  But the universe is stronger than you are


 But I am smarter than the universe. Lots of people are smarter than me
 but the universe is as dumb as a sack full of rocks and at least I'm
 smarter than that.

  John K Clark


 I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards
 before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that.

 Opinion: this matter has been caricatured as a debate between creationism
 and naturalism. This isn't a logically reasonable position simply because,
 even from a perspective of natural selection, the point at which natural
 selection begins to act, and why...or what is the pressure driving a force
 of natural selection, is unresolved until we actually begin to approach a
 convincing explanation of life. At the moment, the price of separating
 'origins' from life - by talking about self-replication as the origin of
 natural selection forces - is tantamount to 'backing off' all the really
 hard questions to a nebulous period prior to life.

 Which has been damaging to scientific discovery in historically observable
 ways, with historically observable roots that fall short of the values, let
 alone standards,  of science.

 We'd have to go back to the stand-off following Darwin's publication. That
 battle - at the time with Christian values - was effectively won in the
 19th century. Yet science and its supporters continued to thrash away at
 religious belief when arguably a more magnanimous conciliatory framework
 would have been far more appropriate. Assuming the goal was for science to
 be left in peace.

 There was no way for Christian faith to take back the ground, because
 science was by then all over the world, and its product had become
 fundamental to the relative wealth and status - and military might - of
 nations. It was desirable, but not critical whether or not classrooms in
 every district taught evolution. Science was driven by small intellectual
 elites from the beginning.

 The behaviour toward faith backfired in science in ways that are still
 being felt today. By pushing faith into a corner, science created a
 dogmatic culture within its own interior that allowed a small cadre of
 'darwinists' to effectively control the direction of enquiry. Anything
 remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural selection
 worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root.

 By the same turn faith was pushed ever further back, toward the limits of
 science itself. Origins. This same cadre did not think this through, and
 did not see it coming clearly until it was upon them. By that time, too
 much was at stake for them to concede any ground...even ground that was
 scientifically reasonable to concede. Therefore they had no alternative but
 to conjuren up a fallacious argument that 'origins' was not a scientific
 question.

 As a result no work was done that might have been, on anything pertaining
 to 'origins'. It is no coincidence that the sheer vertical brick wall
 science now finds itself up against, is all about origins.

  --
 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

Re: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
to be relatively negligible?


On 1 December 2014 at 14:38, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
 systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
 universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
 rate). And that should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid
 test for this whole theory ... unless I screwed up, of course, which is why
 I was hoping people would comment a bit more cogently than the earlier
 reply I got (not from you)

 OK I see what you were saying. I don't know the answer but I think Bruno
 then Bruce provided a plausible explanation for this.

 Just going on the fact the data is from a single source and goes back to
 June and has not seen a large amount of panic, would suggest the finding is
 tenuous at present.

 Where I was coming from, in posting it, was to lay down a marker as it
 were, that this is one to watch.

 You're point was fair...I was somewhere at the time :O)

 --
 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: Two apparently different forms of entropy



On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

 LizR wrote: 
  On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List 
  everyth...@googlegroups.com 
  mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote: 
  
  Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one 
  aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are 
  two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two 
  dimensions of time? 
  
  Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no 
  direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then 
 perhaps, 
  yes... 

 Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law 
 of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a 
 natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the 
 entropies of the participating systems. (Wikipedia). Increase is a 
 temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to 
 the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time. 


 Entropy has a unique expression for each context cropping up on a regular 
 basis. Isn't that so? I thought the driver behind that was each context has 
 some distinguishing feature that changes the intuitive approach to thinking 
 about entropy. 

 Like entropy for Chemistry. The mechanism tends to be chemical reactions, 
 and the intuitive sequencing for that has the distinguishing feature of 
 being scale invariant, more or less. So the intuitive direction is always 
 to the maximum scale with the same bounds. So it tends to be about the law 
 of finding the shortest path to the equilibrium.t How the approach is 
 exponential. Because chemistry follows the same sequence at the same rate 
 for the same initial conditions, the same for a 10m cubed section of...the 
 surface of a planet or whatever...as the same structure up scale to the 
 whole planet. 

 Is that wrong? So anyway, entropy and disorder and 'states', 
 thermodynamics, time (scale free means time invariant more or less). None 
 of that gets mentioned at all in the most common reference. 

 I appreciate nothing I say contradicts what you say...it's just that I 
 feel that this is a really fundamental character to entropy. No one feels 
 the same way it seemsI have mentioned this before but I don't think I 
 ever get a reply.


I acknowledge that most people here have me on ignore or appear to. 
Acknowledged and respected. I would really appreciate views/corrections to 
this point however. Therefore would it be possible for anyone who does not 
have me on ignore to repost the point, so that those that do can see it and 
if they wish comment. Presumably points don't have to be on ignore even if 
people do. 
 

-- 
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: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thursday, November 27, 2014 7:22:19 PM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:16:40 AM UTC, Bruce wrote:

 LizR wrote:
  On 27 November 2014 at 04:51, spudboy100 via Everything List
  everyth...@googlegroups.com
  mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com wrote:
 
  Entropy and Time seem related, or at least one seems at least one
  aspect of the other. Is it sensible to think then, that there are
  two or more types of entropy, therefore, there are at least two
  dimensions of time?
 
  Entropy is a large scale statistical effect (classically) and has no
  direct bearing on time. If it can be made more fundamental then
 perhaps,
  yes...

 Entropy has a direct bearing on the direction of time via the second law
 of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a
 natural thermodynamic process, there is an increase in the sum of the
 entropies of the participating systems. (Wikipedia). Increase is a
 temporal statement. One could not state this law without reference to
 the passage of time. The 'increasing' part gives the direction of time.


This only works because the system is constrained to be in a low entropy
state in the past, possibly due to boundary conditions. If a system was
constrained by the laws of physics to be in a low entropy state in the
future the AOT would be reversed for that system. (This is partly suggested
by what happened  to matter falling into black holes, which is physically
unable to do certain things, such as escape.)

None of this is built into physics, however. The laws of physics are time
symmetric (apart from CPT violation in neutral kaon decay and possibly
gravitational collapse, although quantum theory suggests that will prove
not to be the case for a system described by quantum gravity). I am only
talking about fundamental physics when I say that entropy has no bearing on
time. Obviously it has a contingent bearing on it, apparently due to the
way the universe happens to be structured..

-- 
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: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 1 December 2014 at 14:48, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:


 I acknowledge that most people here have me on ignore or appear to.
 Acknowledged and respected. I would really appreciate views/corrections to
 this point however. Therefore would it be possible for anyone who does not
 have me on ignore to repost the point, so that those that do can see it and
 if they wish comment. Presumably points don't have to be on ignore even if
 people do.


I don't. I save that for rude people like Edgar Owen. No one who is
prepared to engage in honest debate will be ignored by me, at least.

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
 to be relatively negligible?


Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in terms of your 
actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  course. How can a 
piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with 
a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same 
data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are 100% in 
the logic IMHO. 

I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
madness.

But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else provide 
a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 

If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 

Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
his own personality or personal biases. 

his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
worthwhile. 

look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 

GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 



But then again, who is. 

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:07:17 AM UTC, zib...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were 
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed 
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to 
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed 
 to be relatively negligible?


 Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in 
 terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of  
 course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter 
 interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, 
 if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You 
 are 100% in the logic IMHO. 

 I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle. 
 That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result. 
 Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner 
 madness.

 But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else 
 provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me. 

 If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on 
 his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there. 

 Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to 
 tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a 
 brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also 
 an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of 
 his own personality or personal biases. 

 his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media 
 distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't 
 follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and 
 training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it 
 worthwhile. 

 look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

 In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a 
 lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the 
 frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy 
 away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer). 

 GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them. 
 Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the 
 universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me. 
 Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might 
 look at even if you can't find the one in question re here. 



 But then again, who is. 



that 'but then again, who is' was supposed to go under the point Motl is 
not independent of his own temperament and biases.  

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:07 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:48:35 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
 provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
 them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)

 I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
 the mass of a galaxy we wouldn't see any noticeable effect. Is it supposed
 to be relatively negligible?


 Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in
 terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
 course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
 interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe,
 if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You
 are 100% in the logic IMHO.

 I'm sorry I didn't see it because I was thinking from a different angle.
 That being a person piece of effort  (unpublished) that expects the result.
 Because of that I was trying to read you through the prism of my own inner
 madness.

 But you're right. It isn't clear that Bruno or Bruce or anyone else
 provide a response from the context you set up, which looks correct to me.

 If you are interested, Lubos Motl does a piece on this. I just looked on
 his site but can't see it. But I definitely saw it there.

 Motl isn't to everyone's taste...not even mine...I wouldn't be able to
 tolerate his views about climate science I shouldn't think. But he's a
 brilliant guy all the same and no one disputes that much is true. He's also
 an independent voice in terms of science. He's obviously not independent of
 his own personality or personal biases.

 his view was fairly sceptical. Not the original science, but the media
 distortion as he saw it. It's worth reading. Don't worry if you can't
 follow everything, hardly anyone can. I don't have Motl's skills and
 training or intellect, and rarely understand his whole point. Still find it
 worthwhile.

 look for it here if you are keen http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/

 In terms of my bit on the side workfor me it's very much linked to a
 lot of other findings that are now beginning to show up everywhere at the
 frontiers of cosmology. A few of them also treated by Motl (he doesn't shy
 away even when he obviously doesn't have a strong answer).

 GRB's destroying 90's of life. Blackhole's with 'wormholes' between them.
 Blackhole's with 'spooky' alignments despite being at opposite ends of the
 universe. Those are all part of the same thing as the topic here, for me.
 Those three I mention because they are all blogs he's done, which you might
 look at even if you can't find the one in question re here.



 But then again, who is.

 --
 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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could 
 become correlated.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf


I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see 
them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations 
may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't, 
have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow. 

Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows 
each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape 
because some involve correlations of distant objects) 

So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these 
different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of 
each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained 
together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently 
derives the two local explanations. 

Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky. 

At some point objects like the historic cosmological view need to be 
included. And the big bang. And then more widely things like stable 
enduring structure and biological life. 

The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all 
together. 
  

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
 become correlated.
 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf


 I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
 them. What I would say is that each one of these emergent observations
 may well have one or more potentially viable explanation. Those that don't,
 have one or more in the future yet to come, let's allow.

 Call each one a little observation in some abstract landscape that allows
 each one to be in its own single place in the sky (abstract landscape
 because some involve correlations of distant objects)

 So there's an observed cosmology on this abstract landscape of all these
 different locally one off phenomena. The problem with the explanations of
 each one, then becomes whether two adjacent objects can be explained
 together in such a way that the general explanation of both, independently
 derives the two local explanations.

 Then three together, then a cluster, then the whole sky.

 At some point objects like the historic cosmological view need to be
 included. And the big bang. And then more widely things like stable
 enduring structure and biological life.

 The question is, how much of that abstract sky is being explained all
 together.


 --
 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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
 But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
 So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
 Richard


I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of 
correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:  
http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the 
data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it 
isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations. 

obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for 
that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably 
exceed mine.



-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.

However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on
the same basis.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
 But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
 So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
 Richard


 I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are other kinds of
 correlation showing up on a regular basis now. Such as this:
 http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/11/chile-telescope-finds-mysterious-25.html

 I don't think the data driving wormhole speculation correlates with the
 data driving the above correlation, for example. So for that reason it
 isn't a case of wormholes can explain all the correlations.

 obviously 'wormholes' are not settled science in of themselves, and for
 that reason they can explain as much as you like. Your likes probably
 exceed mine.



  --
 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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?



On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna 
 and I are talking about.
 It is a form of cosmic entanglement.


how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific 
idea or a catch-all explanation?  


 However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes 
 must be intelligent to be monogamous


I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going 
on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned 
at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to 
include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they 
talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get 
inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory 
explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory 
before it comes up empirically? 
 

 And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work on 
 the same basis.


same response as above

-- 
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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?

Zibby,

They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.

Zappy

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:56 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:

 That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
 and I are talking about.
 It is a form of cosmic entanglement.


 how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
 idea or a catch-all explanation?


 However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
 must be intelligent to be monogamous


 I remember you saying that. And maybe I think there's something going
 on there as well. But then, the same problem just comes back as mentioned
 at the top. What is the explanation of that abstract landscape, now to
 include 'intelligent' - presumably consciousblack holes? What are they
 talking about? Why are they interested in that topic? How does that get
 inferred from an abstract theory, and how much else does that theory
 explain on that abstract landscape? How much is predicted by that theory
 before it comes up empirically?


 And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave collapse may work
 on the same basis.


 same response as above

 --
 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: Edge: Myth of A.I.

2014-11-30 Thread John Clark

Zibbsey wrote:

I should think we'll need an origin-of-life answer to scientific standards
 before we can start finalizing on the assumptions underpinning all that.


Darwin was in my opinion the greatest scientist who ever lived because he
provided a elegant answer to the question of how we got from simple
bacteria to human beings. But even Darwin didn't answer all the mysteries
of biology, how we got from simple chemicals to simple bacteria still
remains a mystery because for Darwin's mechanism to work you need heredity
and there is no clear understanding of how you could have heredity in the
era before bacteria existed.

 Anything remotely that appeared to question the detail of a natural
 selection worldview was policed as suspicious of being creationist at root.


That's not true, many real scientists are working on the origin of life
question and there are a lot of promising ideas that are worth pursuing,
although nothing has been proven yet. As for religion, if it had a good
explanation  to the origin of life I'd become the most religious person
you'd ever care to meet, but it doesn't have anything of the sort.  All
that religious people say is God did it but when asked how God did it
they just say I don't know.  Well... I don't need God as the middle man,
I'm perfectly capable of saying I don't know all by myself and don't need
to invoke the God theory to do it.

A logical person is allowed to say I don't know, but a logical person is
not allowed to pretend he understands something when he does not by
embracing a theory that is, not necessarily wrong but is, obviously stupid.

  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: Is Dark Energy Gobbling Dark Matter, and Slowing Universe's Expansion?