Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 5:09:49 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pie...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system. Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion It's either an illusion or it is not and peepee is not involved. And you wonder why people think you're a troll. And it is an experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated therefore we know for certain that if things really are deterministic then even stranger things must be true; either things are not realistic (an electron is not spinning clockwise or counterclockwise until it is measured, nothing exists until it is observed) or non-local (forget the butterfly effect, a hurricane arrived in Miami today because one year in the **future** a butterfly in Australia will flap his wings). So we know for sure that Einstein's idea that things are realistic , local , and deterministic can not be correct , at least one of them must be false and all 3 could be. If the multiverse really exists then that explains quantum indeterminacy, but Bruno claims he has found a new sort of indeterminacy independent of both the quantum type and also of the Godel/Turing type and I don't think he has. To my mind, the logic is completely isomorphic with MWI. MWI says everything that can happen to you will happen to you, so you can see everything that can happen; the only way these 2 things can be consistent with experience is if there are lots and lots of yous but the laws of physics only allow an observer (or a you) to see one of them. And that is why Bruno loves pronouns and that is why despite the criticism Bruno insists on continuing to use the word you; pronouns like that disguise the fact that you is not singular, it is plural. Bruno knows that observer or 'you' is plural, and in fact that plurality is the basis of the first person indeterminacy. If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories). That's it. Post duplication there's an illusion of indeterminacy about which amoeba 'you' became, but the pronoun here is just a figure of speech. I'm starting to think from this and the statements below that you actually have misunderstood what Bruno is claiming. In the above statement you say that the laws of physics only allow you to see one universe. In Bruno's formulation it's not the laws of physics but the definition of the observer as comprised in the digital state of some machine, that has now been replicated. Obviously such a duplicated observer can't observe the other machine's environment or internal state, so the same separation has been achieved as the laws of physics achieve in MWI. No 'peepee' involved. Admittedly Bruno does say THE 1p you but unfortunately always neglects to mention which 1p you. Well OK Bruno does say THE 1p you who wrote all that stuff in the diary, but that does no good because after the duplication Bruno is unable to point to the one guy who wrote all that stuff in the diary. Don't be daft. There are two people writing in diaries after the duplication, and Bruno knows it. You've misunderstood the claim. If Bruno is claiming there is some striking originality about his idea of FPI then I'd point to Everett and say, that guy thought of it first. Everett said nothing about consciousness and didn't need to, one great strength of Many Worlds is that unlike some other quantum interpretations it doesn't need to explain what consciousness is or how it works because consciousness has nothing to do with it. Bruno's great discovery is in finding out that sometimes you doesn't know what you will see next, but I think Og The Caveman beat him to the punch on that by a few years. You have the wit of a Wilde. Obviously Bruno's argument hypothesises this first-person indeterminacy occurring in a context of computationally defined observers (whether in a physical machine, a duplication experiment, or pure mathematics) rather than the multiverse, but that context is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the logic But it is not irrelevant to the question of pronouns and Bruno's arguments are always filled wall to wall with pronouns. When discussing the multiverse the very laws of physics ensure that pronouns cause no ambiguity, but that is certainly not the case with people duplicating machines. Stage magicians use pretty assistants to distract the audience from their sleight of hand, Bruno uses pronouns. Bruno says that c omputationalism can't predict what *YOU* will see next so there must be some aspect of consciousness that the computational theory of
Re: The Mental Being
On 08 Aug 2015, at 05:31, Samiya Illias wrote: On 07-Aug-2015, at 9:46 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Aug 2015, at 05:54, Samiya Illias wrote: Bruno, I'm reading R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. In the Introduction to A Study of Numbers, they quote his last words. It reminds me of your salvia beings. Thought the attached might be of interest to you. Regards, Samiya Nice quote Samya. I love He [Schwaller I guess] applied himself relentlessly to the apparently impossible task of using reason to surmount reason. This is what Gödel illustrates: the use of reason to study the limit of reason, for example reason cannot produce a mean to decide if a diophantine (polynomial in integers) equation has or not some solution. Mathematicians have shown the non solubility of many problems, accepting (as most does) Church's thesis or Church's definition of computable/algorithm. But Gödel already saw that the machine or formal systems (which really means systems described by they local forms) can prove their own incompleteness theorem, so that machine reasoning about themselves can get the fact that if they are consistent, then they can't justify it rationally. Consistency is equivalent with the existence of a reality which satisfies my beliefs (in the sense that they render my beliefs true). So, machine looking inward (reasoning on themselves, but also trying to figure out their own semantic/reality can prove, infer and intuit (correctly or not) that there is a reality, and can justify that if there is a reality then we cannot justify rationally the existence of that reality. It is also the intuition of the Platonist and Neoplatonist: we can use reason to develop confidence in what extends necessarility reason, The Reality, which might be only the semantic of oneself, the reality which satisfies my beliefs, in the sense of the logiciens, where a reality (called Model) is what makes a belief true of false (to stay in classical logic). The machines can already do the impossible task: use reason to surmount reason. All self-referentially correct machine get mystical, ... for good reason. The authorties or simply those who want to control you cannot accept the mysticals as this one will take its order from something they cannot control. The self-referentically correct machine is Groucho-Marxiste, she refutes all categorzation made by others. About the entity that Schwaller describes, I don't know what relation you see with salvia. Earlier you once explained the salvia experience to me as: Salvia is a logical drug, it provides counter-example to any certainty you might have in theology. It provides an epimenidian sort of super- dream argument: a sort of hallucination saying of itself that it is an hallucination. Similar to your 'counter-example to any certainty', Schwaller speaks of the mental being as the source of all doubt. That is why it reminded me of Salvia entity: perhaps both of you experience different manifestations of the same mental being? I doubt so because Schwaller seems to consider it like if it was an enemy to fight. But the salvia entity (the main one) rise doubt in the cartesian way, and so get the undoubtable fixed point (Descartes' self-existence). In fact, both the cartesian argument and salvia makes that fixed point much more solid, and this makes the admissible doubt spectrum much larger, which is good as all atoms of public certainty is an obstacle for freeing the mind spiritually. When I have more time I will read more of Schwaller who seems interesting. I did not know him. Thanks. I can appreciate some talk of some theosophists, but *they* do the religious error and seems to be unable to avoid some idolatry attitude toward their inspirators. Yet, they have some common doctrinal points with the neoplatonists. Science is doubt, and allowing to study theology with the scientific method is just allowing and encouraging doubts in the field, and recognizing that all human texts are human theories or prose trying to capture with words something which, almost by definition in most tradition including Islam, is beyond humans' words and comprehension. That's why sacred text should never been taken literally. Spiritual faith is not in opposition with doubting. It is the contrary: the more big is the inner faith, the more big will be the public doubt spectrum. The faith starts from the inner experience, the heart, not the logical brain which, like anything finite, is logically forced to doubt (all Gods, all realities, except the undoubtable fixed point which is incorrigible, but is not public). When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust
Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On 07 Aug 2015, at 21:09, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: My point isn't that MWI is true. My point is you understand it and how it leads to the appearance of indeterminacy in a completely determined system. Indeterminacy is a 1-p illusion It's either an illusion or it is not and peepee is not involved. And it is an experimental fact that Bell's inequality is violated therefore we know for certain that if things really are deterministic then even stranger things must be true; either things are not realistic (an electron is not spinning clockwise or counterclockwise until it is measured, nothing exists until it is observed) or non-local (forget the butterfly effect, a hurricane arrived in Miami today because one year in the *future* a butterfly in Australia will flap his wings). So we know for sure that Einstein's idea that things are realistic, local, and deterministic can not be correct, at least one of them must be false and all 3 could be. If the multiverse really exists then that explains quantum indeterminacy, but Bruno claims he has found a new sort of indeterminacy independent of both the quantum type and also of the Godel/Turing type and I don't think he has. To my mind, the logic is completely isomorphic with MWI. MWI says everything that can happen to you will happen to you, so you can see everything that can happen; the only way these 2 things can be consistent with experience is if there are lots and lots of yous but the laws of physics only allow an observer (or a you) to see one of them. And that is why Bruno loves pronouns and that is why despite the criticism Bruno insists on continuing to use the word you; pronouns like that disguise the fact that you is not singular, it is plural. It is plural in the 3-1 view, but it remains singular in the 1-view. The JC who sees M can only say: I see M and not W. The JC who sees W can only say I see W and not M. Admittedly Bruno does say THE 1p you but unfortunately always neglects to mention which 1p you. Why do you still say that? Did I not insist that we need to interview *all* copies? Well OK Bruno does say THE 1p you who wrote all that stuff in the diary, but that does no good because after the duplication Bruno is unable to point to the one guy who wrote all that stuff in the diary. Why do you still say that. You have repeated this many times, and I have always told you that the one guy, being, from the 3p-view, in both W *and* M, must be very naturally interviewed in both W and M, and indeed both confirms the prediction that they saw only one city, - and were unable to predict which one in advance. If Bruno is claiming there is some striking originality about his idea of FPI then I'd point to Everett and say, that guy thought of it first. Everett said nothing about consciousness and didn't need to, one great strength of Many Worlds is that unlike some other quantum interpretations it doesn't need to explain what consciousness is or how it works because consciousness has nothing to do with it. Everett talk about consciousness or subjective experience, and what is nice, use computationalism, but then he fails to see that the indterminacy, a priori, get larger than the one given by the universal wave, and so, if we want savev both comp and QM, we will have to justify the QM by the same type of phenomenology used by Everett to justofy the collapse. With comp, both the collapse and the wave becomes machine's phenomenology. Bruno's great discovery is in finding out that sometimes you doesn't know what you will see next, but I think Og The Caveman beat him to the punch on that by a few years. OK, you oscillate again. Tell me if Og the Caveman has gone as far as step 4, and 5, and 6, ... You are the only one insisting that step 3 already deserves the Nobel Prize ... Obviously Bruno's argument hypothesises this first-person indeterminacy occurring in a context of computationally defined observers (whether in a physical machine, a duplication experiment, or pure mathematics) rather than the multiverse, but that context is irrelevant to the question of the validity of the logic But it is not irrelevant to the question of pronouns and Bruno's arguments are always filled wall to wall with pronouns. You are quite unfair. Not only I have given presentation, just for you, without pronouns (and others have done that too), but we have explained why pronouns are not problematic, once you put the 1 or 3 or '3-1 in front of them. You do point on a difficulty which plays an important role in the mathematical translation. Indeed, once you defined a machine or person by its set of beliefs, the 1-you can be proved to be undefinable, like truth or consciousness. But UDA has been constructed to
Re: Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made
On 07 Aug 2015, at 08:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. OK, but in the universal machine religion this is very close to a blasphemy, as it tend to associate God with the Computer (RA, the Universal dovetailler). But it is true ... if we are self-referentially correct machine. But this is something we cannot claim, nor even express, and that's why this talk belongs to G* \ G. You can see that blasphemy here like deciding that true = provable, and that is correct for the comp sigma-1 sentences. For p sigma_1 you have both: p - []p and []p - p but if the Löbian machine is indeed able to prove (for p sigma_1) that p - []p, the reverse, []p - p remains true but unprovable by the self-referentially correct machine, and cannot be claimed true at the same level of p-[]p. We do have p - []p, which is arguably what Heller said above, but it would lead to inconsistency or triviality if we forget that []p - p can only be true in the eyes of God, and never provable by any finite creature (when self-referentially correct). Yes, Leibniz get close to computationalism's consequence, no doubt. he got close to computationalism itself, but miss the digital machine's modern definition. he could not seen Church's thesis and the closure for diagonalization. In a sense, Babbage get closer. Bruno Evgenii -- 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: The Mental Being
On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job. What about when they attack the behavior of other people. All religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these prescriptions are supernatural. They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their side. 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: The Mental Being
Abe Lincoln during the US Civil War, said, People are always talking about God being on Their side. But I want us to make sure that we are on God's side. On the other hand, during the film, A Bronx Tale displayed what happened to a young boy when he witnesses a mafia hit between two hoods. The young boy, during Sunday confession is urged by the priest to go to the police with what the boy saw. That it was what God wanted. The boy replies, Yeah, but God is far away, and Sonny is close by. The priest understands and blesses the boy. I am not sure that if one wants calm, the belief in God doesn't seem to help. Neither does militant atheism, as it ended up in great massacres during the 20th century. On, but those really weren't atheists! I have heard this crap claim before, as if Mao and Stalin and Pot and the Kim's were all church-goers. As we say in the States, My ass! In any case, God doesn't seem to help either. I remember hearing about an anthropological study that wars or violence, mainly derived from whom we affiliate with? This was a fairly, recent study, and affiliation was the culprit. I will see if I can look it up. It made an impression on me, obviously. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm Subject: Re: The Mental Being On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job. What about when they attack the behavior of other people. All religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these prescriptions are supernatural. They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their side. 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: The Mental Being
On 8/8/2015 11:32 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Abe Lincoln during the US Civil War, said, People are always talking about God being on Their side. But I want us to make sure that we are on God's side. On the other hand, during the film, A Bronx Tale displayed what happened to a young boy when he witnesses a mafia hit between two hoods. The young boy, during Sunday confession is urged by the priest to go to the police with what the boy saw. That it was what God wanted. The boy replies, Yeah, but God is far away, and Sonny is close by. The priest understands and blesses the boy. I am not sure that if one wants calm, the belief in God doesn't seem to help. Neither does militant atheism, as it ended up in great massacres during the 20th century. On, but those really weren't atheists! I have heard this crap claim before, as if Mao and Stalin and Pot and the Kim's were all church-goers. As we say in the States, My ass! In any case, Actually, those were totalitarian tyrants who believed in Marxism. They didn't kill people to support atheism, they killed people who opposed their regime. As we say in the States, You're full of it. Brent God doesn't seem to help either. I remember hearing about an anthropological study that wars or violence, mainly derived from whom we affiliate with? This was a fairly, recent study, and affiliation was the culprit. I will see if I can look it up. It made an impression on me, obviously. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Aug 8, 2015 1:08 pm Subject: Re: The Mental Being On 8/8/2015 2:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: When pseudo-religious people attack the doubting attitude in religion, they show up their lack of faith. Only someone NOT believing in God can believe there is a need for humans to do something for the faith of others. Those who have faith trust God for the public relations, and let Him/It/She do the job. What about when they attack the behavior of other people. All religions prescribe some kinds of behavior as good and others as bad and claim these prescriptions are supernatural. They base laws and taxes and wars on them and trust God is on their side. 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: If you're an amoeba and you divide, there are now two amoebas who remember having been you (if amoebas had memories). Yes, and it would be silly to ask the amoeba before the division if **you** will swim to the left or to the right after the division, almost as silly as asking which of the 2 amoebas was *THE* one true original amoeba that had *THE* 1p you. you say that the laws of physics only allow you to see one universe. Yes, or to say the same thing with different words, MWI says that the laws of physics treats conscious observers in EXACTLY the same way as it treats non-conscious stuff. Or to use still different language, MWI has nothing specific to say about consciousness. In Bruno's formulation it's not the laws of physics but the definition of the observer as comprised in the digital state of some machine, But definitions are exactly the problem. In Bruno's thought experiment what is the definition of you? One some days Bruno says it's the man who remembers being a man in Helsinki and that's fine, but on other days Bruno adds the mysterious proviso in THE 1p and on still other days the definition of you must include in the 3p. So what the hell is the definition of you? Admittedly Bruno does say THE 1p you but unfortunately always neglects to mention which 1p you. Well OK Bruno does say THE 1p you who wrote all that stuff in the diary, but that does no good because after the duplication Bruno is unable to point to the one guy who wrote all that stuff in the diary. Don't be daft. There are two people writing in diaries after the duplication, and Bruno knows it. You've misunderstood the claim. If John doesn't understand Bruno but Pierz says he does then Pierz should be able to tell John exactly what *THE* 1p you means in a world with people duplicating machines. I'm all ears! But it is not irrelevant to the question of pronouns and Bruno's arguments are always filled wall to wall with pronouns. When discussing the multiverse the very laws of physics ensure that pronouns cause no ambiguity, but that is certainly not the case with people duplicating machines. Stage magicians use pretty assistants to distract the audience from their sleight of hand, Bruno uses pronouns. Bruno says that c omputationalism can't predict what *YOU* will see next so there must be some aspect of consciousness that the computational theory of mind can not explain, Say what? Say WHAT? Bruno's argument is based purely on a computational theory of mind! Bruno argument is that if the computational theory of mind is correct (and only a fool would say it is not) then it should be able to determine the future state of a conscious observer, but Bruno says it cannot and indeterminacy remains so computationalism can't be the entire story. However Bruno is incorrect, computationalism precisely determines that t he Moscow man will be the man who sees photons from Moscow because a photons from Moscow is the very thing that turns the Helsinki man into the Moscow man , and a corresponding thing happens to the Washington man. C omputationalism tells you that you will be duplicated and one you will see Moscow and one you will see Washington. Will the you who sees Moscow and not Washington be surprised? Will the you who sees Washington and not Moscow be surprised? No, not if you is rational, it's exactly what you , a believer in c omputationalism , predicted would happen. John Clark of course know what the response to this will be, You forgot *THE* peepee! What about *THE *peepee? In the future what will **YOU**see in the peepee?. There is no answer to that because unfortunately Bruno never specifies in whose peepee, Bruno doesn't have a consistent definition of you. Bruno's argument needs no pronouns to go through. Then why does Bruno throw around pronouns like a drunken sailor throws around money in ever post Bruno writes? And why does Bruno talk about *THE *X even when X is clearly plural? 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.
