Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Sep 2015, at 04:34, John Clark wrote:




On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the  
free market, but only with a regulating system making it not  
breaking some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation  
of the public.


​I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves  
what is a fact and what is not,


Exactly, that is my point.



but to do what you say above you've got to have some organization  
get into the truth determining business,


No, people must judge by themselves. law can enforce the presence of  
warning, traceability of subproducts, etc.
But today, we do have (in the US and elsewhere) a political  
institution, like the FDA, which approves or not the presence of this  
or that type of drugs and foods.





and it must be far far more powerful than any other organization.


It should not exist at all.


That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee that such a  
organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint, but  
unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.


Indeed, when money and health are mixed, you converge toward  
medication and food which hook the people in medications. The state  
becomes a monopolistic drug dealer, as it is today. This makes  
efficacious and non toxic drug illegal, and non efficacious toxic drug  
legal. Today legal drugs kills more than all illegal drugs combined.





  ​

 ​> ​We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears

​The reason that organized crime exists is that people want to do  
certain things that the government doesn't want them to do, things  
like consume alcohol and other drugs, watch pornography, gamble, get  
high interest rate loans and visit prostitutes.


Which are non violent crime, without complains, and that should not  
been considered as criminal.




The Mafia is providing services that people want that government  
says they can't have, and the only reason they're so violent is  
because  violence is the only way they have of dealing with  
disagreement.


Indeed.


If government made chocolate bars illegal then people would still  
demand ​them​, and the underground Hershey candy company and the  
underground Mars candy company would have no way to settle disputes  
except through baseball bats and machine guns.



Indeed.

Bruno





​  John K Clark​









On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that  
nothing can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism  
exist. It might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it  
is a necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists  
only since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years  
of lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking  
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the  
public. We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases  
and wars. Only a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a  
lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products,  
beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an  
ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any  
opposition - making the advanced society an economical inequality  
of haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the  
former for their mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the  
money of the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized  
banditism.





Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the  
have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the  
wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead,  
injured casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.


Just to vent off


I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is  
faulty, but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the  
founders of America were quite aware of the possibility.


They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US  
Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is  
virtually dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).


It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad  
people. The liars

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:
 could you please define "free market" (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "



Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.

Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure  
the respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.





where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?


Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people  
doing false advertisement in the matter of health.


I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some  
important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on  
that disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious  
example. I think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against  
humanity, given that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits  
have been proved (in the sense of having been able to be repeated in  
all laboratories which are not dependent of a big lucrative  
organization.






Is a 'regulating system a power?


Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power,  
OK.




(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by  
the Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T  
Imaking. It would

undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.


That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the  
law of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible  
genuine competition.




The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see  
it in EU.

And so on.


I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean  
virtue", which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when  
asserted on people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads  
to more hidden dogma, or free-exam, etc.
But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state  
does not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions  
(perhaps) like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be  
problematic (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not  
political propaganda). If you study the case of cannabis, all  
statements on its danger comes from paper which have not been made  
available to the public, and was contradicted by all papers available  
to the public. The cannabis set-up was gross, immense, obvious, and  
nobody was failed, except the general public and the physicians. Many  
doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of marijuana, said that they  
were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at that time, and took  
some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10 years before the  
paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that cannabis demolish  
brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just ridiculous  
(the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven days  
24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just  
to give one example among many).


Bruno





John Mikes



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that  
nothing can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism  
exist. It might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it  
is a necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists  
only since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years  
of lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking  
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the  
public. We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases  
and wars. Only a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a  
lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products,  
beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an  
ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any  
opposition - making the advanced society an economical inequality  
of haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the  
former for their mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the  
money of the

Re: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Sep 2015, at 20:55, John Clark wrote:


On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​I will answer your next post if it contains something new.

​Then I guess it contained something new.​
​>​>>​ ​that can be emulated in arithmetic as all  
computations can be emulated


​​>> ​Bullshit.​


​> ​No, it is a theorem in computer science.

​Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor chips  
do.​


Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of turing  
universality by physical devices.


But number relations implement computations, in the sense of Turing.







​> ​computations, emulation are used in the original mathematical  
sense of Turing.


​Turing reduced a computer


A human computer, yes;



to it's essentials so we can understand how they work, no computer  
is simpler than a Turing Machine, but even a Turing Machine​ needs  
a tape made of matter and a read head that be changed by the  
physical tape and a write head that can make chances to that  
physical tape. ​


Does prime number needs paper to exist in the logico-mathematical  
sense of existence?


If yes, you are using some non-standard definition different from the  
people working in the field.


If no, just notice that the computations in the sense of Turing exists  
in a sense similar to the existence of prime numbers.








​> ​Those are arithmetical notion.

​Arithmetical ​notions​ don't make calculations, ​physical ​ 
microprocessor chips do.​


Arithmetical relations does implement computations. Indeed all  
universal system do that, and we know today that Robinson arithmetic  
is Turing universal.







​> ​The notion of physical computation is a different notion,

​Yes they are different, lots of people have made physical  
computations but NOBODY has ever made a non-physical ​​computation


Because BODY are physical. But a person can do a computation too, and  
they are not necessarily physical, and then number relations are not  
physical, and they can implement computations.





and there is zero evidence anybody ever could, although I can't  
prove nobody ever will.


You might read the book "Inexhaustibility" by Torket Franzen, which  
explains this with some details. The book of Matiyasevich shiws in all  
details how Dipohantine polynomials can simulate an arbitrary  
universal Turing machine.







​>>​There are levels in physical stuff like physical computer  
hardware, but there are no levels in computations!


​> ​What? This is just wrong. In arithmetic you do have a  
simulation of a fortran program elumating an algol program emulating  
a quantum computer emulating the game of life emulating ... There  
are arbitrary long chain of such simulation,


​And at the end of that long chain the answer you get when 2 is  
added to 2 is still 4, the exact same 4 you'd get if it was just  
calculated in your head; it's not a simulated 4 it's just 4 and it  
has all the properties of any other 4. But simulated water does NOT  
have all the properties of physical water and I'm still waiting for  
you to explain why not if arithmetic really is more fundamental than  
matter as you claim.



That is the whole point of the UDA. Physical water, like any physical  
stuff does not rely on one computations, but on an infinity of them,  
due to the First Person Indeterminacy. Once we look at ourselve or at  
our environment at a level below the substitution level, we find the  
*apparent* primary matter, which ca only emerge from those infinities,  
and a priori that is not emulable by a specific computer, although it  
has to be approximable, or we would not exist.








​> ​I have given the definition already, reread them, or buy a  
book in computer science.


​Definitions ​don't make calculations​ and neither do books​ 
, ​physical ​microprocessor chips do.​


Definition does not but relation does. Indeed a computation is a  
digital relation, and it does not depends on any physical assumption.  
Just read a book in theoretical computer science.








​>> ​Why can't a simulated water program get the computer wet?

​> ​Because you can't create primitive matter,

​A good answer or at least I can't think of a better one. If it's  
true then primitive matter must be more fundamental than arithmetic  
because it has something that numbers don't and can do things that  
numbers can't.



Numbers can share relations, and if we assume computationalism,  
numbers can share relations which implement any computation. So if  
computationalism is correct, the existence of the computation in your  
current brain which allows you to read this post is implemented an  
infinity of times through an infinity of number relations which exists  
in the same sense that the relation x < y exists. Then from your first  
person perspective you cannot distinguish, without doing experiments,  
if you are emulated in a block material universe (if that could exist)  
or in the block mindscape constituted by the (Sigma_

Re: Could we live forever?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Sep 2015, at 17:53, John Clark wrote:



On Wed, Sep 16, 2015  Brent Meeker  wrote:

​​>>​ If you knew you were immortal why on earth would you ​ 
be risk averse?


​> ​Not having a built in biological life span is very different  
from being immortal.  Immortal means you can't die.


Immortality isn't a deep concept, it just means making sure the  
atoms in your biological brain, or its functional equivalent, always  
remained in their correct orientation. Immortality is simply a ​ 
matter of ​maintaining ​organization,​ and with nanotechnology  
that would be easy.​


You need an infinitely expanding brain to live an eternity, if not,  
you will cycle. You might count that as a kind of immortality though,  
but then we must introduce distinction and make more precise what we  
mean by that.








​> ​you will eventually die from some ​accident.  ​

​That's why ​you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in lots of  
different places, and with ​nanotechnology that would be easy.​



Only if you suffer from some local attachment. If not "you" are  
already distributed in infinitely many "regions" of the tiny sigma_1  
reality.







​> ​or illness.

​You will never die of illness if you have the ability to ensure  
that the atoms in your body always remain in their correct  
orientation, ​and with ​nanotechnology that would be easy.​


You need to bet on some level of description, then it is "easy" is  
very large sense of the term. But that will be done, no doubt, at many  
different levels, and some people will treat higher level people as  
zombies, etc.








​> ​Uploading" isn't some well defined process

​Uploading is very well defined,


Once we bet on a description level. I would ask they take into account  
the glial cells. I would ask for a package for the nervous system in  
the belly which is more dense than we thought.





it's just not achievable yet for technological not scientific or  
philosophical reasons:  ​Uploading ​is the functional equivalent  
of a biological brain in electronic form. ​



Assuming computationalism and, in practice, the correctness of the  
choice of the substitution level.


With a bad choice, someone can believe having survived "rather well"  
for some weeks, and then realize that there is a problem, the long  
term memory is not handled well, or a feeling that something is  
different but they can't figure it out, etc. It can be like an altered  
state of consciousness, and there are infinities of possibilities.






​> ​You could be "uploaded" today by having a team of people  
research your appearance, personality, thinking, preferences,  
speech, etc. and incorporating them into a computer program with  
sensory inputs and some Watson like AI.  It would produce a Max  
Headroom like John Clark who would continue to berate Bruno for his  
use of pronouns and other signs of intelligence.


​Intelligent behavior is a much deeper property than consciousness,  
so if it's got John Clark's intelligence (or better) that's good  
enough for me.  ​



lol






​> ​Would it be conscious?...who knows.

​That is nothing new, that is the same sort of uncertainty every  
human being who has ever lived must face. Was the original John  
Clark conscious? Only the original John Clark knows for sure.


​> ​Would it be recognizably John Clark...sure.

​That is good enough for me.



Hmm... you betray your attraction for some first person elimination.
At least that is coherent with your belief in primary matter.


Bruno





  John ​K Clark







--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Could we live forever?

[Bruno Marchal]

On 17 Sep 2015, at 19:09, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Sep 17, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>​The irony is that if you have the cognitive ability to  
conceive that you can survive qua "yes doctor", then you have the  
cognitive ability to understand that you are immortal no matter what.


​So if you can conceive of something (although not in any detail)  
non physical making a calculation


I don't need to conceive this, as this can be proved in elementary  
arithmetic. This is really a standard fact. In France I have been  
asked to throw away all the explanations and just give a reference.


By Matiyasevich theorem, all computations can be reduced to a finite  
sequence of addition and multiplication, and it exist a number which  
represent that sequence, and simple theory like PA can prove a lot  
about those computation, and can prove that a computation is a  
particular type of proof of sigma_1 sentences. The reason why  
computations live in arithmetic is similar to the reason why we can  
plunge the constructive part of meta-arithmetic in arithmetic.





then it doesn't matter that nothing non physical can make a  
calculation;


Physical computations does matter for physical manifestation, but with  
computationalism the physical is a projection of an invariant modality  
in the way universal machine can observe themselves.
It does not supplant physics, except for the afterlife question. It  
has a sort of ethic which is that you can't impose yor opinion on  
others about that. You can say "yes" and you can "say "no" to the  
doctor. It is risky, but it is your right.







and thus there is no reason you can't start a successful computer  
hardware company with zero manufacturing costs. Sort of reminds me  
of those silly ontological "proofs" about the existence of God, if  
you can conceive of God (although not in any detail) then God must  
exist.


That type of reasoning is analog to the use of the reflexion principle  
in Set Theory, which I consider as theology right at the start (as an  
axiom of infinity is theology enough form me).


To use mechanism to get immortal is just a way to win some more time  
to understand that actually you were immortal at the start, and that  
you are just prolonging the illusion. Given the time you take to get  
the third step I can understand that an artificial brain might be  
handy some days.


(I tall loosely here, and I might blaspheme (asserting proposition of  
the type G* \ G). I let you add the computationalist assumption, and I  
talk for ideally arithmetically correct machine (of course this cannot  
be defined in arithmetic, but it can in first order set theory or in  
second-order logic).


Bruno F Marchal







 John K Clark

​



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



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

Re: Could we live forever?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> You need an infinitely expanding brain to live an eternity, if not, you
> will cycle.
>

​To prevent cycling a mind wouldn't need to be infinite just unlimited,
whenever you start to run low you just add more memory banks, but at *ANY*
given time the mind would be of only finite size.


> ​> ​
> You might count that as a kind of immortality though
>

​Some might, but I wouldn't.​


> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​you will eventually die from some
>>> ​accident.  ​
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> That's why ​
>> you'd need lots of backup copies stashed in lots of different places, and
>> with ​
>> nanotechnology that would be easy.​
>
>
> ​> ​
> Only if you suffer from some local attachment.
>

​But you don't, otherwise you'd become a different person every time you
cross the room. And what exactly are your spatial coordinates, the place
your brain is at or the place you are thinking about, that is to say the
place you seem to be? Consciousness is all about seeming to be so I'd guess
the second. ​


> ​
>> ​>> ​
>> You will never die of illness if you have the ability to ensure that the
>> atoms in your body always remain in their correct orientation, ​
>> and with ​
>> nanotechnology that would be easy.​
>
>
> ​> ​
> You need to bet on some level of description,
>

​You need to know how generic atoms should be placed in relation to other
​generic atoms.


> ​> ​
> then it is "easy" is very large sense of the term.
>

​And Nanotechnology is the ability to move individual atoms to different
positions ​relative to other individual atoms. Doing this is easy
scientifically, no new physics is required, but it is not easy
technologically, at least not yet.

​
>> ​>> ​
>> Uploading is very well defined
>
>

​> ​
> Once we bet on a description level.
>

​What other sort of bet did you have in mind? If you know the relative
position of all the generic atoms in something there is no scientific
reason you can't make a second one with​ generic atoms, although you may
encounter technological difficulties.


> ​> ​
> I would ask they take into account the glial cells.
>

​What difference does that make?? Glial cells are made of 20 different
types of organelles just like neurons and just like all the other 200
different types of cells in the human body; and the only difference between
one of those 20 different types of organelles and another is the relative
position that generic atoms have with other generic atoms.

​>> ​
>> it's just not achievable yet for technological not scientific or
>> philosophical reasons:  ​Uploading
>> ​ ​
>> is the functional equivalent of a biological brain in electronic form. ​
>
>
> ​> ​
> Assuming computationalism
>

​And only a fool would not make that assumption.

​> ​
> With a bad choice, someone can believe having survived "rather well" for
> some weeks, and then realize that there is a problem, the long term memory
> is not handled well,
>

​If long term memory, ​or short term memory, or anything else is not
working well then generic atoms have not been placed in the correct
orientation relative to other generic atoms. And the exact same thing
happens when your computer is not working well, or your can opener for that
matter.


> ​> ​
> or a feeling that something is different
>

​The cause of that different feeling could only be that something IS indeed
different, ​the arrangement of generic atoms must be different. Correct
that error and put things where they are supposed to go and that
unpleasant different feeling will go away.



> ​> ​
> but they can't figure it out,
>

​Then they're dumb. ​

 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: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in the
US,
leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
population.
I am not talking Marxism.
The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of one's
acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of others.*
Within such all subchapters are viable.

(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
not even paying for
susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)

JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>  could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:
>
> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*
>
>
>
> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.
>
> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the
> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.
>
>
>
> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?
>
>
> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing
> false advertisement in the matter of health.
>
> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some
> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that
> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I
> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given
> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in
> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are
> not dependent of a big lucrative organization.
>
>
>
>
> Is a 'regulating system a power?
>
>
> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK.
>
>
>
> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
> Supremes'
> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
> It would
> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
>
>
> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law
> of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine
> competition.
>
>
>
> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
> EU.
> And so on.
>
>
> I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean virtue",
> which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when asserted on
> people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to more hidden
> dogma, or free-exam, etc.
> But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does
> not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps)
> like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic
> (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda).
> If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes from
> paper which have not been made available to the public, and was
> contradicted by all papers available to the public. The cannabis set-up was
> gross, immense, obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public
> and the physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of
> marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at
> that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10
> years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that
> cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just
> ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven
> days 24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just
> to give one example among many).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
>> witness
>> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
>> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
>> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>>
>>
>> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
>> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
>> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
>> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
>> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
>> lies).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
>> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
>> less than what they may have produced.
>>
>>
>> Well, the term "capitalism" i

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/18/2015 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal > wrote:


​ > ​
Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the
public.


​ I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves 
what is a fact and what is not, b
ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get 
into the truth determining business, and it must be far far more 
powerful than any other organization. That might be OK if there was 
some way to guarantee that such a organization was always led by a 
genius who was also a saint, but unfortunately such paragons are a 
little hard to find.   ​


You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has 
violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed 
fraud, etc.


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: 1P/3P CONFUSION again and again

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 , Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> Theorems don't make calculations, physical microprocessor chips do.​
>
>
> ​> ​
> Physical computer are implementation, in the math sense, of turing
> universality by physical devices.
>

​What makes you so certain that Turing machines aren't just ​man made
descriptions (and approximate descriptions at that) of physical
computational devises? Usually the simpler thing simulates the more complex
thing, but a physical computer is far more complex than a Turing Machine,
so is a microprocessor implementing a Turing machine or is a
​
Turing Machine
​ implementing a microprocessor? ​

​> ​
> Does prime number needs paper to exist in the logico-mathematical sense of
> existence?
>

​It doesn't matter, prime number don't make calculations, physical
microprocessors do. And all numbers may exist, but if the computational
resources of the entire physical universe is finite then the set that
contains all the prime numbers and only prime numbers may not. ​



> ​> ​
> a person can do a computation too, and they are not necessarily physical
>

​In the history of the world a no person lacking a physical brain has ever
made a calculation, and it is very easy to understand why if physics is
more fundamental than mathematics. But if mathematics is more fundamental
then that fact is quite odd.   ​
​

> ​> y​
> ou might read the book "Inexhaustibility" by Torket Franzen, which
> explains this with some details.
>

​Books by ​
Torket Franzen
​ do not make calculations, physical microprocessors do.​


> ​> ​
> Physical water, like any physical stuff does not rely on one computations,
> but on an infinity of them,
>

​Nobody knows if that is true or not, maybe only an astronomical number of
calculations would be required to perfectly simulate water, but if you're
right and a infinite amount of mathematics would be required to do what
just a small amount of matter can do so effortlessly then it's game over
and physics is ​more fundamental than mathematics, and mathematical models
can never be more than just approximations of the real deal.

​>> ​
>> ​Definitions ​
>> ​don't ​make calculations, physical microprocessors do.
>>
>
> ​>​
> Definition does not but relation does.
>

​Only if the relations are about the orientation of PHYSICAL things. ​


> ​> ​
> Indeed a computation is a digital relation, and it does not depends on any
> physical assumption. Just read a book in theoretical computer science.
>

​No book in ​theoretical computer science can make a calculation, but a
physical microprocessor chip can.


>
>> ​>> ​
>> I don't assume anything but I do know 4 things for certain:
>> ​
>> 1) Simulated water can *not* quench my thirst.​
>>
>
>

​> ​
> That is ambiguous.
>

​If that is ambiguous then EVERYTHING is ambiguous, and without contrast
words have no meaning  ​


> ​> ​
>  you need to grasp step 3 before I can explain more on this.
>

​There is nothing in step 3 to grasp, there is no there there.​



> ​
>> ​> ​
>> Proofs don't make calculations,
>
>
> ​> ​
> Sigma_1 proof and calculations are the same thing.
>

​Then then I really *REALLY *don't understand why you don't start the ​Sigma_1
Proof Computer Hardware Corporation and become the richest man who ever
lived.


> ​> ​
> Like fortran calculations are the same as algol calculations.
>

​Yes, without physical hardware to run them on both FORTRAN and Algol are
indeed the same, both are just squiggles on paper. ​


​> ​
> comp is a theology,
>

​Maybe​, but I no longer care what "comp" is.


​> ​
> When I prove the existence of a computation in the theory RA
> ​ [...]
>

​I don't need the ​the theory RA
​ to prove to me that computations exist, I already know that they do, what
I want is for the
theory RA
​, or anything else,
to make a computation without the use of matter that obeys the laws of
physics. And I don't want a proof, and I don't want a axiom, and I don't
want a definition, and I don't want a book; *I want a computation.  *


> ​> ​
> you need to get step 8 for this.
>

​Until you fix step 3 any higher step is meaningless.

​> ​
> Their argument is that a physical computer can only be an approciamation
> of the mathematical one, like a physical circle can only approximate a
> mathematica circle.
>

​A physical circle, like one drawn by hand with ink on paper, if far far
more complex than a mathematical circle; so you tell me, which is a
approximation of which?   ​

> ​>
>>> ​>>​
>>> ​that prime number existence does not depend on its computation,
>>
>>
> ​>> ​
>> ​I think maybe it does depend on the physical possibility of it
>> being computed in the universe, although I could be wrong.​
>
> ​> ​
> That would make Euclid's wrong,
>

​If so he wouldn't be the first ancient Greek that was dead wrong.​


​> ​
> Where John Clark is = where his body is,
>

​So you think consciousness has a position, does consciousness have a
velocity too, or a temperature, or a pressure, or a mass, or a magnetic
moment