Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:48:14 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:41:43 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal thank you for your anwser.
>>
>> Physicist Paul Benioff make interesting idea 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201093
>> that mathematics and laws of physics coemerged somehow randomly.  
>>
>
> You wanted an answer to a question; whether the MUH is valid. I falsified 
> it. Did you understand and appreciate my answer? AG 
>

I don't see how Bruno answered your question when he misstated and doesn't 
understand the MUH. Yet you thank him and not me. AG 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 6:41:43 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> Bruno Marchal thank you for your anwser.
>
> Physicist Paul Benioff make interesting idea 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201093
> that mathematics and laws of physics coemerged somehow randomly.  
>

You wanted an answer to a question; whether the MUH is valid. I falsified 
it. Did you understand and appreciate my answer? AG 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[kujawskilucjan85]

Bruno Marchal thank you for your anwser.

Physicist Paul Benioff make interesting idea 
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0201093
that mathematics and laws of physics coemerged somehow randomly.  

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Bruce Kellett]

From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 29 Sep 2018, at 02:38, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


From: *Bruno Marchal* mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
On 28 Sep 2018, at 06:29, Bruce Kellett > wrote:


But you do not seem to go the additional step of saying that 
mathematical objects, numbers and so on, are objects that actually 
exist (which would be a form of platonism).


I use “exist” in the same sense as “it exist a number x such that x 
+ 7 = 8”.


That is precisely why you need to study the philosophy of mathematics.


I love, but that is not relevant here, at least before to study the 
science.


It might teach you not to confuse the use of the existential 
quantifier with an ontology.


You call confusion what is simply the definition to start with.


You can't define cats to be the same as dogs!


You do seem playing rhetorical semantical game to avoid studying a theory.


The linguistic games are all yours.


By definition: the ontology is given by the the things you NEED to 
assume, because no theories at all can explain their existence.


Ontology is the science of being in general, embracing such things as 
the nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality. This 
is not an area in which there is universal agreement among philosophers 
(or mathematicians), so it is perfectly respectable to disagree with 
your particular view.


With mechanism, that ONLY number exists is a consequence of the belief 
that a physical universe exist,


I am glad that you see that numbers only exist because the universe exists!

and that I reline live in that universe when the constituents of the 
brain are permuted in some functional way.


So, what you call confusion is the result of work.

I guess you call it a confusion because it informs your favorite 
ontology (a physical world perhaps?).


Let us do science first, and discuss philosophy after. I know that 
doing science in metaphysics and theology is not common, but that is 
what the mechanist assumption makes possible to do, and that is what I 
have done (which obviously do not please to many philosophers, like 
they were not pleased when Newton invaded their territory too).


Also, when you do a critics, you must make it in a much more precise 
way. If you really think there is a confusion somewhere, you need to 
explain it in detail so that everyone see what you mean.


I think that the confusion you display between an existential quantifier 
in mathematics and an ontology is perfectly clear to everyone.


Bruce

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 1:03:12 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:30:33 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:28:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



 On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>
>
>
> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>
>
> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>
> Brent
>

 *Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
 spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
 bacteria is already a computer. *


 Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like 
 swimming toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.

 Brent

  
>>> Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
>>> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/
>>>
>>> Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
>>> - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer
>>>
>>> Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
>>> - 
>>> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer
>>>
>>>  
>>> - pt
>>>
>>
>> What is a computer -- what is it -- that bacteria can be seen as being 
>> like? Why bother to define it. Nothing obvious here except sloppy use of 
>> analogies. AG
>>
>>  
>>>
>>
>
>
> *What is a computer?*
>
> A computer is a device that executes programs.
>
> If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can do), 
> then these bacteria are computers.
>
> - pt
>  
>


*Scientists have built the most complex biomolecular computer yet and 
stored a movie*
https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/devices/biocomputer-and-memory-built-inside-living-bacteria
 



- pt 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:53:04 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
>> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>>
>>
>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
> spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
> bacteria is already a computer. *
>
>
> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
>
> Brent
>


*So anything that shows intentional behavior you're going to call a 
computer? A comet which misses the Sun, or one that doesn't, can be 
imagined as having intentional behavior. AG *

>
> *One thing for sure; he doesn't know what the MUH is, and therefore cannot 
> understand my simple falsification of the hypothesis. AG *
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 12:30:33 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:28:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 



 On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:

 A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>


 *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
 binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
 instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*


 Not all computers are von Neumann computers.

 Brent

>>>
>>> *Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
>>> spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
>>> bacteria is already a computer. *
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
>>> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>  
>> Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
>> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/
>>
>> Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
>> - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer
>>
>> Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
>> - 
>> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer
>>
>>  
>> - pt
>>
>
> What is a computer -- what is it -- that bacteria can be seen as being 
> like? Why bother to define it. Nothing obvious here except sloppy use of 
> analogies. AG
>
>  
>>
>


*What is a computer?*

A computer is a device that executes programs.

If we can synthesize bacteria that execute programs (which we can do), then 
these bacteria are computers.

- pt
 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:28:34 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 

>>>
>>>
>>> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
>>> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> *Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
>> spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
>> bacteria is already a computer. *
>>
>>
>> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
>> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>  
> Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/
>
> Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
> - https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer
>
> Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
> - 
> https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer
>
>  
> - ptIs 
>

What is a computer -- what is it -- that bacteria can be seen as being 
like? Why bother to define it. Nothing obvious here except sloppy use of 
analogies. AG

 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 09:08:38PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:23 PM Russell Standish  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000
> people  from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and
> their impacts are  equally unknown then I think you should give the
> benefit of the doubt to the  human not the mosquito.
> 
>  
> 
> >Yes it is different. According to the first hit on Google, the
> economic cost of malaria runs to $12 billion per
> annum. (https://www.malariafreefuture.org/malaria).
> 
>  It is not equally unknown.
> 
> 
> Do you really think the figure "12 billion dollars" answers all or even most 
> questions regarding the death of 725.000 people or even comes within a 
> thousand
> light years of doing so? Even something as simple as the wind needs a vector 
> to
> describe it, 2 numbers are needed one for speed and one for direction; but you
> think the lives of 725,000 people just needs a scalar, one number, 12 billion.
> 

It answers questions along the lines of should we invest in this or
that. If we had a similar economic calculation on the detrimental
effects to the ecology of removing those mosquitos, then it allows a
straight forward calculus for decision making. Of course it is nuanced
- one would hope that decision makers don't just take one random study
at face value, but look at all the evidence available, and commission
studies to cover obvious gaps.



> 
> >ecosystems are complex systems, and small changes can have outsized
> effects.
> 
> 
> People are part of the ecosystem too, and the most complex and unpredictable
> part. One of those 725,000 people who lost their lives because you thought
> mosquitoes were more important might have been the next Einstein, or been the
> father or grandfather of one, or maybe the next Hitler, nobody knows. 
>

Of course. Over 10 years (say) 7 million lives are lost, diminishing
our capacity for producing the next Einstein by 0.1%. In the same time,
the world's population has grown by 11.5%, offsetting that loss many
times over.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:23 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

> Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000
>> people  from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and
>> their impacts are  equally unknown then I think you should give the
>> benefit of the doubt to the  human not the mosquito.
>
>


>
> * >Yes it is different. According to the first hit on Google, the economic
> cost of malaria runs to $12 billion per annum.* (
> https://www.malariafreefuture.org/malaria).
>
* It is not equally unknown.*
>

Do you really think the figure "12 billion dollars" answers all or even
most questions regarding the death of 725.000 people or even comes within a
thousand light years of doing so? Even something as simple as the wind
needs a vector to describe it, 2 numbers are needed one for speed and one
for direction; but you think the lives of 725,000 people just needs a scalar,
one number, 12 billion.

>*ecosystems are complex systems, and small changes can have outsized
> effects.*


People are part of the ecosystem too, and the most complex and
unpredictable part. One of those 725,000 people who lost their lives
because you thought mosquitoes were more important might have been the next
Einstein, or been the father or grandfather of one, or maybe the next
Hitler, nobody knows.

>
>
> *You don't need to convince Greenpeace. You need to convince the
> regulatory authorities,*


I need to convince whoever has the loudest voice because that's the one the
regulatory agencies and their political bosses hear. And the loudest voice
is seldom  the wisest

>
>
> *It may well be that in order to convince the regulatory authorities, you
> also need to convince the voting public. That may well involve doing
> exactly the sort of small-scale studies I'm proposing,*


I don't care if you have 6.02*10^23 studies all pointing in the same
direction, the voting public that made Donald Trump the most powerful man
on the planet won't believe in any of them unless their fearless leader
orders them to believe it.

 * > the problem is that malaria mostly affects the poorer countries that
> don't have that sort of cash lying around. It's a good thing Bill Gates is
> in that corner.*


I agree, millions of people who are alive and well would be dead without
Bill Gates . If we have to have a billionaire as president I wish it was
Gates.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[Russell Standish]

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 06:13:24PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000 people
> from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and their impacts 
> are
> equally unknown then I think you should give the benefit of the doubt to the
> human not the mosquito.

Yes it is different. According to the first hit on Google, the
economic cost of malaria runs to $12 billion per
annum. (https://www.malariafreefuture.org/malaria).

It is not equally unknown. I can't vouch for the validity of the above
figure, but offer it to demonstrate that obviously the impact has been
studied, and the result known with reasonable certainty.

>  
> 
> >I expect that 5 years moratorium might be enough, 10 years on the 
> outside.
> 
> 
> That's very easy for you to say but by making that decision you are killing 
> about 3.6 million people,  7.25 million tops, depending on the breaks.
> 
> I don't believe in 5 years or 10 years or a thousand years any conceivable
> scientific study would convince Greenpeace to say "you were right, the dangers
> in using Gene Drive are less than the dangers of not using it". It's not going
> to happen because some people, like Greenpeace and Trump voters, are just
> immune from rational argument.  
>   

You don't need to convince Greenpeace. You need to convince the regulatory
authorities, or you need to convince scientists to break their funding
contracts with those authorities. I would prefer it if you did the
former way, of course.

It may well be that in order to convince the regulatory authorities,
you also need to convince the voting public. That may well involve
doing exactly the sort of small-scale studies I'm proposing, but it
also may involve the same sort of media campaigns that Greenpeace
does. You'd think that with 12 billion at stake, this shouldn't be
hard to do - the problem is that malaria mostly affects the poorer
countries that don't have that sort of cash lying around. It's a good
thing Bill Gates is in that corner.

  If the ecosystem was a house of
> cards and as fragile as conservation groups like to say during their fund
> drives life couldn't have survived for 3.8 billion years. 

You are preaching to the choir here, however it is also true (as Telmo
pointed out) that ecosystems are complex systems, and small changes
can have outsized effects. I can and do insist we study and try to
understand what these effects are. Even doing nothing has an outsized
effect - given humanity's huge footprint on the biosphere. See
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115




-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 8:31 PM Russell Standish 
wrote:

>>I do know for  certain that for 725,000 people each and every year NOT
>> using Gene Drive WILL  be the equivalent to the Chicxulub Event .
>
>
> > *That's a big exaggeration. Name one species that's going extinct due
> to malaria, as compared to 80% extinction of life in the Chicxulub Event.*
>

Screw species, I weep more for individuals than spices, 725,000 humans will
face oblivion because of malaria this year alone, and for them that is
equivalent to being smack in the middle of the Chicxulub Event. I think
that's much sadder than 40 mosquito species going extinct.


> >> Such ecological studies will never ever be done, there will always be
>> one more study that needs to be completed before we can make a decision.
>
>
> * >If that is the case, then there is either a problem with the decision
> makers (analysis paralysis) or in their terms of reference.*


Obviously. If there were no problem with decision makers a massive program
to grow Golden Rice would have been implemented more than a decade ago, but
instead we have a massive program to kill millions of people and make
millions of children go blind. And even today there is STILL no such
massive program. Why? Because Greenpeace says the jury is still out and we
need yet another study before we do anything. But the jury will never come
back into court, if N is the number of studies available they will always
say we need N+1. And as a result people continue to die in the name of
prudence.


> > *My judgement is that we do not currrently know the impacts of
> removing even one of those species,*


Is it different with people, do you know the impact removing 725,000 people
from the realm of the living every year will have? If not and their impacts
are equally unknown then I think you should give the benefit of the doubt
to the human not the mosquito.


> *>I expect that 5 years moratorium might be enough, 10 years on the
> outside.*


That's very easy for you to say but by making that decision you are
killing about
3.6 million people,  7.25 million tops, depending on the breaks.

I don't believe in 5 years or 10 years or a thousand years any conceivable
scientific study would convince Greenpeace to say "you were right, the
dangers in using Gene Drive are less than the dangers of not using it".
It's not going to happen because some people, like Greenpeace and Trump
voters, are just immune from rational argument.


>
> *>So long as the decisions are made in the light of the best scientific
> evidence available, is that such a problem?*


Apparently that is a tragically large problem because for whatever reason
decisions based on  the best scientific evidence available have NOT been
made, if they had been millions of people who lost their lives would be
alive today and millions more that are blind could see.


> >* without any regulatory process, we will just get repeats of the cane
> toad problem,*
>

I would submit that the cane toad problem is a ridiculously trivial problem
compared with the problem of millions of people dying and millions more
going blind when there is no need.  I would also submit it is a tad
unlikely that reducing the number of mosquito species from 3500 to 3460
would result in the death of more than 725,000 people a year.  If the
ecosystem was a house of cards and as fragile as conservation groups like
to say during their fund drives life couldn't have survived for 3.8 billion
years.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:53:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>>
>>
>>
>> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
>> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
>> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>>
>>
>> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
> spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
> bacteria is already a computer. *
>
>
> Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
> toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.
>
> Brent
>
>  
Bacterial computing: a form of natural computing and its applications
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971165/

Bacteria make computers look like pocket calculators
- https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/24/bacteria-computer

Bacteria Can Now Be Programmed Like a Computer
- 
https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/article/43d9en/bacteria-can-now-be-programmed-like-a-computer

 
- pt
 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/29/2018 1:45 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote:



On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:


A bacteria is already a computer (at least),



*Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that
store binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and
advances the instruction pointer? And where is the instruction
pointer located? AG*


Not all computers are von Neumann computers.

Brent

*
*
*Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, 
that a bacteria is already a computer. *


Of course it is obvious that a bacterium computes things...like swimming 
toward nutrients and how to make another bacterium.


Brent

*One thing for sure; he doesn't know what the MUH is, and therefore 
cannot understand my simple falsification of the hypothesis. AG *

--
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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:07:12 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>
>
>
> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>
>
> Not all computers are von Neumann computers.
>
> Brent
>

*Maybe he means a parallel processor, but whatever he means should be 
spelled out explicitly. One can't just assert, as if it's obvious, that a 
bacteria is already a computer. One thing for sure; he doesn't know what 
the MUH is, and therefore cannot understand my simple falsification of the 
hypothesis. AG *

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/29/2018 4:34 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


A bacteria is already a computer (at least),



*Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances 
the instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*


Not all computers are von Neumann computers.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/29/2018 12:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com 
 wrote:




On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, 
kujawski...@gmail.com  wrote:


Thank you everybody for your responses.

Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very
interesting but some very good neruoscientists argue that brain
is not like computer
Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc



The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some 
superficial similarities such as being able to store memory and 
logical functions (which are simulated by a computer), but its cells 
are not two state systems like computer transistors. AG



A bacteria is already a computer (at least), and a neurone is already 
a rather sophisticated society of bacteria and viruses, plausibly 
enough. So, a society of billions of neurons should not be compared to 
transistors. The substitution level is plausibly much lower than the 
level of neurons.


It has been estimated that simulating a single neuron requires a 
micro-controller like an AVR, which contains 80,000 transistors.




Brent



But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not 
emulable by a computer, except for controversial notion like


A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably 
not emulable by a computer).


But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).

Bruno








Please give me your thought on that.


--
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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Gene Drive and morality

[Telmo Menezes]

> With the calici trial, the right things were being done, but then some
> idiot (probably with your mindset) decided to release the virus on the
> mainland anyway. Fortunately, in that case, we dodged a bullet. Not so
> with cane toads, or the bloody rabbits in the first place.

Even before the age of modern biotech, Mao Zedong had a similar idea
with his "Four Pests Campaign":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign

I agree with Russell. I am not morally opposed to such interventions,
but it seems obvious to me that one must proceed with extreme caution
for two reasons: complex systems are notoriously hard to model and the
downside is unbounded. Obviously it is sometimes more wise to take a
risk, but I don't think one should take it until one can at least
estimate it.

In the case of the "Four Pests Campaign", the downside probably
included tens of millions of people dying of starvation.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:34:15 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>>
>
>
> *Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store 
> binary information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
> instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
>  
>
>>
>>
There is the famous tic-tac-toe playing enzymes 
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing#Tic-tac-toe_game ] created in 
2002. Maybe the first synbio life forms to compute things. (More recent 
little biocomputers are in the news all the time.)

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:16:26 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> * It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, 
>>> which is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. 
>>> That is, no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all 
>>> the latter including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never 
>>> observe a plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG *
>>>
>>
>> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, 
>> the universe consists of mathematical objects.
>> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - 
>> in fact, *infinities are ruining physics*.
>> [ 
>> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
>> ]ac
>>
>
> Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG
>
>>
>> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely 
>> divisible) objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. 
>> Only particular mathematical objects exist.
>>
>
> According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
> that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves 
> do not exist in nature. (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed 
> by Wiki and its adherents is falsified. AG 
>
>>
>>
>>
In his original arXiv  [ https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 ] and in other 
places he presents MUH as different "levels", so a level-one MUH would have 
different mathematics than a level-four MUH, etc.

To be honest, I find MUH to be both boring, adding nothing to science, and 
somewhat (or maybe a lot) confused.

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 7:16:41 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
>>
>> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but 
>> some very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
>> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc
>>
>
> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is 
> strongly comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial 
> similarities such as being able to store memory and logical functions 
> (which are simulated by a computer), but its cells are not two state 
> systems like computer transistors. AG
>
>
>
> A bacteria is already a computer (at least), 
>


*Really? Then you should be able to identify the entities that store binary 
information. And where is the clock which pulses and advances the 
instruction pointer? And where is the instruction pointer located? AG*
 

> and a neurone is already a rather sophisticated society of bacteria and 
> viruses, plausibly enough. So, a society of billions of neurons should not 
> be compared to transistors. The substitution level is plausibly much lower 
> than the level of neurons.
>
> But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable 
> by a computer, except for controversial notion like
>
> A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
> B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
> emulable by a computer).
>
> But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please give me your thought on that. 
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 10:41:42 AM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>>
>> * It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, 
>> which is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. 
>> That is, no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all 
>> the latter including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never 
>> observe a plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG *
>>
>
> 1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, 
> the universe consists of mathematical objects.
> 2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - 
> in fact, *infinities are ruining physics*.
> [ 
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
> ]ac
>

Bruno wrote 1 & 2.  AG

>
> So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely divisible) 
> objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. Only 
> particular mathematical objects exist.
>

According to Wiki, and what I've heard from its adherents, the MUH posits 
that ALL mathematical object or entities exist in nature. But plane waves 
do not exist in nature. (Do you know what they are?) So the MUH as claimed 
by Wiki and its adherents is falsified. AG 

>
>  - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 4:48:44 AM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
> * It claims that all mathematical objects exist in "physical" reality, 
> which is sort-of isomorphic or in some sense identical to these objects. 
> That is, no dichotomy between "physical" and mathematical objects, and all 
> the latter including plane waves exist in this reality. But you will never 
> observe a plane wave, so the MUH is falsified. AG *
>

1. Tegmark claims everything in the universe is mathematical - that is, the 
universe consists of mathematical objects.
2. Tegmark also says that infinities should be eliminated from physics - in 
fact, *infinities are ruining physics*.
[ 
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/ 
]

So then via Tegmark there can be no real continuous (infinitely divisible) 
objects like (mathematical) waves, putting 1 and 2 together. Only 
particular mathematical objects exist.

 - pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 9:22:30 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com 
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:57:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
 wrote:
>
> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
> f
> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in 
> diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or 
> mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>
> What are your thoughts. 
>

 If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter 
 example suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, 
 but if you know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in 
 physical 
 reality. 



 With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
 (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.

 You are begging the question.

>>>
>>> *In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
>>> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
>>> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple 
>>> counter example. AG*
>>>
>>>
>>> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have 
>>> a perceived universe, you need a measure on the 
>>> computation/sigma-sentences. The physical emerges from an arithmetical 
>>> phenomenon (assuming mechanism in cognitive science). 
>>>
>>> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any 
>>> choice for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
>>> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
>>> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. 
>>> Oracle are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should 
>>> be invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
>>>
>>> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>
>> *This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the 
>> MUH, *
>>
>>
>>
>> You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some 
>> physical reality, which cannot be done.
>>
>
>
> *This is the MUH, not what I want or believe. AG *
>
> *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis 
> *
>
> Tegmark's MUH is: *Our external physical reality is a mathematical 
> structure*.[3] 
> 
>  
> That is, the physical universe is not merely *described by* mathematics, 
> but *is* mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure 
> ). *Mathematical 
> existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist 
> mathematically exist physically as well. *Observers, including humans, 
> are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure 
> complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively 
> perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4] 
> 
>
>
>> To say that a mathematical object  exist physically, does not make sense. 
>> It starts with a category error.
>>
>
> *I don't think you know what the MUH is. I have falsified it. AG* 
>
>>
>> No mathematical object can be a physical object. But what remains 
>> possible is that a physical object belongs to the dream of a person 
>> supported by (infinity) of computation (which are arithmetical object a 
>> priori).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I 
>> just meant that plane waves can never be observed,*
>>
>>
>>
>> You don’t need to go that far. The numbers 0, 1, 2, … cannot be observed. 
>> No mathematical object can be observed. They do not belong to the category 
>> of what can be observed.
>>
>> Now, an observation might be explained by a sort of arithmetical 
>> prestidigitation. Some numbers can make some numbers believing in a lot of 
>> things.
>>
>>
>>
>> * and since they are solutions to Maxwell's

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Philip Thrift]

The arithmeticalist thinks matter is fiction.
The materialist thinks arithmetic is fiction.

That's all I know. :)

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:55:37 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:30:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:11, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> My claim: Synthetic biology changes the definition of "program”. 
>>
>>
>>
>> If that is true, it would be a rather bad news for synthetic biology.
>>
>> Program/machine is the most solid mathematical epistemic notion, because 
>> it has that “miraculous” Church’s thesis. This lacks for provability, 
>> definability, representability, etc.
>>
>> So, I doubt very much that synthetic biology needs to change the notion 
>> of program.
>>
>> You might explain why you think so. You might explain what is synthetic 
>> biology too.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
>>>
>>> If I have a synbio (synthetic biology) program for a life form that 
>>> could attack a disease, if it is just transformed into a simulation that 
>>> runs in a MacBook, it me does no good. But it could via a 
>>> biocompiler/assembler be transformed to an object that "runs" inside me.
>>>
>>>
>  
>
>
>
> I don't think *any* notion is "solid" (or fixed) - and that includes in 
> particular what a program/machine is, or any definition of provability, etc.
>
> Sartre: Existence precedes essence.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence
>
> Rorty: The world does not speak. Only we do.
>
> 
> http://neamathisi.com/new-learning/chapter-7-knowledge-and-learning/richard-rorty-on-truth-and-language
>
>
> To see what synthetic biology is, check out synthetic biology textbooks:
>
>  https://www.google.com/search?q=synthetic+biology+books
>
> To see what it is doing, check out the conferences: 
> https://2018.synbiobeta.com/
>
> The outputs of biocompilers/assemblers - a synbio program is transformed 
> into a living object - is more than transforming it into a MacBook machine 
> language abject.
>

^
[ edit ]
  object

Maybe a Freudian slip? :)

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:57:54 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:

 Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
 Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
 f
 - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
 - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
 diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
 - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in 
 diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or 
 mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.

 What are your thoughts. 

>>>
>>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
>>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you 
>>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>>>
>>> You are begging the question.
>>>
>>
>> *In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
>> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
>> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple 
>> counter example. AG*
>>
>>
>> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a 
>> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. 
>> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in 
>> cognitive science). 
>>
>> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any 
>> choice for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
>> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
>> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. 
>> Oracle are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should 
>> be invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
>>
>> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>
> *This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the 
> MUH, *
>
>
>
> You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some 
> physical reality, which cannot be done.
>


*This is the MUH, not what I want or believe. AG *

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis*

Tegmark's MUH is: *Our external physical reality is a mathematical 
structure*.[3] 

 
That is, the physical universe is not merely *described by* mathematics, 
but *is* mathematics (specifically, a mathematical structure 
). *Mathematical 
existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist 
mathematically exist physically as well. *Observers, including humans, are 
"self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex 
enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive 
themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4] 



> To say that a mathematical object  exist physically, does not make sense. 
> It starts with a category error.
>

*I don't think you know what the MUH is. I have falsified it. AG* 

>
> No mathematical object can be a physical object. But what remains possible 
> is that a physical object belongs to the dream of a person supported by 
> (infinity) of computation (which are arithmetical object a priori).
>
>
>
>
>
> *falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I 
> just meant that plane waves can never be observed,*
>
>
>
> You don’t need to go that far. The numbers 0, 1, 2, … cannot be observed. 
> No mathematical object can be observed. They do not belong to the category 
> of what can be observed.
>
> Now, an observation might be explained by a sort of arithmetical 
> prestidigitation. Some numbers can make some numbers believing in a lot of 
> things.
>
>
>
> * and since they are solutions to Maxwell's equations, the MUH is false.*
>
>
>
> The MUH is only the idea that the physical might be a part of the 
> mathematical. Not that mathematical things have to exist physically. 
>
> Tp put it simply, mathematicalism is the idea that there is no physical 
> universe at all.
>
> There is no time, no space, no energy, 

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 09:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
>>> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
>>> f
>>> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
>>> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
>>> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
>>> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in diverse 
>>> structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or mathematicism vide 
>>> Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>>> 
>>> What are your thoughts. 
>>> 
>>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
>>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you 
>>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality.
>> 
>> 
>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>> 
>> You are begging the question.
>> 
>> In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
>> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
>> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple counter 
>> example. AG
> 
> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a 
> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. 
> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in 
> cognitive science). 
> 
> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any choice 
> for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. Oracle 
> are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should be invoked 
> in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
> 
> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the MUH,


You want make some mathematical object physical real. That assume some physical 
reality, which cannot be done.

To say that a mathematical object  exist physically, does not make sense. It 
starts with a category error.

No mathematical object can be a physical object. But what remains possible is 
that a physical object belongs to the dream of a person supported by (infinity) 
of computation (which are arithmetical object a priori).





> falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I just 
> meant that plane waves can never be observed,


You don’t need to go that far. The numbers 0, 1, 2, … cannot be observed. No 
mathematical object can be observed. They do not belong to the category of what 
can be observed.

Now, an observation might be explained by a sort of arithmetical 
prestidigitation. Some numbers can make some numbers believing in a lot of 
things.



> and since they are solutions to Maxwell's equations, the MUH is false.


The MUH is only the idea that the physical might be a part of the mathematical. 
Not that mathematical things have to exist physically. 

Tp put it simply, mathematicalism is the idea that there is no physical 
universe at all.

There is no time, no space, no energy, those are just Löbian machine's 
elaborate fiction to figure out our indexical local geography.

Look at a experimental physicist. He measured numbers, and infer relation 
between numbers, and then avoid the qualia:consciousness question, which indeed 
is only “physical” in string version of materialism, which requires the brain 
and body to be infinite entities.

To refute mathematicalism, you need a theory of matter giving an observable 
role to some infinite entities, having secondary observable consequence. 
Mechanism is a bit like that: if the physics deducible from mechanism is 
different from what we observe, that might be used to infer such infinite 
entities, but the preliminary results, and QM, does not go in that direction.




> Deal with that directly and stop with the double talk about the non-existence 
> of the physical universe. That's not even an issue, since I am only dealing 
> with what can be observed. AG


If you take “observation” as a criteria of reality, you assume right at the 
start the theology of Aristotle.

I just say that this is incompatible with the idea that a brain is Turing 
emulable. 

Study the sane04 paper, which 

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:30:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:11, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> My claim: Synthetic biology changes the definition of "program”. 
>
>
>
> If that is true, it would be a rather bad news for synthetic biology.
>
> Program/machine is the most solid mathematical epistemic notion, because 
> it has that “miraculous” Church’s thesis. This lacks for provability, 
> definability, representability, etc.
>
> So, I doubt very much that synthetic biology needs to change the notion of 
> program.
>
> You might explain why you think so. You might explain what is synthetic 
> biology too.
>
> Bruno
>

>>
>> If I have a synbio (synthetic biology) program for a life form that could 
>> attack a disease, if it is just transformed into a simulation that runs in 
>> a MacBook, it me does no good. But it could via a biocompiler/assembler be 
>> transformed to an object that "runs" inside me.
>>
>>
 



I don't think *any* notion is "solid" (or fixed) - and that includes in 
particular what a program/machine is, or any definition of provability, etc.

Sartre: Existence precedes essence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_precedes_essence

Rorty: The world does not speak. Only we do.


http://neamathisi.com/new-learning/chapter-7-knowledge-and-learning/richard-rorty-on-truth-and-language


To see what synthetic biology is, check out synthetic biology textbooks:

 https://www.google.com/search?q=synthetic+biology+books

To see what it is doing, check out the 
conferences: https://2018.synbiobeta.com/

The outputs of biocompilers/assemblers - a synbio program is transformed 
into a living object - is more than transforming it into a MacBook machine 
language abject.

- pt


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Some modal logics for conscious agents research

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 10:18, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:23:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:33, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The Other-Condemning Moral Emotions - A Modal Logic Approach
>>  https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/319982 
>> 
>> 
>> A logic for reasoning about counterfactual emotions
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370210002110 
>> 
>> 
>> A logic for intention
>> https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/99-1/Papers/026.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Intensionality and Intentionality: Phenomenology, Logic, and Mind
>> https://escholarship.org/content/qt25m22937/qt25m22937.pdf 
>> 
>> 
>> Emotional Belief-Desire-Intention Agent Model: Previous Work and Proposed 
>> Architecture
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/521c/d68e96579db8cf5dadbbc51ca3a78f790c71.pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Modality, The Synthetic Apriori, and Phenomenology
>> http://von-wachter.de/lv/08-2-modality/ 
>> 
>> 
>> Logic, Neuroscience and Phenomenology: In Cahoots?
>> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.4683&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> A Modal Logic for Gödelian Intuition 
>> https://philarchive.org/archive/KHUAML 
>> 
>> 
>> An Introduction to Löb’s Theorem in MIRI Research
>> http://intelligence.org/files/lob-notes-IAFF.pdf 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> The last entry is not too bad for Gödel and Löb, but all entries should be 
> largely updated, and Here is not the place. They are most aristotelians 
> having still no idea of the mind)body problem.
> 
> Read my papers, and you will be able to make the update by yourself, and the 
> last entry on Lôb can be helpful, but his application in philosophy makes no 
> sense, as you will understand (use the mechanist assumption).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to add modal logic references that could be applicable to 
> consciousness science.

See my papers and the reference therein. I work on this since very long. 



> 
> Have you ever attended one of the TSC conferences? Next one: 
> https://www.tsc2019-interlaken.ch/ 

I should but no, I don’t. Might think about it. Or not. 

Bruno



> 
> 
> Another reference:
> 
> Reasoning about another agent through empathy
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f5c9/0902584db239f5341c387f894251185a1e49.pdf
> 
> 
> (As Philip Goff notes: Our picture of matter needs to be updated to include 
> consciousness. Modal language is one approach to doing that.)
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Some modal logics for conscious agents research

[Philip Thrift]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 2:23:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:33, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
> The Other-Condemning Moral Emotions - A Modal Logic Approach
>  https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/319982
>
> A logic for reasoning about counterfactual emotions
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370210002110
>
> A logic for intention
> https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/99-1/Papers/026.pdf
>
>
> Intensionality and Intentionality: Phenomenology, Logic, and Mind
> https://escholarship.org/content/qt25m22937/qt25m22937.pdf
>
> Emotional Belief-Desire-Intention Agent Model: Previous Work and Proposed 
> Architecture
>
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/521c/d68e96579db8cf5dadbbc51ca3a78f790c71.pdf
>
> Modality, The Synthetic Apriori, and Phenomenology
> http://von-wachter.de/lv/08-2-modality/
>
> Logic, Neuroscience and Phenomenology: In Cahoots?
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.4683&rep=rep1&type=pdf
>
> A Modal Logic for Gödelian Intuition 
> https://philarchive.org/archive/KHUAML
>
> An Introduction to Löb’s Theorem in MIRI Research
> http://intelligence.org/files/lob-notes-IAFF.pdf
>
>
>
> The last entry is not too bad for Gödel and Löb, but all entries should be 
> largely updated, and Here is not the place. They are most aristotelians 
> having still no idea of the mind)body problem.
>
> Read my papers, and you will be able to make the update by yourself, and 
> the last entry on Lôb can be helpful, but his application in philosophy 
> makes no sense, as you will understand (use the mechanist assumption).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
Feel free to add modal logic references that could be applicable to 
consciousness science.

Have you ever attended one of the TSC conferences? Next 
one: https://www.tsc2019-interlaken.ch/ 


Another reference:

Reasoning about another agent through empathy
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f5c9/0902584db239f5341c387f894251185a1e49.pdf


(As Philip Goff notes: *Our picture of matter needs to be updated to 
include consciousness.* Modal language is one approach to doing that.)

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Sep 2018, at 02:38, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> From: Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>
>>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 06:29, Bruce Kellett >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> But you do not seem to go the additional step of saying that mathematical 
>>> objects, numbers and so on, are objects that actually exist (which would be 
>>> a form of platonism).
>> 
>> I use “exist” in the same sense as “it exist a number x such that x + 7 = 
>> 8”. 
> 
> That is precisely why you need to study the philosophy of mathematics.

I love, but that is not relevant here, at least before to study the science.



> It might teach you not to confuse the use of the existential quantifier with 
> an ontology.


You call confusion what is simply the definition to start with.

You do seem playing rhetorical semantical game to avoid studying a theory.

By definition: the ontology is given by the the things you NEED to assume, 
because no theories at all can explain their existence.

With mechanism, that ONLY number exists is a consequence of the belief that a 
physical universe exist, and that I reline live in that universe when the 
constituents of the brain are permuted in some functional way.

So, what you call confusion is the result of work. 

I guess you call it a confusion because it informs your favorite ontology (a 
physical world perhaps?).

Let us do science first, and discuss philosophy after. I know that doing 
science in metaphysics and theology is not common, but that is what the 
mechanist assumption makes possible to do, and that is what I have done (which 
obviously do not please to many philosophers, like they were not pleased when 
Newton invaded their territory too).

Also, when you do a critics, you must make it in a much more precise way. If 
you really think there is a confusion somewhere, you need to explain it in 
detail so that everyone see what you mean.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2018, at 22:04, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/28/2018 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> It's not something outside mathematics that is true
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> 
>>> in the sense that ice is cold.
>> 
>> 
>> That is also a belief by some machine, and it might be recovered in their 
>> phenomenology, in arithmetic.
>> 
>> We cannot discuss in the abstract. Doing metaphysics with the scientific 
>> method as for theory and means of verifying empirically the theory.
>> 
>> The mechanist theory predicts both matter and consciousness.
> 
> The question is whether it predicts that ice is cold. 

It should do it indirectly, yes. But it is the role of physics to explain, 
this, not metaphysics. Metaphysics must explain why there are things like ice 
and cold. 

Current physics explains this, but with many dubious assumptions, and fail to 
miss to predict what when we take ice in the hand, we feel it cold. 

Physics works only because it use an identity link, which unfortunately 
requires actual infinities to make sense.

My work expose a problem in metaphysics, and the beginning of a testable 
solution. 




> It not at all impressive to say it predicts that a some machine will believe 
> something like "ice is cold" when it also predicts some machine will also 
> believe "ice is hot" and another that "ice is friendly" and that "ice is 
> quadratic" and so on.

Exactly. But that is the problem with physics. Metaphysics seems to solve that 
problem by imposing a quantum measure, without introducing in an ad hoc manner 
just to fit the observation.

You are right, but your critics applies to physicalism, not Mechanism.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> Materialist theory assume matter, with some magical attribute, and miss 
>> consciousness. So …
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Why is Church's thesis a Miracle?

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:11, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 11:20:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 13:02, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 3:07:28 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27 Sep 2018, at 21:41, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:44:04 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 26 Sep 2018, at 19:32, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 
 
 
 I should add that in parallel to mathematical logic and computability 
 theory and even type theory there is the somewhat more practical subject 
 of programming language theory (PLT).
 
 Any entry point is OK.
 
 https://www.google.com/search?q=progamming+language+theory+books 
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language_theory 
 
 
 
 Some concepts from PLT (continuations, reflective monads, ...) can go back 
 into mathematica logic.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No problem with this. I guess you appreciate topos theory and intutionistic 
>>> logic, but as I said to Bruce, machine’s theology, even without oracle (but 
>>> even more with oracle) is necessarily non constructive. 
>>> I am aware that some people, like the French logicians Jean-Yves Girard, or 
>>> Jean-Louis Krivine tried to extend the Curry-Howard isomorphism to 
>>> classical logic. If they succeed, PLT might have application in theology, 
>>> but a lot of works would have to be done before.
>>> 
>>> If you follow the combinators thread, at some point I might talk about 
>>> typed combinators and constructive logics, but mainly to point out how much 
>>> non constructive theoretical computer needs to be. 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The debate of arithmetical realism (arithmeticalism) vs. material realism 
>>> (materialism) is a continuation of the older immaterialism vs. materialism 
>>> type debates: It will just evolve.
>>> 
>>> For materialists, arithmetic is genre of fiction - a useful one. Why does 
>>> math describe what matter does? Because matter has a programmatic nature.
>> 
>> And a non programmatic aspect to, at least phenomenologically, like the 
>> quantum indeterminacy confirmed. It has to ben due to the fact that a 
>> universal machine is emulate by infinities of programs in arithmetic.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> But matter includes both informationality and experientiality,
>> 
>> Why? Primary matter is the devoid of structure, if not it is hardly 
>> conceivable as being primary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> the latter seemingly missing from arithmetic.
>> 
>> Not at all. Arithmetic contains all possible self-reflecting machines (and 
>> other entities) which all have the same fundamental theology, which contains 
>> a theory of soul, knowledge and consciousness. The only problem is that such 
>> a theory does not allowed magical identity link between a mind and a piece 
>> of matter. A piece of matter is a view from inside arithmetic on infinitely 
>> many computations. That is already deducible from the first seven steps of 
>> the argument presented in the SANE papers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> From "The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics" there could be an 
>>> approach for how experientiality could come from arithmetic.
>> 
>> Yes indeed. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It could be interesting for PLT research (where modal logics are also used).
>> 
>> 
>> That is the crux of the matter. Before I though that the ontology could be 
>> any extension of arithmetic. Since then I know that we cannot ad an infinity 
>> axiom, like set theory, still less use the whole of Mathematics, like 
>> Tegmark did at the beginning (but he has corrected this since, but is stilll 
>> missing the FPI and the whole theology of numbers). What is nice for 
>> philosophers, is that Mechanism pick up precise modal logics imposed to 
>> incompleteness. That is nice, because there are *many* modal logics (and 
>> weak logics) possible/ Mechanism, simply thanks to computer science, put a 
>> lot of structure in the internal view of arithmetic possible for universal 
>> machine, including the separation of what is shamble (quanta) and what is 
>> not sharable (qualia).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On the programmatic nature of the quantum substrate, if one allows for real 
>> randomness and retrodependency 
>> 
>> 
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/03/16/mirror-mirror/ 
>> 
>>  
>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/25/retrosignaling-in-the-quantum-substrate/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> then quantum programming is just another programming.
>> 
>> (It is a strange superstition that physicists have to be allergic 

Re: Some modal logics for conscious agents research

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:33, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> The Other-Condemning Moral Emotions - A Modal Logic Approach
>  https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/319982
> 
> A logic for reasoning about counterfactual emotions
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370210002110
> 
> A logic for intention
> https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/99-1/Papers/026.pdf
> 
> 
> Intensionality and Intentionality: Phenomenology, Logic, and Mind
> https://escholarship.org/content/qt25m22937/qt25m22937.pdf
> 
> Emotional Belief-Desire-Intention Agent Model: Previous Work and Proposed 
> Architecture
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/521c/d68e96579db8cf5dadbbc51ca3a78f790c71.pdf
> 
> Modality, The Synthetic Apriori, and Phenomenology
> http://von-wachter.de/lv/08-2-modality/
> 
> Logic, Neuroscience and Phenomenology: In Cahoots?
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.4683&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> A Modal Logic for Gödelian Intuition 
> https://philarchive.org/archive/KHUAML
> 
> An Introduction to Löb’s Theorem in MIRI Research
> http://intelligence.org/files/lob-notes-IAFF.pdf
> 


The last entry is not too bad for Gödel and Löb, but all entries should be 
largely updated, and Here is not the place. They are most aristotelians having 
still no idea of the mind)body problem.

Read my papers, and you will be able to make the update by yourself, and the 
last entry on Lôb can be helpful, but his application in philosophy makes no 
sense, as you will understand (use the mechanist assumption).

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2018, at 21:00, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:49:37 PM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com wrote:
>  
> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
> 
> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but some 
> very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc 
> 
> 
> The question can be turned around. Why would anyone think a brain is strongly 
> comparable or identical to a computer? It has some superficial similarities 
> such as being able to store memory and logical functions (which are simulated 
> by a computer), but its cells are not two state systems like computer 
> transistors. AG


A bacteria is already a computer (at least), and a neurone is already a rather 
sophisticated society of bacteria and viruses, plausibly enough. So, a society 
of billions of neurons should not be compared to transistors. The substitution 
level is plausibly much lower than the level of neurons.

But we don’t know in Nature anything which at some level is not emulable by a 
computer, except for controversial notion like

A) primary matter (if that exists, it is not emulable by a computer)
B) the reduction of the wave packet (if that exists, it is provably not 
emulable by a computer).

But there are no evidence neither for A) nor for B).

Bruno






> 
> Please give me your thought on that. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[agrayson2000]

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 6:40:05 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Sep 2018, at 18:37, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
>>> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
>>> f
>>> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
>>> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
>>> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
>>> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in 
>>> diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or 
>>> mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts. 
>>>
>>
>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you 
>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality. 
>>
>>
>>
>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>>
>> You are begging the question.
>>
>
> *In what way?  The MUH says, for example, that for every mathematical 
> solution or equation, there is a (perceived) physical universe mapped 
> identically from, or into that solution or equation. I gave a simple 
> counter example. AG*
>
>
> If that is the MUH, then that it is plainly ridiculous, indeed. To have a 
> perceived universe, you need a measure on the computation/sigma-sentences. 
> The physical emerges from an arithmetical phenomenon (assuming mechanism in 
> cognitive science). 
>
> The version of mathematicalism implied by mechanism does not lead any 
> choice for the “physical reality”, it has to be a statistic on computations 
> structured by the “observable” mode of self-reference. That indeed predicts 
> quantum logic, and the many “histories” interpretation of arithmetic. 
> Oracle are not impossible, but there are no evidence for them, and should 
> be invoked in last resort (a bit like the “Alien” in cosmology).
>
> The empirical evidence is that there is no physical universe at all.
>
> Bruno
>

*This double-talk nonsense IMO. I clearly gave a counter-example to the 
MUH, falsifying it. Moreover, I explained clearly why I used "perceived". I 
just meant that plane waves can never be observed, and since they are 
solutions to Maxwell's equations, the MUH is false. Deal with that directly 
and stop with the double talk about the non-existence of the physical 
universe. That's not even an issue, since I am only dealing with what can 
be observed. AG*

>
>
>
>> Since the antic dream argument, we know that observation cannot be used 
>> to prove that anything exist, but an observer.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> If this is correct, other models also fall by the wayside. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 4:04:41 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 28 Sep 2018, at 11:32, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 1:02:36 AM UTC, kujawski...@gmail.com 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello I think this good forum for this topic - what do you think about 
>>> Mathematical Universe, there are very big arguments for that hypothesis:
>>> f
>>> - applicability of mathematic, to natural sciences
>>> - all we discovere are structures and I didnt find explanation of the 
>>> diference beetwen physical structures and mathematical structures.
>>> - scientists and philosophers of science tend to affirm belive in 
>>> diverse structure and homogeneous substance (neutral monism) or 
>>> mathematicism vide Ladyman, Ross, French, Tegmark etc.
>>>
>>> What are your thoughts. 
>>>
>>
>> If it's what I think it is, it's demonstrably wrong. One counter example 
>> suffices; there are plane wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but if you 
>> know what plane waves are, they clearly do NOT exist in physical reality. 
>>
>>
>>
>> With mathematicalism, we don’t assume that there is a 
>> (primitive/irreducible) physical reality.
>>
>> You are begging the question.
>>
>> Since the antic dream argument, we know that observation cannot be used 
>> to prove that anything exist, but an observer.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>> If this is correct, other models also fall by the wayside. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>

Re: Mathematical Universe Hypothesis

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Sep 2018, at 20:49, kujawskilucja...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>  
> Thank you everybody for your responses. 
> 
> Bruno Marchal I looked at your statement, they are very interesting but some 
> very good neruoscientists argue that brain is not like computer
> Here for example (4min video) Edelman:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmyfQY4TaVc 
> 
> 
> Please give me your thought on that. 

I don’t like to be negative on people. Edelman makes a lot of good points, but 
he seems to have no idea what a computer is. He has, like many, a reductionist 
conception of machine, which is totally impossible to maintain after Gödel’s 
discovery of Incompleteness in 1930 (transformed by Turing, Kleene, and some 
others). 

Before Gödel, mathematicians hoped to reduced the mathematics of the infinite 
by the mathematics of finite system having discourse on the infinite. But Gödel 
found that this is not only impossible, but that even by using the mathematics 
of the infinite, we can control the mathematics of the *finite*. 
The responsible of incompleteness has been found, by Tarski (somehow), and is 
the (Turing) universal machine. We know today that we know nothing about them, 
and if the Church Turing thesis is true, we will never know them completely, we 
can only scratch the surface. Those negative result are constructive. Today we 
know that the universal machine, once “rich enough cognitively” (which does not 
ask for much) is aware that it has a soul that this soul is not a machine, and 
that this can be verified empirically, because the theory of matter becomes a 
sub-theory of that soul theory. Here soul is basically the representational 
body (the relative code) in conjunction with a notion of truth. 

Bruno






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